 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part covers that. [...] (...) As long as democratic institutions are still working then it isn't time for a revolution. But when the right to vote gets taken away (e.g. an election (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're right. One should try and change things from within the system. This is why those who don't agree with the current government and truly care about our nation are trying to work within the system. The purpose of enabling the free (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It depends what you mean by "fight". If it means oppose through force of arms, then you are correct. Obviously. If you mean only an armed population can rid themselves of a totalitarian regime, then I think you are wrong. Look at the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't have a lot to contribute to this debate, but this idea is invariably introduced at some point, and it needs careful examination. The problem with the statistic you've cited is that it is *very* difficult to establish a causative (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The United States is a democratic republic. Fine, no problem--never said it wasn't--I said the way to get things changed is thru democracy, the process in which the people *vote*. (...) "Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It's a Democratic Republic. There is a difference. (...) This is such a lame statement it barely merits response, I just wanted to call it to your attention. It's just as bad as: "America: love it or leave it." Too lame. (...) This is a fairly (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Like the Taliban controlled Afganistan for example. Never mind that the whole point of the MILITARY and POLICE carring guns openly was to make sure that the citizens were unarmed and in fear for their lives. There is a reason that the 3 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And in a fledging new democratic country, I can see why you would need that kind of ammendment. However, 1776 was a very long time ago. It's 2002. Your country has grown up into democracy and found out that--well looky that--it works without (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave (...) and (...) and so many other locations--which part in my posting makes you think that *I* think the 2nd was written less than 20 years ago. If there's someone being misrepresented in this thread, I'm your guy. (...) And (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Let me say it again, but more concisely: Only an armed population can fight back against a totalitarian regime. The 2nd amendment is meant to allow the population to be armed for just this reason. Yes, if democracy failed and a totalitarian regime (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
David: What William has stated is more or less the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but it also goes back to feudal times. Freemen bear arms -- it's a right and a responsibility. Read "The Federalist Papers". If you disagree, fine. Just stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If the US gov't were to break down, laws are irrelevant, and we're back to... who said it, Lock, Hobbes? can't remember polisci 101 (such a long time ago)...'natural law' or, as I like to think of it, 'He who has the biggest stick, rules' The (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) :) (...) Show me. Show me how people dying needlessly is a good thing. Show me how a revolution would make the United States of America better right now. Show me how not working within the system that you have set up down there, a system, I (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Huh? Guns are not drugs. Drugs are only one aspect to crime. And crime has nothing to do with freedom. Do you think banning guns will make criminals turn in their weapons? No way. There will always be some guns in the country, and there's (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The US Constitution is designed to ensure a reasonably fair government that doesn't have too much power over the people. But if that were to break down, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide the people a last- ditch method of regaining the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Nowhere in my postings did I *ever* imply that. I will reiterate--it is *not* because of the guns the police officers have, but because it's the law, that I obey the law. You are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the equation. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "The rules have changed. True power is held by the person who possesses the largest bookshelf, not gun cabinet or wallet." (...) Have you been watching Fox News again? ;) The average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> *cough* POA *cough* Baah--stupid acronyms! AFAIC, and IMHO, who needs 'em! Just causes lots of snafu's! ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yup. A very valuable one. (...) I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but if not, then we agree. The pinnacle of civilization _is_ the understanding the the power (all of it...the ultimate power of military projection as well as the power of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The kind who is an authority apologist. The same kind as Scott Arthur when he says the very same thing. I don't care how much you want to dress it up; what you are implying is that you would follow laws that demand unjust or immoral action (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Again, in a perect world, this would work, but, as todays newspaper headlines tell us, and as numbers are crunched, we see the gulf between the richest of us and the poorest of us (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave K (quoting dictionary): goon: a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation (usually with a gun) The last time the NRA won some sort of whatever, there was numerous newsclips of Heston holding up a gun, saying 'outta my (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What exactly does this mean? I happen to think that owning, knowing how to operate, and keeping weapons in good functioning order is a predicate to a free society -- yes, including and particularly, guns. It may be trite but: freemen bear (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My attitude makes me sound like a goon? What kind of goon? A gun toting yahoo goon? You're right--there's no way to say this nicely--anyone who believes the brainless rhetoric that the NRA and Heston spout out of their mouths--'Outta my cold (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Obeying the law as a general policy doesn't preclude civil disobedience to unjust laws. It needn't be all-or-nothing. (...) For me it's not the guns so much as the ticket books and handcuffs. :-) Actually, I obey most laws just because they (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
