Set Reference Set Reference (Popup) Parts Reference News News (Debate)

Off-Topic / Debate / 17496

Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler     (URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys       (...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler         (...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys         (...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler           (...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward           (...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys             (...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd               (...) "Reverse Discrimination": A politically correct term for the right wing meant to really say, "We done stole it fair and square, so no trying to redress the crime." ;-) Actually, I don't see how "reverse discrimination" applies here whatever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward             (...) There is nothing in the Constitution about supporting a hobby or game. There is something about supporting a religion. And that's how it should be - religion is a much more controversial topic than chess or cameras. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) Socialism is thought by some to be a religion (1), are you OK if we ban the teaching of socialism in public schools? Let's stick to things we know are true, after all... I'll support not funding religious schools or religious activities in (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward           (...) I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said. (...) Why? --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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! —David Koudys               (...) 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! —David Koudys               (...) <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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Frank Filz               (...) 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! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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)                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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! —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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)                                Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Richie Dulin               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: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —James Brown               (...) 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)                                    Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Pedro Silva                 (...) 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!) —James Brown                 (...) 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: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —David Koudys                 (...) 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!) —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) 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!) —Bruce Schlickbernd                 (...) 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!) —Christopher L. Weeks                   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: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Dave Schuler                   (...) 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!) —David Koudys                 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: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Richie Dulin               (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys             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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys             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! —William R. Ward           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) 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)                            Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Pedro Silva           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: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek           (...) 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)                            Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Scott Arthur           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli         [snip] (...) I absolutely agree with this. [snip] (...) Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal           (...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti           (...) How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs? This has been asked and answered before, John. It's pretty tiresome of you to bring it up again. TJ could have said "prime mover" -- it's just a whole lot less zippy (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal           (...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (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! —Dave Schuler             (...) *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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler             (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti             (...) 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! —John Neal             (...) 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! —Mike Petrucelli               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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek               (...) 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! —David Koudys                 (...) *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! —Larry Pieniazek                 (...) "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! —Mike Petrucelli               (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward               (...) No, but it helps ;-) --Bill. (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! —Larry Pieniazek               (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti             (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti             John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (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! —William R. Ward           (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys         (...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) I am. I'm able bodied, male, a citizen and have had training on how to use my gun. That's what well regulated militia meant when those words were chosen. (...) Asked and answered, long long ago. Read the federalist papers instead of getting (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements, although they may have made sense back then. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler           (...) So stipulated. But the hypothetical loony[1] who lives down the street from me received no such training, but he nonetheless owns a shack full of guns. (...) Oh sure--*now* you clarify... Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli           (...) fundamental (...) Let (...) The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole well regulated (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys         (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti           (...) 