|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2006 : 00:28:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
It takes both parties to usurp the constitution. The Democrats allowed it by either voting for it, or not screaming loud enough and not bringing enough lawsuits to stop it.
This ought to be one of the more stupid claims on this forum lately.
Mind you, when you look at the conspiracy & religion forums, that is against some stiff competition.
Keyboard accident or have you been living in a cave these last 5 years? |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 06:04:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
House Minority Leader Hastert... It's sad, sad, sad......
I agree...... But better then House Majority Leader Hassert.......
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 06:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
OK, actual discourse.
Hey! I thought I was trying to engage in "actual discourse!" Don't I count?!
Really, if Pelosi is just another part of the overall problem as you see it, OI, then her stance on any individual plank in any party's platform is irrelevant - unless the plank is Federalism. Abortion, health care, the poor, immigration, Iraq (etc.) are all meaningless so long as the Feds have so much power, right? So why bother going "point by point" in response to your OP?
Does that pass your test? 
I don't have a lot of time right now - and I will back up to respond to other stuff later - but I wanted to address one other item of yours:quote:
My biggest issue however, is the Second Amendmnet, as it gives the people the power to protect themselves and the rest of the amendments.
I think if things get so bad as to require an armed response to our own government, the Amendments (and the whole Constitution) are at that point moot. I mean that I can't envision that there would be an armed response unless our "elected leaders" decide to nullify the Constitution, or at least huge slabs of it. At which point, even the Second Amendment would be worthless.
And so far as I'm aware, the only people who equate "gun control" with turning in firearms are knee-jerk reactionaries who buy into the slippery-slope arguments that any amount of gun control inevitably leads to Hitler's Germany (and it's funny that fascism isn't an extreme of liberalism, it's an extreme of conservatism - leftists are commies, after all, and the Russians fought with us against Hitler).
But Dave, I said I loved you (platonicaly) for your responses. One voice is good, but it takes more for discourse........
I see your point on the point-by-point.....
Hwever, knee-jerk reactionaries slippery sloopers aren't the only people who look at the second amendment that way. They are also people that take the second amendment to heart, people who don't think it is the business of the governenment, and people who just do not trust the government in the slightest.
If our elected officials were to elect to take guns, having those guns registered makes it a whole lot easier, especially for us law-abiding folks. If the response from the unorganized militia to this was armed response, then that armed response really should be with military arms, as is their right.
I really don't see how most gun-control laws solve any problems, except to sooth the pathos in the pollity.... Feel good stuff.....
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 06:30:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
OI said:
quote:
It takes both parties to usurp the constitution. The Democrats allowed it by either voting for it, or not screaming loud enough and not bringing enough lawsuits to stop it.
That, Joe, is complete bullshit.
The republicans had a majority in the house, senate, and they control the executive. They can do anything they want, and they proved they were petty enough about getting their own way that they treatened to eliminate unlimited debate from the senate if they were thwarted.
You are just in denial. You're pretty obviously not a democrat, and are having problems admitting that the dems are an obviously superior choice this year.
I am not up on the rules of the Senate. Is anything here unconsttutional, and if so why wasn't it challenged in court?
Denial... please...... Democrat... Republican..... They both pretty much disgust me. I am for the best person for the job, irregadless of "strategic voting" or whatever the catch-phrase is.
quote:
quote:
I would probably have a heart attack if President Gore/Clinton/Whoever said "Oh, this is too much power, and I am not supposed to have it.....
Power willingly surrendered to the government almost always has to be won back with blood. Obviously no exec is likely to give up any power willingly.
But the republicans are to blame.
They are also to blame for the largest expansion of the federal government since the depression, for doubling the national debt (from 4T to 8T) in six years, for the greatest expansion of federal power, and reduction in states power, EVER, for stripping a group of people of their right to habeus corpus and due process, and for policies and laws passed that shit all over conservative values.
But I'd bet my last dollar that you voted republican today.
Denial, not just a river in Egypt.
You are pretty funny. Why are the Repulicans in power, except for the curroption of the Dems in the last administation. Why are the Dems back in power except for the curroption of the GOP in this administrations.
It is easy to blame the ones in power completely, without looking at the complicity of those who did not go kicking-fighting-screaming into the night.
I'll PM you my address. Are you rich? I could use your last dollar. Kinda ofa sucker eal for you, as I already said I was probably voting for him...... I voted FOR Lucas, not AGAINST Davis..... You know, New Democrat...... Yeah, New Democrat like Clinton.... Only Clinton did not have the character for the office....... That person has to be above reproach.......
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 07:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Jefferson's "Wall seperating church and state" is a leftist myth.