(...) I did contemplate it, however traffic in .oregon looked a little low. As it turned out, our 5 days in Oregon were pretty well planned out for us - with group visits to OMSI, the Zoo(!), a jet boat ride on the Willamette River, wine tasting, (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Well, *obviously* they were savages. Actually, that factoid rings a bell, but I can't place it; I'm likewise interested in a confirmation. Dave! (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
I actually think that everything Bruce wrote was spot on. Here's a couple snipets about which I want to comment. (...) Yup. Communal living is cool. It has been claimed to me that 40,000 Hopi lived under a single socialist government. Anyone know (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No he doesn't! He's a namby pamby anti-gun leftist. :-) (...) Yes it is. (...) What if the system doesn't allow reform? (...) The US is founded on the notion that recurring revolutions _will_ be needed. And I don't see how a revolution (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Since the notion of "God" is absurd why should he or anyone be encouraged to speak of it at all? And how can you claim that God isn't an artifact of a particular religion? Does God mean Hera and Zeus? (...) We haven't been blessed. The very (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are plainly false. The state does operate essentially mandatory concentration camps for children in which statist and religious propaganda are administered to the inmates. Technically those inmates do have the right to not participate in (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No! Mike is exactly right. (...) I can't say this nicely, so I'll just say it. That attitude makes you sound like a goon. So things are made right merely by being law? Like when it was legal to own people of recent African decent? When my (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, but it helps ;-) --Bill. (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
(...) You were in Portland and didn't look any of us up? Frank (Living in Portland now) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Prey for Salivation!
|
|
(URL) what you like about the Libertarian party, but they won't endorse spitters! Kidding aside, I applaud their censure of this boor as a means of demonstrating that The Party of Principle does not endorse personal assault as a means of political (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
(...) It's exactly what the American Public wants. You have to remember that the Americans you are used to debating on Lugnet have, on the average, an IQ about fifty points higher than that of the general American Public (and about 70 points higher (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
I spent the last week or so working in NW USA. During my time there I spent some time with a few of the people I met mulling over the events of the previous year, and what the future may hold. On the morning of Sept 11 I took time out to attend a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) The real UK Poll tax was a very long time ago - perhaps 100's of years ago(?). In the 80's Thatcher introduced a tax for which she intended to use the electoral role to set up the database of payees - this became known as the “poll tax” as (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Indeed, but I'm not comparing the US to China, nor the US or China to a world average - I'm merely comparing people to the average within their own system. My statment was "as one gets closer and closer to a pure capitalist system, there are (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) LOL! Well obviously that was a typo. Funny none the less. (...) we (...) Contrary to popular belief, believing in God does not automatically make a person incapable of seeing things from other perspectives. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Message of Peace
|
|
VICTIMS OF THE FUTURE (Gary Moore/Neil Carter/Ian Paice/Neil Murray) "Searching each day for the answers, watching our hopes disappear. Set on a course for disaster, living our lives in fear. Our leaders leave us in confusion. For them there's only (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "at least 1" is logically equivalent to "2", in this context anyway. :-) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *cough* 2 Christians *cough*... Dave K (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Watch out... Mike has judgement with a capital J! :-) (...) Yes, well said. Glad to see at least one christian gets it. Thank you. (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am only responding to this one part because after reading Larry's reply it occurred to me that this part is intended as a kind of snare -- frankly, a rather lame one at that. I am tolerant of others' views unconditionally -- that is to say (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Mine is. My respect for your right to swing your fist around stops just short of my nose, as the old saying goes. Put another way, I can tolerate anything except intolerance. ++Lar (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Despite my better Judgement I am going to get sucked into this debate. (If only to prove to Dave! that someone who belives God created the universe is capable of rational thought.) (...) First off John, I want to make it perfectly clear that I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Many thanks for viewing our work. Always remember and never forget what happened on September 11, 2001! ACPin & Sons (...) (22 years ago, 14-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What exactly do you mean by that? That all of *yours* are indeed *fact*? The FACT is that the POA stands-- defending it