 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Wow. Strong emotions from a strong people. That said... once again into the fray... (...) Greatest? History, my friend, will see about that. Greeks thought... Romans thought... whatever. Arrogance does not make one great. The ability to take over (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) can't) (...) Unless I fill in the blanks first... It was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. From (URL) : The new Constitution declared itself to be the "supreme law of the land a fundamental law binding upon state and federal officers alike. To make (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Freedom of Speech can be restricted by requirements of circumstance and profession. If W announced that we were about to obliterate Canada with nuclear bombardment and said that we've just launched the missiles, would you say "oh, that's just (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I'm not looking up the specifics, but as I recall, in the first years of the Supreme Court, maybe during the reign of Madison(?), the court decided that some big name law passed by Congress (that we should all remember, but I can't) was (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I believe the word you're looking for is 'idealism' (...) And I think it's important for our neighbours to the south to recall that we Canadians play the best Americans on T.V. I can;t speak for the ROC, but I know that I like my entertainment (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Uh, just so there's no confusion, I was kidding about the "that's MINE" bit. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) See the following. I rather found it interesting: (URL) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) That's not democracy, if one opinion is higher than all others. It may be reality, but it's anathema to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Hmm. Good point. Still, it's risky for the leader of the nation to take a stance on religion when there's a very real chance of being exclusionary on that basis. (...) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) lol, and it is *because* of this self-imposed slavery that we *remain* the "free-est" and greatest nation on the planet. (...) Wrong. They are the cornerstone of our greatness. Without them we would be nothing. They *are* sacred, or at least (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate the way I come across in my posts...) /America rant on The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment" of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from establishing (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly endorsed religion. In his private life, George can worship absolutely anything he chooses, but as The (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I'd say that the actual start of our country is somewhat nebulous. I guess it feels good for us to say that it is 4 July 1776, but we had been effectively governing ourselves for some time at that point. Further, I think the adoption of the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) This is exactly what I think happened. (...) That is probably good advice in many instances. But generally I guage my efforts by how amusing it is TO ME to make the response. Yes, if you can believe it -- I entertain myself this way at times. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Nope, I am not the slightest interested in acknowledgement of the effort at all, not unless it leads to interesting discussions. That would be cool. FWIW, it has also been my understanding that there is no real standard of behavior as to (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) :-) (...) Um, aren't we splitting hairs here? The Continental Congress ratified the DoI on July 4, 1776. We mark this date as the beginning of our country (you're no the only one who has a command of the obvious!:) So are you trying to argue (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Whew! I'm sure I will. I place an unseemly value on "the really good notes" in this forum. Most of those have been written by you about the law and related politics, LFB about history and particularly it's effects on our current perceptions, (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Your tone suggests, contrary to your words, that you'd appreciate an acknowledgement of your effort. And I don't think that's out of line, but I'm also not sure what our common understanding of this issue is (if there is one). (...) I think a (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) No one can tell you whether you should or should not be offended, but had I gone to the trouble to write what you wrote and got no acknowledgment specifically from the person who requested the info, you bet I'd be offended. (But then I guess (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
Dave and Lar: Thanks for the replies. I am really interested in what people have to say about this issue, but at the same time I am really NOT offended that Christopher has done nothing at this point. It is merely that his having done nothing allows (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Agree with Larry. Netiquette could swing both ways depending on who, when, and what forum. (...) Ok, my take is a very definite "no". My advice is: Don't be offended by anything. Or try not to be. It's a waste of emotion, and being a negative (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) If it had been me that asked for info I probably would have sent you a private thanks. Or maybe even a public one. The line between clutter and politeness is indistinct in this area. I doubt very much that Chris slighted you deliberately, (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
I am just curious about something... Christopher posed a request here, and I have gone to some lengths to fulfill that request in the previous post. Now it happens that I don't care if he responds to the previous post or not (REALLY!), but I wonder (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I've been following this since last week and I've got to say that that quote is one of the funniest things I've seen recently. Good work. Matt (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) In school (we are talking about PoA in public school) the pressure may come from the teacher, the state, classmates, or a combination of them. It happens all the time. It has been noted here before, but you seem to ignore the point. Claiming (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Not really; if my command of the obvious were so astounding, I'd have realized long ago that you are unable to employ logic or reason, but here I am still trying to persuade you. (...) Okay, maybe we've come upon a legitimate example of my (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I agree! If the US Mint has the wherewithal to commission 50 new designs of quarter, it really should take much to scour the religious invocations from future stampings. And to address John's frothing over-reaction; no one here is trying to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) The force is a social compulsion. When I was young, I thought that the right thing to do was to refuse to recite the pledge because I didn't agree to it. My first grade teacher (Mrs. Henderson - Fern Drive Elementary, Fullerton, CA) tried to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Where's the "force"? down everyone's throats, as long as they keep (...) persecuted for (...) My words happen to echo Judge Fernandez's dissent (though I hadn't read it at the time). No one is being forced to say the pledge (that was ruled (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
|
First, let me just say: Holy Crap! What a lot of complicated questions! Obviously, I have to make the usual I AM NOT A LAWYER warning here. But, really -- I am not a lawyer and you shouldn't consider anything I say any kind of legal advice. These (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
Well, if you were someone we've been debating with, that new word would obviously be "freedoms", since he has absolutely no clue whatsoever about the meaning of the word from his statements to date. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Yet you see no problem in forcing God down everyone's throats, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stop "crying": "(unless one is an atheistic activist who goes about crying about being persecuted for believing in nothing)." (your words) "I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
(...) Hah! Who says .debate is useless??? I've learnt a new word today! It's up to you to guess which one.... ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Hardly. What I meant was it's irrelevant to me because it is none of my business *what* other people believe-- they are free to believe what they wish. -John (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
(...) Hey, that's how I felt about the Troll Alert-- funny, but not very useful;-) I suspect that in this current (...) I gathered. Your posts seem to fit his definition (...) Thank you for recognizing that fact. Of course I'm not a troll, and while (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
|
(...) Richard, In the past you have made references to your legal education and the woeful lack of legal education in virtually all of The People. I'm wondering if you have any reasonable suggestions about how to obtain said education. I applied to (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: real conspiracies?
|
|
(...) money and you will find your answers -- while all the pretended reasons (morality, justice, etc.) remain mute. Another example: Some call if graft, others call it Title 12 of the U.S. Codes. -- Hop-Frog (awaiting the year of Jubilee) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