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! —David Koudys           (...) 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! —Christopher L. Weeks             (...) 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! —Scott Arthur             (...) "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! —David Koudys           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! —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys           (...) 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! —William R. Ward             (...) 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! —David Koudys               (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti                 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! —David Koudys                 (...) 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! —Mike Petrucelli                   (...) 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! —Dave Schuler                   (...) 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! —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) to (...) But it's typical to assume that the factors which multiple study venues (in this case) fail to have in common are most likely trivial in their causative power when compared to a single factor that is common across the study. If a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Frank Filz                     (...) I was just thinking, this last bit is the answer to the claim that we are stick on an outdated piece of paper. If the 2nd really is not appropriate as originally intended, then lets change it. The Constitution tells us how to change it. If a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler                   (...) That's a reasonable objection, but I think the essential point remains regardless of my incomplete and anecdotal listing, especially remembering the fact that previous debates here have been disembowelled by pointing out that "correlation (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti                 (...) 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! —David Koudys                 (...) 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! —Frank Filz                   (...) 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! —Richard Marchetti                   (...) Okay, I need to remember this: the reason Koudys doesn't have an informed opinion about U.S. issues is because he isn't an interested party. David, I would kindly ask you to stop discussing what you don't know and doesn't matter to you anyway. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                   (...) You're very good at the off-handed put-down aren't you--'doesn't have an informed opinion'? I think I'm just as informed as you. I took my poli-sci courses in university (tho a long time ago to be sure) and I read the articles that people post (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti                   (...) One political science course? Well then, yes. (...) See, this is the part that just seems incredibly myopic if not just plain ignorant to anyone with any sense of world history and of U.S. history in particular. Y'know, those guys in the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur                     (...) It was the fact that they did not have guns that gave them power. If they had guns, some guy like bush would have called them "terrorists". (...) Is the Crucible not about the government/capitalist induced hysteria which led to McCarthy being (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                     (...) Well, it was a minor but--semantics--irrelevant to the discussion at hand. An *opinion*, a voice, a discourse is *protected* by the 1st. If I don't like your opinion--my tough cookies, just as if you don't like mine--your tough cookies. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                       In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Holy Hannah! I better start doing these things by e-mail instead of thru the web interface--sooo many type-o's in my last reply. My bad. Sorry 'bout that. I'll endeavour to proofread (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli                       (...) So an armed citizenry is not an implied threat? (...) You are completely missing the point. When (not if) the government becomes corrupt to the point that it is no longer a democracy, it is time for the people to invoke their second amendment (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                     (...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Kirby Warden                       (...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler                     (...) Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very least it would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                     (...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler                       (...) *That's* an interesting point! I'm sure Ms. Weaver, his son, and his dog would consider the incident less than "productive," but as an object lesson to the rest of us, your argument has some merit. (...) Ditto in this case, too. I guess it's (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                       (...) Right. But even to Mr. Weaver, the situation might be preferable to spending 15 years in a federal prison with no one knowing about it. I don't know him. (...) In response to the cop and gun thing or long term? He ran away once he defused the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                     (...) **Alert** I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the words, "you" or "your" as (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli                     (...) No, not close, in fact completely wrong. The 2nd says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [snip] (...) If you bother to read... (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                       (...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                       (...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin                         Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                         (...) militia? Well, I think the duty part is Larry's opinion. One that I vaguely share, but I certainly wouldn't hold people to. It's just that we think more highly of people who fully participate in the way of American governance. There are lots (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                           (...) Me either. Duty needs to be taken on voluntarily. It may get you extra privs, but it shouldn't be forced. (...) (reins... a reign is just exactly what we want to prevent! :-) all hail Emperor George II and his visier, Dick ) (...) Snipped the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —David Koudys                             (...) My dad got called in for jury duty--first question--"Mr Koudys, what's your take on capital punishment?" My dad said "Hang the b***ard" "Thank you Mr. Koudys, you may go home now..." I got a letter saying that I had to fill out a form to be (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin                           (...) Voluntary duty? I think that's a contradiction by any normal definition of 'duty'. Paraphrasing from Merriam Webster... - conduct due to parents and superiors - obligatory tasks that arise from one's position - a moral or legal obligation (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                           (...) Check. OK, how about a "duty" that it's OK to shirk, but that if you don't shirk, gets you something extra, some privilege (I just can't spell that word!) you'd normally not get. (c.f. _Starship Troopers_ in which only those that served in the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin                           (...) Fair enough. Duty is not the word I would have chosen, but I would more or less agree with you on this, although I'm not sure that attaching something extra or some privilege is appropriate. (...) I've seen terms defined on LUGNET which are a (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                           (...) Depends on who you ask. Most judges will tell you it is not your place as a juror to weigh the justness of the law, that your duty is only to the validity and applicability of the facts and that you have no power to judge (nullify) law. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler                           (...) Hey, that's neat! Do you know if this has happened in a major case in modern times? Dave! (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti                           (...) What the...?! Dave!, you have taken part in these discussion about Jury nullification before -- I have to assume you know all about it. Search "Jury nullification" in this newsgroup, both Larry and I have discussed it many times before (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Dave Schuler                           Subject line changed in deference to Tom Stangl's request for topic purity! 8^) (...) Hey, give me a break--it was late! 8^0) Dave! FUT OT.fun (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek                           (...) Weirdly, the web view truncated this topic to just "Jocular self-deprecation judges are at it again!)" in the top five list on the right. Can that be fixed? It made me smile but other truncation may cause confusion. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.suggestions)                                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin                         (...) I wonder how this does/would work in practice. Regulation of an armed body by individuals would not appear to be too effective. For instance, do you see, in a time of crisis in the US, a militia sponteneously arising from its citizenry, and, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                         (...) But regulation doesn't mean directing. The militia doesn't need government direction, that's what the army is for (even if it shouldn't be). (...) I expect that a chain of command of some kind would evolve. (...) Each of us. (...) There isn't (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin                         (...) Who has the biggest gun, perhaps? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur                         (...) As you know, I only ask the same question more than once when someone is avoiding answering it. After all, if the question has been answered, what is the point in asking it again? Scott A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                         (...) I always thought you were disingenuously pretending that the questions weren't answered either because you don't like the answer that was given or as a rhetorical technique to convince your readers that your opponent in the debate is a fool. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti                       (...) Yeah, really! What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework (i.e ANY reading at all). I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although at this precise moment in time it may be wished (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Scott Arthur                         (...) 1776!! Rip up that scrap of paper and give yourself a constitution which reflects the needs and aspirations of your countrywo/men today - not what may (or may not) have existed 200+ years ago. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti                         (...) Scott, that would be truly insane... ...trust the people that put Bush in the White House and have supported him through all the other BS?! Would you trust Blair to rework how your civil liberties work? Not on your life, man. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Scott Arthur                           (...) That's not what I said. (...) Blair's OK, he's just a little power mad. If you look close enough, you can see it in his eyes... Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                         (...) Absolutely true. Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the *process* that (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Scott Arthur                         (...) I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern weaponry. (...) lol Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                       *if* I were a critical thinker (which I'm so obviously not)... Oh, before I start, thanks Richard for actually taking the respond with proof, instead of just "you're wrong..." with no backup. (...) I wanna score points with the regulars? Anywhere (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti                       David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                       (...) Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not. (...) And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be interpreted, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti                         (...) Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided -- convincing you isn't my job. I keep talking about context and legislative intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out of context! I am (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                         (...) Oh if only wishing made it so. Out of context? Where? Not one reply, rebuttal, refute, nada... Everything I laid out followed a very logically made construct, not of *my* making, but of your founding fathers making. I choose to read *all* the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek                         (...) The point I just made to Bruce stands here too. You don't get to use "common, everyday english". The phrase "well regulated militia" does not mean what you think it does. It means what it meant then, with the meanings of the words as they were (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                           In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for calling me on that Larry--it was a litle over the top--we get too close sometimes. And I will recant the other slaps in the face as well. My apologies. (...) Not trying to. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler                         (...) While I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I think we need to be cautious with phrases like this one. If we're going to stick rigidly to the "back then" definitions of the language of The Constitution, then it can be credibly (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek                         (...) No, I don't think it can be creditably argued... again, the Federalist Papers are clear on this point, the intent was that arms means the best technology available at the time to armies, or better, if it was commercially available. To me that (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler                           (...