one way or the other is opinion. But I am willing to drop the whole issue until it is decided by the SC. But I know that if (...) (22 years ago, 14-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't like to see John stating his own opinions as facts either, esp. when much of what he has to say is contrary to the facts as understood and accepted by the rest of us. The Constitution trumps all other laws. Even the preamble is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) To no avail, apparently. Your inability to reason is invulnerable. (...) What do you want to hear, John? That "their Creator" should be stripped frm the Declaration of Independence? Fine, I certainly support that. As Dave K has correctly (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Gee, Dave! we simpletons shur 'preshiate when you smart folk done make it easy-like fer us to understand;-) (...) "Congress shall pass no laws respecting religion or the free exercise thereof;..." What do you mean by "issue any declaration"? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) I don't accept that as a given. Too often pure socialist countries started off way down the ladder anyway, and are further weighted down by being dictatorships. (...) I think it is easier for socialists to take over capitalist countries with (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) A socialist gov't is more prone to being victimized by a dictatorship or ruling class because a significantly larger percentage of the power in the system rests with the government. In a capitalist system the would-be dictators become CEOs (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No. A car with a flat is going to eventually crash (not work). Governments with a "flat" would eventually fail. Better to use a clogged fuel injector analogy, where the performance is impaired, but leaving the car still working. (...) The next (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Sorry, in what way is redistribution "fair"? (...) This is the same old argument and the refutation is simple. NOT everyone has to do good or be charitable. Merely enough people to take care of the problem. We have empirical evidence that is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) And I would tend to concur. I mean, if I'm going to be fed and housed, and really not have to do anything to 'earn' it, why would I work? In the 'perfect' socialism, everybody works and then everything that they made gets gathered up and (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Ok. Now say Sweeden... it's not below the US standards. And it's just as much socialist as it is capitalist. (...) That's absurd. Was there at any point in history a nation which *democratically* chose socialism, and later had a socialist (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) That's not entirely accurate, but even if it was, it's not a good metric. The average standard of living in the US is significantly higher than, say, China. I don't tend to agree with Larry on political ideals, but as a goverment moves closer (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) I'd generally accept that ;-). But in accepting that, I have to accept that, as one gets closer and closer to a pure capitalist system, there are more and more people who are worse off (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) No, we currently do not. That's the UK I think(1). I was talking about under an idealised constitution if I got to write it. 1 - or at least I recall that there was some talk of introducing same. Note that a "poll tax" was used as a repressive (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) ! You have to pay a tax TO VOTE???!!! :-O Or did I misinterpret? (...) Pedro (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) This I think is the crux so I snipped the rest. If a car has a flat tire, but the driver is driving it down the road because the other three tires are OK, is the car "working"? One could argue that it is. After all, the car is moving in the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Or suppress it either. Allowing a club to meet isn't support, but preventing one from meeting is suppression. Unless the school has a policy forbidding all clubs from meeting on school grounds it cannot prevent some clubs (which are otherwise (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't really have to: it's you that needs to prove that virtually every single country on the planet is a failure. _ :-O (Edvard Munch) - I said that every country practices socialism to some degree or another. You are stating that socialism (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sorry, if 99 people out of 100 vote that the sun rises in the west, does that mean it does? No. If 99 people out of 100 vote to expropriate the property of all Tshirt manufacturers does that mean it is morally correct to do so? No. If this (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And I with him. Didn't work then (his shenanigans prolonged a depression that was caused by other politicians meddling) and doesn't work now. Please provide an example of a country that's socialist that works. If you choose a mixed economy be (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A Message of Peace
|
|
WAR PIGS by Black Sabbath Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) By US standards, I suppose I would be called that. By European standards, I'd probably be considered centrist. But that isn't the topic currently being discussed. (...) Good. (...) Huh? That's a straw man. The issue is religion, not viewpoint. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Here it is, in terms as simple as I am able to formulate, in the hope that--against all prior evidence--you will be able to formulate a rational conclusion: P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any declaration of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Since I include any culture, it would seem not to be bigoted, beyond I am bigotted against bigotted people. And since the religious ethno-centricism is usally used to exploit/murder/steal from someone else not so "blessed", "wrong" and (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) America is not most definitly moving willingly to the right--it's being *forced* to the right by the 'chicken littles'--"Oh no! The sky is falling! Remember the good ol' days when kids didn't kill one another in school, when planes weren't (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sounds pretty bigotted. Why not just say they are wrong or misguided? (...) Disagree. I'll bet you 99 out of 100 people would disagee with you. (...) Christianity has been intimately involved with this nation since its inception. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am merely looking at the actual documents themselves as they would appear to someone who wasn't aware of their author's intentions. Thus, I take "Creator" to be a reference to God, you take it as evolution (how inalienable rights stem from (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But that's not quite the point, either. If the State has the right to mandate religion (which it does NOT, despite John's wishes to the contrary), then I have no legal recourse if the State throws me in jail for not bowing at the alter of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Believing in God, and believing we are a country under God (a theocracy) are two vastly different things. Even if you are accurate in your claim, it would simply indicate that the vast majority of Americans are delusional (50 million Frenchmen (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State (...) While I agree with you in your point about keeping religion out of state run affairs... I have the freedom to believe what I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Ok, lets explore this. You say that people tend to want to not want to help, that they would vote to keep the money for themselves, and that only a government can convince them to help others. Well, what is the government made up of? Last I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Counterfactual, as I said. (...) I'm sure FDR would have a bone to pick with you if he was alive. (...) I'm ashamed of you, Larry! Libertarians is the answer, of course. They stick to their guns - or dogma, depending on your viewpoint - better (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How can you idolize your interpretation of the "intent" of Thomas Jefferson while one simultaneously ignoring the express "intent" of Eisenhower, who declared that "under God" would be a daily proclamation by children to God the Almighty? That (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You believe incorrectly. That's like saying "One can deny all gods without rejecting any particular religion." And in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State acknowledges ANY God, then the State is mandating the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I'm happy with a claim that anything done to the point of the exclusion of *anything else*, doesn't work. Pure democracy does not work, for it's 'mob rule'--the most voices dictate what happens and the underdogs get (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it. (...) How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-) (...) Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency. (...) It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Ooops, fergot the smiley Should've read: (...) Again, IMHO, what Larry said is what I would've if I could've... Though here's a debate... Hypothetically, a teacher askes her grade 3 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I believe that one can acknowledge God without endorsing any particular religion. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans believe that we are a country under God. The religious background of those same Americans is wildly different. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, but which party staunchy 'misinterprets' the 2nd ammendment so Homer can have his cache of assault weapons "cause 'looky right there--that's what it says in black and white, now git off my porch ya varmit!" while adapting others, "Well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) It took Larry to uncloud the muddy waters??? What's the world coming to?? That was perfectly said ++Lar. Dave K. (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution and, more directly, of human biological reproduction. I can point you to various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect from your previous (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are arguing semantics. -John (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Practices... Amen, brother. They all **practice** it, but none of them have gotten it to WORK. (...) Don't confuse using with working. I'm happy with my claim, socialism doesn't **work**. (...) Um... I dunno. :-) What party sacrifices (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I suppose that depends on what level of socialism you are refering to. Virtually every nation on the planet practices some form of socialism, so I'd have to say that your claim that socialism working is counterfactual is...well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As Larry has pointed out already, this isn't exactly correct. The value of a U.S. dollar is statutory in law and has it's origins in Art.I Sect 10 of the Constitution. That the U.S. has the burden of producing Constitutional dollars is without (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Regrettably, your argument is weakened by the fact that it matters a great deal to us all whether the dollar is backed by gold or not, whether you realise it or not. Try another analogy to make your main point, which I feel you are correct (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion since it requires faith. (...) Separation of Church and State. A permanent mural (contrast (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) Actually, as soon as it gets passed, the Supreme Court couldn't rule it unconstitutional. They can't do that until it is an issue in a case they hear. We would have to wait for somebody to be arrested via a law enacted by that bill. Then they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
I made my own tribute: (URL) America Always Stand Tall (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) For those of you who, like me, had trouble copying and pasting this link: (URL) William R Ward bill@wards.net (URL) Verbing weirds language. --Calvin (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) They didn't say "God." The closest they got was "Creator." I think that's a big difference. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