Typical right-wing/libertarian lie:
From http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ht-debunkingmyth.html
"From John Adams' writings we find the following: a) The United States described as, "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." b) That the developers of our government never, "had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." c) "[G]overnments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind."
"During the 1789 Congress Madison proposed an amendment he regarded as the most important one for the Bill of Rights. The amendment's text: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It passed the House but failed in the Senate. Not only did Madison believe in a godless Constitution that separated church and state, he believed it did not go far enough in protecting equal freedom of conscience."
"In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State" as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's metaphor came from James Burgh, one of England's leading, now forgotten, enlightenment political writers. Burgh's "Crito" (1767) had the phrase, "build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil."
"President James Madison vetoed an 1811 Congressional Bill that gave a charter to an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia. Also in 1811, he vetoed another Bill that gave federal land to a Baptist church in the Mississippi territory."
Some other sources on the church/state seperation FACT:
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/charlotte.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/aiken0.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
My biggest issue however, is the Second Amendmnet, as it gives the people the power to protect themselves...
Regarding your claims that Mrs. Pelosi want "doesn't like guns" or some such claim, please provide reference.
Additionally, what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?
As in "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."
Now, I won't tolerate the typical twisting, spinning, and shading of two words with very concrete, unambiguous meanings. "People" in the above amendment does NOT mean "individuals". It refers to populace or citizenry. You may choose to nitpick this, but you will be wrong.
In fact, the wording of this Amendment is so clear that several states, including Vermont, felt it necessary to add provisions in their State Constitutions that expanded the definition "bearing of arms" to specifically refer to individuals.
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 12:34:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Jefferson's "Wall seperating church and state" is a leftist myth.
Typical right-wing/libertarian lie:
From http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ht-debunkingmyth.html
"From John Adams' writings we find the following: a) The United States described as, "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." b) That the developers of our government never, "had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." c) "[G]overnments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind."
"During the 1789 Congress Madison proposed an amendment he regarded as the most important one for the Bill of Rights. The amendment's text: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It passed the House but failed in the Senate. Not only did Madison believe in a godless Constitution that separated church and state, he believed it did not go far enough in protecting equal freedom of conscience."
"In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State" as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's metaphor came from James Burgh, one of England's leading, now forgotten, enlightenment political writers. Burgh's "Crito" (1767) had the phrase, "build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil."
"President James Madison vetoed an 1811 Congressional Bill that gave a charter to an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia. Also in 1811, he vetoed another Bill that gave federal land to a Baptist church in the Mississippi territory."
Some other sources on the church/state seperation FACT:
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/charlotte.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/aiken0.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
My biggest issue however, is the Second Amendmnet, as it gives the people the power to protect themselves...
Regarding your claims that Mrs. Pelosi want "doesn't like guns" or some such claim, please provide reference.
Additionally, what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?
As in "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."
Now, I won't tolerate the typical twisting, spinning, and shading of two words with very concrete, unambiguous meanings. "People" in the above amendment does NOT mean "individuals". It refers to populace or citizenry. You may choose to nitpick this, but you will be wrong.
In fact, the wording of this Amendment is so clear that several states, including Vermont, felt it necessary to add provisions in their State Constitutions that expanded the definition "bearing of arms" to specifically refer to individuals.
First Amendment, read what I said, not what you want to read. I never said anything about the US being a Christian Nation. I want to know from you, how from one letter this wall came slamming down? Especially when Jefferson did not mean an absolute wall by his actions of giving Fedeal Lands and monies to churches.
Which leads me to the hypocrisy of your views on the second amendment. You will take one letter on your issue, but ignore page after pages after page, and including lately and to my surprise US Code of Law, that defines the people individually as the militia.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 14:21:20 [Permalink]
|
OK, I do not have tons of free time to debate this with you.
Your quote: Jefferson's "Wall seperating church and state" is a leftist myth.
This wasn't misquoted or taken out of context. It means precisely what you wanted it to mean
My response: "In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State".
So, if Jefferson didn't mean a figurative wall, why did he use the term "a wall of separation between Church and State"?
This isn't rocket science nor some libertarian fantasy.
I found no references about "Jefferson giving Federal Lands and monies to churches". Please supply sources.
This leads me to your snotty response regarding the second amendment. Excuse me if I read the Second Amendment and ask simply, "What does well regulated mean?"
I don't think guns should be taken away. I am simply reading the Constitution. And if "people" individually means "militia", then why did individual state constitutions, written at approximately the same time as the Constitution, add provisions for individual ownership?
You conveniently avoiding answering that question as well.
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 14:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Fripp:
It is going to take me a long while to gather what I need to get. I don't see where my response to the second was snotty.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 18:04:18 [Permalink]
|
OI said:
quote:
I voted FOR Lucas
Ok, my bad. I'm glad you voted Dem.
As for the rest....
Jefferson absoluetely did intend for there to be a wall of seperation between church and state, as did almost every other key figure involved in writing the US constitution.
Also...
The second ammendment does guarantee individuals the right to own arms. The term "The People" means, in every instance it was used at the time, the individual people who made up the citizenry of the colonies/states.
If you want to change the meaning of that phrase, then you need to go look at the declaration of independence and re-explain that document as well.
In addition, please examine the grammatical construction of the second ammendment. You have to assume that the people who wrote it were extremely well educated and would not let errors of grammar slip into a document that they felt so strongly about.
As for your contention, Fripp, that other states including provisions in their state constitutions to allow individuals to keep arms "at around the same time".... let me point out that the first 10 ammendments to the constitution were added AFTER the constitution was ratified, AFTER the states held elections and sent the first president and congress to work!
The provision for personal ownership of arms, being ABSENT from the US constitution, spurred those states to include such provisions.
They certainly were not reacting to the allegedly "vague" language of the second ammendment.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 18:06:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Lets just abandon them? We screwed it up, so run from the responsibility?
According to polls 61% of the Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans.
Lets just keep up the killing until we teach them the meaning of freedom....
quote:
I haven't seen these polls, or the polls claiming the oppissite. I don't care much for polls. I am sure something can be done, short of bailling out on them to be slaughtered. That is the compromise that the winners of this and the next election need to work on. How the hell do we disengage without abandonment?
If the poll is correct then we abandon a third of the people?
You don't care for polls? What does that mean?
I don't think we should abandon them, but being resposnible for killing approximately 600,000 civilians and turning Irag the biggest terrorist creating machine in the world has not worked to well.
We should form a real coalition of states around Iraq and let them send in peace keeping forces until Iraq gets on it's feet.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 22:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
quote:
Lets just abandon them? We screwed it up, so run from the responsibility?
According to polls 61% of the Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans.
Lets just keep up the killing until we teach them the meaning of freedom....
quote:
I haven't seen these polls, or the polls claiming the oppissite. I don't care much for polls. I am sure something can be done, short of bailling out on them to be slaughtered. That is the compromise that the winners of this and the next election need to work on. How the hell do we disengage without abandonment?
If the poll is correct then we abandon a third of the people?
You don't care for polls? What does that mean?
I don't think we should abandon them, but being resposnible for killing approximately 600,000 civilians and turning Irag the biggest terrorist creating machine in the world has not worked to well.
We should form a real coalition of states around Iraq and let them send in peace keeping forces until Iraq gets on it's feet.
OK. Thank you for explaining. Very much works for me.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 22:14:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Fripp:
It is going to take me a long while to gather what I need to get. I don't see where my response to the second was snotty.
Peace
Joe
Part one, First Amendment, is done in a new thread to try to keep this one on-topic. Can't get the permalink to work,though.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 01:17:17 [Permalink]
|
The bottom line on separation of church and state is that principle is the one which has been put in place and served this country well for most of its years. It is also obvious to anyone except blind theists that separation of church and state is critical in a free society. Otherwise what you get will eventually be objectionable even to the theists.
If they got their way they'd soon realize they have to contend with just whose church one is talking about. The Evangelicals may unite in common causes but when it comes to the details they won't find such agreeable Bible interpretations. That's why there are so many different versions of religion based on the Bible. There is not this wonderful interpretation cast in stone. There are many disagreements waiting in theist fantasyland should laws based on religious beliefs become more prevalent.
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 06:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Part one, First Amendment, is done in a new thread to try to keep this one on-topic. Can't get the permalink to work,though.
Peace
Joe
Thank you.
I doubt that I will have time today to review it in detail.
If I misinterpreted your tone in those posts as "snotty" than I formally apologize. My response says much more about me than it does about you. I was in a mood yesterday, admittedly.
Additionally, if I have misconstrued your "position" on various topics, I apologize for that as well.
Again, things are crazy at work today, so I do not know if I will get time to research/review your posts. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 07:38:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Part one, First Amendment, is done in a new thread to try to keep this one on-topic. Can't get the permalink to work,though.
Peace
Joe
Thank you.
I doubt that I will have time today to review it in detail.
If I misinterpreted your tone in those posts as "snotty" than I formally apologize. My response says much more about me than it does about you. I was in a mood yesterday, admittedly.
Additionally, if I have misconstrued your "position" on various topics, I apologize for that as well.
Again, things are crazy at work today, so I do not know if I will get time to research/review your posts.
Perhaps becuase I can have an incredibly hard time making the written word say what I want it to.........
Peace
Joe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