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek                           (...) I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler                           Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                            Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Christopher L. Weeks                           (...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys                         In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Bring on the mechs!!! I would love to see a load lifter a la "Aliens" or an ED-209 (under human control, of course) stomping about! Dunno if all that Japanimation mech stuff is (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)) —James Brown                         (...) Interesting note in reference to the Aliens Power Loader - Caterpillar actually built it, and it actually works. Well, sort of. The footage of the loader lifting heavy things and walking around with them is live footage - what they don't show (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                        Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)) —Larry Pieniazek                         The following post of James's is off-topic for debate. :-) But it's neat anyway. XFUT geek Let's see, we have John Deere prototyping walker/spider timber harvesters, and Caterpillar prototyping mechs. What's next? GM showing hovercars? Turboprop (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)                                                        Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)) —Adrian Drake                           (...) GM may not be making hovercars, but the good people at Moller certainly are. (URL) know this link's been posted before, because somebody made a Lego version of the Skycar. Adrian (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)                                                        Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)) —James Brown                         (...) I could argue that, but we're in the wrong place for it now. ;p (...) Don't forget the infamous Moller Air Car: (URL) the US Mil, in the incarnation of NARPA is funding exoskeleton research to the tune of mumble mumble million $$. In my fairly (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Mike Petrucelli                       (...) Speaking of faulty notions... Name me one country, past or present, where ONLY the police and armed services were allowed to have guns, that is NOT a dictatorship. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti                       (...) In fairness, England must be damned close to total gun control. I know it's not total but lack the details -- perhaps Scott or someone else can supply further details. While seeing what google would cough up on it, I found this: (URL) is from (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Kirby Warden                       (...) I'm not sure what the greater crime is; the fact that they happily relinquished a civil liberty, or the fact that they are not likely going to get it back. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                     (...) It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach to place your interpretation on the law as written. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                     (...) Yes, but Mike's interpretation is supported by a thousand documents from the time. Why are you folks arguing this? If you don't want guns in America, change the constitution (if we let you :-). But what it means is really clear. Chris (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur                       (...) On a relatined point, has this ever been overturned: If you scroll down to "THESECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: ==+== "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                     (...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                     I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                     (...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                       (...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                       (...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                       (...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                     (...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                     (...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                     Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Frank Filz                   (...) Actually, German Americans were interred also, here's one quick link: (URL) here's one about Italian internment: (URL) the way, these were the 1st links Google showed for +german +internment and +italian +internment I haven't read these sites (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                 (...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur                   (...) Are you saying that the Democrats would have made the same mistakes as the Republicans over the past 12 months and before? I'm yet to be convinced of that. Bush is governing by paranoia, I doubt AG would have done the same. (...) That is an (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti                     (...) Who can say? These guys are all ultimately poll-driven centrists -- it's just that the Bushes are also pointedly oil-obsessed, war-gods. (...) Hmmm, this is all very debatable. The lynching isn't widespread or performed without fear of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Scott Arthur                     (...) Sorry, I did not mean to imply life is perfect for these groups - it is not anywhere near it. However, it has improved over the last 25 years in my view. (...) Yes. (...) I agree. I read this powerful quote in a Guardian letter today: "Beware (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —Erik Olson                       have you realized this "Caesar" thing is a made-up quote that has been going around for many months? It's like the amusing but fake Nostradamus saying about the "village idiot." -Erik (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —Dave Schuler                         (...) Good luck! I did a Google search for that apocryphal Caesar quote and got 1180 hits! It's a well-established pious fraud, as firmly entrenched as the Sarah Brady's "completely disarmed" false citation or Dan Quayle's "Latin America" fictional (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —Scott Arthur                         (...) Was Nostradamus able to predict this? ;) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —William R. Ward                       (...) Of course Caesar spoke latin, so it isn't a direct quote. But how do you know it's false? But in any case, I changed my .signature to not have that quote anymore. --Bill. (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —Erik Olson                       (...) the evidence has been weighed. Snopes.com and wikipedia.com have both surveyed their experts and as snopes says "come up empty." In the first place, it smelled funny. The quote itself is so narrow-minded and subsitutes emotions for (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga —Dave Schuler                       (...) Here's the snopes link: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Still a "Funny Girl" —Dave Schuler                     (...) Scott, I think, has accepted that this is a bogus quote, if he ever even believe it in the first place. Sadly, some celebrities are less eager to check their sources: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Still a "Funny Girl" —Richard Marchetti                     (...) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                   (...) We put the Dot.Coms up against the wall! Telephone solicitors are next! Comrade Bruce Glorious Democratic Republic of Socialistic Libertarian Greens Where Everyone is Equal Except for Those of Us Who Drive Really Big German Cars and have T10 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                   (...) Sign me up for that! Darn solicitors--thank you but I already have one more credit card than I need (have a grande total of 1) I don't need any more newspaper subscriptions, I don't need my carpet cleaned, I don't need your magazine! Stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                   (...) First, it's your *elected* gov't. Due to screwups that people are trying to sweep under the carpet, and others are trying to *not* sweep under the carpet... is a wee bit of a fiasco. If every Florida citizen petitioned to have a revote, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd                   (...) Larry is absolutely right on this. The system is set up to make it difficult for marginal parties to grow. Essentially, if you wish to gain any power, you need to subvert one of the existing parties through infilteration. The question is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                 In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Gerrymandering? Brought up in this thread? Like h-e-double hockey sticks they have, Larry... Do a search in this *entire* thread and show me, up until this post of yours, when (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                 (...) "here" == lugnet.off-topic.debate not merely this particular thread. Our republic is broken, at least to some extent, I gave you 3 examples of why, out of many many many more possible ones. That's completely on topic to where this thread is (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek                 (...) see also: (URL) article is about forking and revolutionary change within the open source context, but it applies to all systems... high barriers to entry imply more likeliehood of revolution rather than gradual change... and the duopoly of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys                 (...) Yes, we up here have, as of today anyway, 5 'official' parties-- Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party Bloc Quebecuois Alliance (a la Reform) And what's going to continue to happen up here in Canada is that the Liberals are (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward               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 Koudys                 (...) 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! —Richie Dulin               (...) 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! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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! —William R. Ward             (...) 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! —William R. Ward           (...) 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! —Scott Arthur         (...) I fear you are misrepresenting my views. I can't think of any law that I view as "immoral", but I can list a few that I view as being "unjust" to me. However, I share this island with a lot of other people, and I am polite enough to respect (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd         (...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek       (...) That's almost as silly as saying strip clubs can't be within 1000 feet of each other or of other stores or businesses of any kind... oh wait, that's a fairly common law in the US. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys       (...) Who said this earlier in another debate--and it's something I still smile when I think about it... 'If masturbation be allowed, then it be allowed in the marketplace..." I was being very sarcastic about thw whole separation of church and (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal     (...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward     (...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal     (...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler       (...) John! For pity's sake, read what you're writing! The acknowledgement of the existence of God (or even "a" God) is an explicit endorsement of religion! I don't care if you want to pretend that "it could be *any* God," because you're wrong, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal       (...) First, there is no "requirement". The state will not force you to speak those words (in fact it *allows* you to *not* speak them). A perfect analogy would be if Congress passed that same law but then included, "But if he feels uncomfortable (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler         (...) But if I want to say the *official* pledge, then by definition I have no choice but to speak the phrase. That's the problem, and, in addition, one's choice not to say the *official* pledge is easily construed as a lack of patriotism, which is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dan Boger         (...) but wouldn't that fact that the state "asked" that you say the words bad enough? I will have to say the pledge of allegance when I become a naturalized citizen. Do you think I won't say "under god", when the INS officer asks me to? Of course I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal         (...) 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! —Dave Schuler           (...) 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! —David Koudys           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! —Dave Schuler             (...) 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! —Christopher L. Weeks           (...) 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! —David Koudys           (...) :) (...) 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! —Bruce Schlickbernd           (...) 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! —John Neal           (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys             (...) 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! —Bruce Schlickbernd             (...) 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! —Larry Pieniazek           (...) 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! —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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! —Christopher L. Weeks       (...) 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! —William R. Ward     (...) 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)                Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal     (...) You are arguing semantics. -John (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR