Oh, well thats ok then...
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The correct analogy would be that if a fire continues to burn, you probably need more water.
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is prcisely why I support the president's politices and reject those of the left. What you propose is an essentially defensive response to terrorism, allowing it to be proactive while we are reactive, and treating it as a law enforcement issue, but at the same time tieing up the government's law enforcement abilities by crying about 'police state' and loss of civil rights everytime they do something to deal with the problem. So, to be blunt, you have no solutions at all.
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us. I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing. As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the basic political principles of the left, including the US democratic party, are not fundamentally predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, then would you be so kind as to educate me on the intellectual foundation which the modern left is building upon. Give me some names, principles, ideas and ideals from which modern liberalism receives its nourishment.
I'm not a leftist -- certainly not as you would define the term -- but as for the political principles of the left in the US, they're the same as the right, with just a bit more social conservatism (the non-panderers among them do not want to turn the USA into a Christian religious state), and, at the moment a bit more fiscal conservatism as well. But I don't give a major
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing.
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing.
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
They could offer evidence. Are you willing to accept the word of our government, without question or oversight? If so, then you're a sorry excuse for a patriot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
That's every country in the Middle East except Iraq, the country we invaded. Any crime based on ideology -- even Republicans stealing elections, in theory -- could be fought first by removing the people who are inciting the perpetrators. Find evidence of a conspiracy and you can prevent the crime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
If you think the current methods are the only way, you're not listening or thinking. Besides, I'm not asking for perfect; I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Consider this, there are only two great political philosophies from which currnent political systems derive. One is that of John Locke and Adam Smith, via the
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
nobody - that's another conversation you're having by yourself.
You are the only one that keeps repeating that statement.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but you certainly seem to be demanding that i contribute to something (something you approve of, of course) in order to pay for the privilege of exercising it.
Wrong again. I said do more than JUST talk.
Bob Flynn wrote:
You are the only one that keeps repeating that statement
golly. i wonder why that is... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And your analogy suggest that we are the ones responsible for the fire in the first place. The only possible explanation for such a view is that somehow our culture is inherently flawed due to its commitment to the principles of capitalism and christianity - all of which suggests an inherently Marxist world view.
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know that.
They could offer evidence. Are you willing to accept the word of our government, without question or oversight? If so, then you're a sorry excuse for a patriot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Targeted? You mean like with cruise missiles? So we are supposed to individually hunt down each terrorist and blow him up? Of course since every single country in the middle east is producing terrorists, and since you also do not know who the terrorists are until they have actually killed people, that is going to be one hell of a project. Yeah, thats what a really smart president would be doing - waiting for people to die and than sending cruise missiles into every single country in the middle east - wow, are you smart er whut?
That's every country in the Middle East except Iraq, the country we invaded. Any crime based on ideology -- even Republicans stealing elections, in theory -- could be fought first by removing the people who are inciting the perpetrators. Find evidence of a conspiracy and you can prevent the crime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any effective anti-terrorist effort by any president is going to have similar characteristics. There is simple no such thing as a perfect method for conducting such operations. To expect it is either lunacy or a political ploy calculated precisely to win the next election.
If you think the current methods are the only way, you're not listening or thinking. Besides, I'm not asking for perfect; I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Consider this, there are only two great political philosophies from which currnent political systems derive. One is that of John Locke and Adam Smith, via the
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only problem is that you cannot provide a single example of any such indoctrination. It has never happened. It has never even came close to happening. No one has ever even suggested that it should happen. You will not find a single christian in any position of responsibility who has ever suggested that any one should be indoctrinated into their religion.
BS, Stan. I'm old enough that I went to a public school where every day started with the teacher leading us in the "Lord's prayer", certainly a christian indoctrination. There was no choice. No one ever asked if anyone objected. Just stand up and recite. This was the norm across the country. And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only problem is that you cannot provide a single example of any such indoctrination. It has never happened. It has never even came close to happening. No one has ever even suggested that it should happen. You will not find a single christian in any position of responsibility who has ever suggested that any one should be indoctrinated into their religion.
BS, Stan. I'm old enough that I went to a public school where every day started with the teacher leading us in the "Lord's prayer", certainly a christian indoctrination. There was no choice. No one ever asked if anyone objected. Just stand up and recite. This was the norm across the country. And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
This was the norm across the country.
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years. Obviously the principles that this country was founded upon provided for prayer in school. If it is now denied, then some other set of principles must now be in effect. If those principles cannot be traced to the founding principles, and if the need for the government to counter the power of religion in a society can overtly be traced to some other set of political principles, such as Marxism, than what are we left to conclude? There is absolutely nothing in the Jeffersonian vision of government that empowers the federal government to deny prayer in local schools. The rationalization for such power derives from entirely contrary political principles.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you.
Where in the constitution is "free exercise of religion" defined? Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly? Where has the government or you acquired the power to define how religion can be practiced? No law means no law. If the government now has the power to deny free exercise of religion in any form, than a law has certainly be established by the federal government to do so in direct contradiction of the first amendment. The only source of political philsophy that rationalizes such empowerment can only be attributed to an adhernece to Marxist ideals.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class.
That isn't true at all. I am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it. At the very least, I would like those who promote the notion that religion must be driven from the public sector of our society by the federal government to be at least a little honest about the source of their political idealogies. "Patriotism is the fir
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No. I didn't mention who started the fire, just that we're attempting to put it out by pouring gasoline on it instead of water. I stand by my assessment of your analogy comprehension skills.
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm just asking for demonstrably effective.
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not seeing any of the former in the current Republican party or the current administration. They have grown government (and done this poorly, I might add), they have only marginally lowered taxes -- and then only for the wealthy -- and they are forcing their religion on the public, something that Jefferson (and Locke, and Smith) would have violently opposed. The problem I'm having is that neither party embraces the ideals you espouse.
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The figure is closer to 65%, and you are wrong regarding its origin.
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No president could, or should, stop social welfare spending completely
Many have, including Madison who thought it unconstitutional (and one would assume that the father of the constitution would know)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would suggest to you that Jefferson would appreciate the freedom of worship, and the fact that we don't force the non-Christians in our public schools to be indoctrinated into a religion against their will. Marx would probably a
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
A relatively small group of people used to be resentful and angry at the way the USA wielded its economic and cultural power like a bludgeon. That led -- directly or indirectly -- to 9/11, after which many of those people offered sympathy. Then, using 9/11 as an excuse, we invaded Iraq, a secular nation with no ties to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda's leaders considered Hussein an enemy of Islam), no WMD, and no sane reason to be the target of the US military. The world is now massively resentful of us wielding our military might like a bludgeon. Gasoline on the fire.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are embracing, decrying, or even thinking about anything approaching the Marxist ideal. That is fringe philosophy. You seem to be confusing Marxism with liberalism. Liberalism as a philosophy embraces the rule of law (political liberalism), supports individual choices of lifestyle and conscience (cultural liberalism), and believes in laissez-faire capitalism (economic liberalism). Social liberalism might have been an area of contention, but by any unbiased definition I've seen, Jefferson was a liberal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
More idiotic neo-conservative bullshit. Social welfare spending was minimal under JFK, compared to what it is now. Are you saying that Carter and Clinton were so
-
Tim Craig wrote:
This was the norm across the country.
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years. Obviously the principles that this country was founded upon provided for prayer in school. If it is now denied, then some other set of principles must now be in effect. If those principles cannot be traced to the founding principles, and if the need for the government to counter the power of religion in a society can overtly be traced to some other set of political principles, such as Marxism, than what are we left to conclude? There is absolutely nothing in the Jeffersonian vision of government that empowers the federal government to deny prayer in local schools. The rationalization for such power derives from entirely contrary political principles.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you.
Where in the constitution is "free exercise of religion" defined? Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly? Where has the government or you acquired the power to define how religion can be practiced? No law means no law. If the government now has the power to deny free exercise of religion in any form, than a law has certainly be established by the federal government to do so in direct contradiction of the first amendment. The only source of political philsophy that rationalizes such empowerment can only be attributed to an adhernece to Marxist ideals.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you're one of the ones who is in the forefront of wanting a return to those days. Always yammering about how prayer has been banned in the public schools. In this country anyone can pray any time and any place. If you want to sit quietly and pray in school, no one can stop you. Just don't be jumping up and rolling on the floor, shouting about devils around you, and distrupting the class.
That isn't true at all. I am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it. At the very least, I would like those who promote the notion that religion must be driven from the public sector of our society by the federal government to be at least a little honest about the source of their political idealogies. "Patriotism is the fir
Stan Shannon wrote:
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years.
Gee, you got away with breaking the law for nearly 200 years. Instead of rejoicing at the illicit profits, you're arguing that because you got away with it, you should be allowed to continue doing so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly?
We have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it.
Well, for someone who is so opposed, you're awfully vocal in promoting it. I'd love to see what would happen if one of your kids ended up in a school district that was predominately Muslim under your plan. You'd be bleating like a stuck pig when she came home wanting to buy a burkkah and bowing east 5 times a day. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, then could you explain what your analogy means? I don't have a clue how we are pouring gasoline on anything that wasn't already burning out of control.
A relatively small group of people used to be resentful and angry at the way the USA wielded its economic and cultural power like a bludgeon. That led -- directly or indirectly -- to 9/11, after which many of those people offered sympathy. Then, using 9/11 as an excuse, we invaded Iraq, a secular nation with no ties to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda's leaders considered Hussein an enemy of Islam), no WMD, and no sane reason to be the target of the US military. The world is now massively resentful of us wielding our military might like a bludgeon. Gasoline on the fire.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Even if that demonstration reduces the effectiveness?
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not defending the Republicans. They are generally a pro-business, low taxes party, so to that extent that are not inclined to overtly support the Marxist ideal as are the democrats, but that is all the slack I will cut them on the issue. Otherwise, they are as big government as the democrats are. Republicans certainly do not provide a set of Jeffersonian principles to vote for, but at least they are not quite so overtly antagonistic towards them.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are embracing, decrying, or even thinking about anything approaching the Marxist ideal. That is fringe philosophy. You seem to be confusing Marxism with liberalism. Liberalism as a philosophy embraces the rule of law (political liberalism), supports individual choices of lifestyle and conscience (cultural liberalism), and believes in laissez-faire capitalism (economic liberalism). Social liberalism might have been an area of contention, but by any unbiased definition I've seen, Jefferson was a liberal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Give me a break, the current collectivist and centrist social welfare programs responsible for all of our manditory spending began with FDR and has been built upon by generations of democrats.
More idiotic neo-conservative bullshit. Social welfare spending was minimal under JFK, compared to what it is now. Are you saying that Carter and Clinton were so
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A relatively small group of people ...
Than, as I said, you see the issue as being caused by the fundamental principles of American culture, that we are the ones who need to change, we are the cause, we are the problem, evil capitalism and cultural imperalism, we need to humbly submit to the international Marxist ideal - just as I said origininally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Its known as 'the benefit of the doubt'. Read a little American history, you'll understand it I'm sure.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Liberalism as a philosophy
And as a philosophy it now promotes an intrinsically Marxist world view, certianly not a Jeffersonian one.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he also proposed a federal bill to help distribute bibles
We'll how thoroughly non-Marxist of the bastard!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
let's see, Republicans are advocating a return to prayer in school ...
No, in fact, they are not. Sheer Marxist propaganda. We are in the midst of an anti-secular revolt as Americans instinctively detest having morality imposed upon them by an elitist minority. The truth about who is imposing what upon whom is clearly apparent to anyone with an open mind.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet you've supported these things in other posts.
Find any of my posts where I have supported any such thing. Hell,if anything I've pissed the religious people off around here a lot more than I have the Marxist. Edit - http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=2&userid=12343&mode=all&select=1312714&df=100&fr=757#xx1313742xx[^] "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 16:25 Friday 30th December, 2005
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And it was the norm for nearly 200 years.
Gee, you got away with breaking the law for nearly 200 years. Instead of rejoicing at the illicit profits, you're arguing that because you got away with it, you should be allowed to continue doing so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where is it suggested that such exercise must be limited to sitting quietly?
We have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
am entirely opposed to saying prayer in school. But, as a Jeffersonian, I believe it is entirely a local issue of no concern at all to the federal government which has no legitimate authority at all to deny it.
Well, for someone who is so opposed, you're awfully vocal in promoting it. I'd love to see what would happen if one of your kids ended up in a school district that was predominately Muslim under your plan. You'd be bleating like a stuck pig when she came home wanting to buy a burkkah and bowing east 5 times a day. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, you got away with breaking the law for nearly 200 years. Instead of rejoicing at the illicit profits, you're arguing that because you got away with it, you should be allowed to continue doing so.
What law would that be - the one congress can't make?
Tim Craig wrote:
We have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.
By that flawed logic, the federal government is empowered to define everything in anyway it pleases. But I'm sure that sort of politcal power is of no concern to the Marxists amoung us.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, for someone who is so opposed, you're awfully vocal in promoting it.
The only thing I'm promoting are the Jeffersonian principles the country was founded upon.
Tim Craig wrote:
I'd love to see what would happen if one of your kids ended up in a school district that was predominately Muslim under your plan. You'd be bleating like a stuck pig when she came home wanting to buy a burkkah and bowing east 5 times a day.
Of course I would be squealing about it - down at the local town hall with all those muslims. But if I lost I would not expect the federal government to deny them the basic constitutional rights we are given by the bill of rights. I would simply take my children to a different school. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, you got away with breaking the law for nearly 200 years. Instead of rejoicing at the illicit profits, you're arguing that because you got away with it, you should be allowed to continue doing so.
What law would that be - the one congress can't make?
Tim Craig wrote:
We have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.
By that flawed logic, the federal government is empowered to define everything in anyway it pleases. But I'm sure that sort of politcal power is of no concern to the Marxists amoung us.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, for someone who is so opposed, you're awfully vocal in promoting it.
The only thing I'm promoting are the Jeffersonian principles the country was founded upon.
Tim Craig wrote:
I'd love to see what would happen if one of your kids ended up in a school district that was predominately Muslim under your plan. You'd be bleating like a stuck pig when she came home wanting to buy a burkkah and bowing east 5 times a day.
Of course I would be squealing about it - down at the local town hall with all those muslims. But if I lost I would not expect the federal government to deny them the basic constitutional rights we are given by the bill of rights. I would simply take my children to a different school. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
What law would that be
The Constitution of the United States. The Law of the Land.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the federal government is empowered to define everything in anyway it pleases. But I'm sure that sort of politcal power is of no concern to the Marxists amoung us.
It's apparently more of a concern to me than you backing your boy in the White House while he destroys two centuries of American civil liberties. And I don't particularly care for brown shirted, jack booted thugs who have no clue about me calling me a Marxist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would simply take my children to a different school.
Nice to have the money to put your kids in a private school. And those who couldn't afford it just have to suffer with that mandated free public education? And you call us elitist. Tsk, tsk. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A relatively small group of people ...
Than, as I said, you see the issue as being caused by the fundamental principles of American culture, that we are the ones who need to change, we are the cause, we are the problem, evil capitalism and cultural imperalism, we need to humbly submit to the international Marxist ideal - just as I said origininally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So we're expected to just bend over, close our eyes and believe?
Its known as 'the benefit of the doubt'. Read a little American history, you'll understand it I'm sure.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Liberalism as a philosophy
And as a philosophy it now promotes an intrinsically Marxist world view, certianly not a Jeffersonian one.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he also proposed a federal bill to help distribute bibles
We'll how thoroughly non-Marxist of the bastard!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
let's see, Republicans are advocating a return to prayer in school ...
No, in fact, they are not. Sheer Marxist propaganda. We are in the midst of an anti-secular revolt as Americans instinctively detest having morality imposed upon them by an elitist minority. The truth about who is imposing what upon whom is clearly apparent to anyone with an open mind.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet you've supported these things in other posts.
Find any of my posts where I have supported any such thing. Hell,if anything I've pissed the religious people off around here a lot more than I have the Marxist. Edit - http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=2&userid=12343&mode=all&select=1312714&df=100&fr=757#xx1313742xx[^] "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 16:25 Friday 30th December, 2005
Stan Shannon wrote:
Vincent Reynolds wrote: let's see, Republicans are advocating a return to prayer in school ... No, in fact, they are not. Sheer Marxist propaganda.
Apparently you're out of touch with your party... "We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools and will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups. We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference. We strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's rulings against student-initiated prayer." Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 84 At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Vincent Reynolds wrote: let's see, Republicans are advocating a return to prayer in school ... No, in fact, they are not. Sheer Marxist propaganda.
Apparently you're out of touch with your party... "We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools and will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups. We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference. We strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's rulings against student-initiated prayer." Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 84 At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools
Apparently there is something about the concept of 'voluntary' which you blatantly fail to comprehend. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:29 Friday 30th December, 2005
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What law would that be
The Constitution of the United States. The Law of the Land.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the federal government is empowered to define everything in anyway it pleases. But I'm sure that sort of politcal power is of no concern to the Marxists amoung us.
It's apparently more of a concern to me than you backing your boy in the White House while he destroys two centuries of American civil liberties. And I don't particularly care for brown shirted, jack booted thugs who have no clue about me calling me a Marxist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would simply take my children to a different school.
Nice to have the money to put your kids in a private school. And those who couldn't afford it just have to suffer with that mandated free public education? And you call us elitist. Tsk, tsk. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
The Constitution of the United States. The Law of the Land.
And the law of the land is that congress shall make no such law. It really isn't a difficult concept.
Tim Craig wrote:
It's apparently more of a concern to me than you backing your boy in the White House while he destroys two centuries of American civil liberties.
How do you figure two centures? We have only been Marxist since about 1933 or so.
Tim Craig wrote:
And I don't particularly care for brown shirted, jack booted thugs who have no clue about me calling me a Marxist.
Yeah, I think those guys need a good ass kicking. They can't talk to my Marxist buddy like that!
Tim Craig wrote:
Nice to have the money to put your kids in a private school. And those who couldn't afford it just have to suffer with that mandated free public education? And you call us elitist. Tsk, tsk.
Hey, spoken like a true Marxist. I'm proud of you. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:29 Friday 30th December, 2005
-
Tim Craig wrote:
We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools
Apparently there is something about the concept of 'voluntary' which you blatantly fail to comprehend. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:29 Friday 30th December, 2005
Stan Shannon wrote:
Apparently there is something about the concept of 'voluntary' which you blatantly fail to comprehend.
I understand the purpose of "voluntary" perfectly in this context. Those who choose not to volunteer are thereby forced to identify themselves to the little Stan clones for proselytizing, harrassment, and other childish games from the Inquisition. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Apparently there is something about the concept of 'voluntary' which you blatantly fail to comprehend.
I understand the purpose of "voluntary" perfectly in this context. Those who choose not to volunteer are thereby forced to identify themselves to the little Stan clones for proselytizing, harrassment, and other childish games from the Inquisition. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Well, damn, that would certainly pose a challange to all the little Tim clones who are so used to having free reign in proselytizing and harrassing all the non-secularists in the public schools. But at least my inquisition will just be a local affair and not conducted by the most powerful courts in the land as yours routinely are. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Well, damn, that would certainly pose a challange to all the little Tim clones who are so used to having free reign in proselytizing and harrassing all the non-secularists in the public schools. But at least my inquisition will just be a local affair and not conducted by the most powerful courts in the land as yours routinely are. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
So why don't we just throw everything open to local option and see what kind of Bushist nightmare that creates? Oh, we get a preview of that now in Iraq. Slavery was a local issue, guess the Feds shouldn't have messed with that either? I guess the current Federal interpretation of "equal protection" should be left to Bubba to decide just how equal everyone should be? And your unbridled capitalism should be free to pollute the river upstream of those drinking from it because the locals said it was ok? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
So why don't we just throw everything open to local option and see what kind of Bushist nightmare that creates? Oh, we get a preview of that now in Iraq. Slavery was a local issue, guess the Feds shouldn't have messed with that either? I guess the current Federal interpretation of "equal protection" should be left to Bubba to decide just how equal everyone should be? And your unbridled capitalism should be free to pollute the river upstream of those drinking from it because the locals said it was ok? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
So why don't we just throw everything open to local option and see what kind of Bushist nightmare that creates?
Seems to have worked pretty well for 200 years.
Tim Craig wrote:
Slavery was a local issue, guess the Feds shouldn't have messed with that either?
The 13th amendment appropriately dealt with that issue.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess the current Federal interpretation of "equal protection" should be left to Bubba to decide just how equal everyone should be? And your unbridled capitalism should be free to pollute the river upstream of those drinking from it because the locals said it was ok?
Not at all. There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues. The voting rights act, for example. The clean water act, etc. All of those are well within the valid domain of congress and the courts under the federal constitution. If at the end of the day, the Jeffersonian ideal is non-sustainable than so be it. If the Marxist ideal is more appropriate to modern needs, than we should accept it. But we should not delude oursleves about what it is we are doing. We have abandoned Jefferson to embrace Marx. If the Europeans are correct, than we should just become another little European socialist welfare state. But lets face it, equal rights and a clean environment are not what the modern left is fighting for. Those are just means to an end. The end is the overt secularization of our society and bringing the economy more and more under centralized control. Once that is accomplished equal rights and the evironment will be of no more concern than they were in the USSR or China. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Tim Craig wrote:
So why don't we just throw everything open to local option and see what kind of Bushist nightmare that creates?
Seems to have worked pretty well for 200 years.
Tim Craig wrote:
Slavery was a local issue, guess the Feds shouldn't have messed with that either?
The 13th amendment appropriately dealt with that issue.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess the current Federal interpretation of "equal protection" should be left to Bubba to decide just how equal everyone should be? And your unbridled capitalism should be free to pollute the river upstream of those drinking from it because the locals said it was ok?
Not at all. There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues. The voting rights act, for example. The clean water act, etc. All of those are well within the valid domain of congress and the courts under the federal constitution. If at the end of the day, the Jeffersonian ideal is non-sustainable than so be it. If the Marxist ideal is more appropriate to modern needs, than we should accept it. But we should not delude oursleves about what it is we are doing. We have abandoned Jefferson to embrace Marx. If the Europeans are correct, than we should just become another little European socialist welfare state. But lets face it, equal rights and a clean environment are not what the modern left is fighting for. Those are just means to an end. The end is the overt secularization of our society and bringing the economy more and more under centralized control. Once that is accomplished equal rights and the evironment will be of no more concern than they were in the USSR or China. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues.
Ah, so if you agree with the court decision, it's all fine but if you disagree, the court was a bunch of meddling activists. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Well, damn, that would certainly pose a challange to all the little Tim clones who are so used to having free reign in proselytizing and harrassing all the non-secularists in the public schools. But at least my inquisition will just be a local affair and not conducted by the most powerful courts in the land as yours routinely are. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The "secularists" aren't proselytizing. They aren't espousing a belief or opinion. All they are doing is ignoring religion -- not insulting, not denigrating, not shouting down, not using any of the tools of the pious and self-righteous conservative -- just ignoring. They recognize that faith has no bearing on mathematics, geometry, chemistry, physics, language. They also recognize that each person's religion certainly influences their personal philosophy, morality, and ethics. I learned about many philosophies and religions in school, in...wait for it...philosophy and comparitive religion classes. Marxism is an obsolete philosophy relegated to the fringes of modern political thought. "Secularism" as a faith, like atheism as a religion, or VB6 as a robust programming language, is an absurdity.