On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:32:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/09/2011 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:05:45 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:24:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:03:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:56:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:18:18 -0400, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch


96.97%


http://gfretwell.com/ftp/civics%20test.jpg


I never took philosophy.

96.97% here. I wasn't alive during FDR.

Question: In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important
parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt
responded by threatening to:Your Answer: override the Supreme Court’s
decisions by gaining three-quarter majorities in both houses of
CongressCorrect Answer: appoint additional Supreme Court justices who
shared his views

Interesting one to miss. I thought everyone knew about FDR threatening
to pack the court.

Must be a generational thing. The Socrates thing tripped me up.

That's surprising, given that you were alive then? LOL sorry.

Socrates and Plato were before my time but Aquinas was in my modern
European History class in high school.
It was all about the how uncontrolled debt and ill thought out foreign
adventures caused the fall of the Romans. ;-)

I missed that one, but should have gotten it. But do know Romans fell
from tax greed, currency failure and government fraud. Just like the
USA is doing now.

Seems obvious, but too many are blinded by the greed of debt and
promises of easy government money. Just greed. Moral decay.

It seems obvious that you're an idiot.

On 09/09/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:32:27 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/09/2011 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:05:45 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:24:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:03:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:56:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:18:18 -0400, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch


96.97%


http://gfretwell.com/ftp/civics%20test.jpg


I never took philosophy.

96.97% here. I wasn't alive during FDR.

Question: In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important
parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt
responded by threatening to:Your Answer: override the Supreme Court’s
decisions by gaining three-quarter majorities in both houses of
CongressCorrect Answer: appoint additional Supreme Court justices who
shared his views

Interesting one to miss. I thought everyone knew about FDR threatening
to pack the court.

Must be a generational thing. The Socrates thing tripped me up.

That's surprising, given that you were alive then? LOL sorry.

Socrates and Plato were before my time but Aquinas was in my modern
European History class in high school.
It was all about the how uncontrolled debt and ill thought out foreign
adventures caused the fall of the Romans. ;-)

I missed that one, but should have gotten it. But do know Romans fell
from tax greed, currency failure and government fraud. Just like the
USA is doing now.

Seems obvious, but too many are blinded by the greed of debt and
promises of easy government money. Just greed. Moral decay.

It seems obvious that you're an idiot.

You probably took the test and got 12%. If that. LMAO.

--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:13:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/09/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:32:27 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/09/2011 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:05:45 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:24:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:03:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:56:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:18:18 -0400, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch


96.97%


http://gfretwell.com/ftp/civics%20test.jpg


I never took philosophy.

96.97% here. I wasn't alive during FDR.

Question: In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important
parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt
responded by threatening to:Your Answer: override the Supreme Court’s
decisions by gaining three-quarter majorities in both houses of
CongressCorrect Answer: appoint additional Supreme Court justices who
shared his views

Interesting one to miss. I thought everyone knew about FDR threatening
to pack the court.

Must be a generational thing. The Socrates thing tripped me up.

That's surprising, given that you were alive then? LOL sorry.

Socrates and Plato were before my time but Aquinas was in my modern
European History class in high school.
It was all about the how uncontrolled debt and ill thought out foreign
adventures caused the fall of the Romans. ;-)

I missed that one, but should have gotten it. But do know Romans fell
from tax greed, currency failure and government fraud. Just like the
USA is doing now.

Seems obvious, but too many are blinded by the greed of debt and
promises of easy government money. Just greed. Moral decay.

It seems obvious that you're an idiot.

You probably took the test and got 12%. If that. LMAO.

You for sure are stupid. Why don't you brag about something. It'll
make you look big in your own mind but not in the mirror.

On Sep 9, 3:29*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:56:08 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:20:57 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:24:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message
...

96.97% here. I wasn't alive during FDR.

Question: In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important
parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt
responded by threatening to:Your Answer: override the Supreme Court’s
decisions by gaining three-quarter majorities in both houses of
CongressCorrect Answer: appoint additional Supreme Court justices who
shared his views

-----------------------------------------

That's one I missed also. *I gave the same, incorrect answer.

Eisboch

Same here. *Got the Socrates but missed the Gettysburg Address
question, which was dumb.

We had to memorize the Gettysburg address in middle school. I can
still come up with most of it today. ... what is today anyway? *;-)

Four shores and seven beers ago... oh wait...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey .. that about sums up Flatulent Jim's navy career.
He doesn't like to discuss what went on at sea... eh Jim??

On 9/9/2011 8:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:25:47 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:53:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:17:19 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:10:30 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:51 pm, wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

On Sep 8, 7:18 pm, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 81.2 %

?;^ )

--------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean we can be college professors?

Eisboch

Why stop there, man. DEANS!

I am holding out for SCOTUS justice ;-)

I'd gladly endorse you to replace Clarence Thomas.

Being pro choice myself and not a sex harasser, I suppose you would.
I would certainly drag the court to the left a bit in personal
freedoms but you might not like my 2d amendment and 9/10th amendment
views. I would certainly narrow a lot of the views about what the 14th
amendment means. It is currently being used to expand federal powers
over the states in issues that have nothing to do with protecting
rights. (unless you think people have the "right" to go to federal
prison for medical marijuana)

So, you would interpret the Constitution? Wow. That's quite a
statement!

That is what the SCOTUS does.

Holy crap, she didn't know that? We learned that in fourth grade... The
judges interpret the law.... And she calls us morons???


We have a constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket and federal
laws that would not fit in the bed of a pickup truck. It is clear we
need some kind of interpretation.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:55:17 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:25:47 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:53:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:17:19 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:10:30 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:51*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" *wrote in message

...

On Sep 8, 7:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. *Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. * I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 81.2 %

?;^ )

--------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean we can be college professors?

Eisboch

Why stop there, man. DEANS!

I am holding out for SCOTUS justice ;-)

I'd gladly endorse you to replace Clarence Thomas.

Being pro choice myself and not a sex harasser, I suppose you would.
I would certainly drag the court to the left a bit in personal
freedoms but you might not like my 2d amendment and 9/10th amendment
views. I would certainly narrow a lot of the views about what the 14th
amendment means. It is currently being used to expand federal powers
over the states in issues that have nothing to do with protecting
rights. (unless you think people have the "right" to go to federal
prison for medical marijuana)

So, you would interpret the Constitution? Wow. That's quite a
statement!

That is what the SCOTUS does.
We have a constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket and federal
laws that would not fit in the bed of a pickup truck. It is clear we
need some kind of interpretation.

That's right! Of course, you've just put yourself in opposition to the
right wing of the court.

On 09/09/2011 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:25:47 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:53:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:17:19 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:10:30 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:51 pm, wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

On Sep 8, 7:18 pm, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 81.2 %

?;^ )

--------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean we can be college professors?

Eisboch

Why stop there, man. DEANS!

I am holding out for SCOTUS justice ;-)

I'd gladly endorse you to replace Clarence Thomas.

Being pro choice myself and not a sex harasser, I suppose you would.
I would certainly drag the court to the left a bit in personal
freedoms but you might not like my 2d amendment and 9/10th amendment
views. I would certainly narrow a lot of the views about what the 14th
amendment means. It is currently being used to expand federal powers
over the states in issues that have nothing to do with protecting
rights. (unless you think people have the "right" to go to federal
prison for medical marijuana)

So, you would interpret the Constitution? Wow. That's quite a
statement!

That is what the SCOTUS does.
We have a constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket and federal
laws that would not fit in the bed of a pickup truck. It is clear we
need some kind of interpretation.

No statism in simplicity or common sense. We elect lawyers and they
love complexity for profit.

--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

On 9/9/2011 10:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:55:17 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:25:47 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:53:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:17:19 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:10:30 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:51 pm, wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

On Sep 8, 7:18 pm, wrote:

Here's something to get your minds off of insults and name calling.

33 question Civics test.

Average score by Americans is 49%
Average score by college professors: 55%

I surprised myself. Apparently not as dumb as I thought I was. I scored
84.8%

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3...3-072BB31E2692

Eisboch

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 81.2 %

?;^ )

--------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean we can be college professors?

Eisboch

Why stop there, man. DEANS!

I am holding out for SCOTUS justice ;-)

I'd gladly endorse you to replace Clarence Thomas.

Being pro choice myself and not a sex harasser, I suppose you would.
I would certainly drag the court to the left a bit in personal
freedoms but you might not like my 2d amendment and 9/10th amendment
views. I would certainly narrow a lot of the views about what the 14th
amendment means. It is currently being used to expand federal powers
over the states in issues that have nothing to do with protecting
rights. (unless you think people have the "right" to go to federal
prison for medical marijuana)

So, you would interpret the Constitution? Wow. That's quite a
statement!

That is what the SCOTUS does.
We have a constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket and federal
laws that would not fit in the bed of a pickup truck. It is clear we
need some kind of interpretation.

That's right! Of course, you've just put yourself in opposition to the
right wing of the court.

Pulled that dumb comment from your wonder bra, did you.

In article 1e3fa571-0043-4ac3-b577-d6a168ff9f19
@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 9, 3:29*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:56:08 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:20:57 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:24:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message
...

96.97% here. I wasn't alive during FDR.

Question: In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important
parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt
responded by threatening to:Your Answer: override the Supreme Court?s
decisions by gaining three-quarter majorities in both houses of
CongressCorrect Answer: appoint additional Supreme Court justices who
shared his views

-----------------------------------------

That's one I missed also. *I gave the same, incorrect answer.

Eisboch

Same here. *Got the Socrates but missed the Gettysburg Address
question, which was dumb.

We had to memorize the Gettysburg address in middle school. I can
still come up with most of it today. ... what is today anyway? *;-)

Four shores and seven beers ago... oh wait...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey .. that about sums up Flatulent Jim's navy career.
He doesn't like to discuss what went on at sea... eh Jim??

This from the guy who's son forces him to pay for and go get his beer.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:03:27 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:49:16 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:55:17 -0400, wrote:


So, you would interpret the Constitution? Wow. That's quite a
statement!

That is what the SCOTUS does.
We have a constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket and federal
laws that would not fit in the bed of a pickup truck. It is clear we
need some kind of interpretation.

That's right! Of course, you've just put yourself in opposition to the
right wing of the court.

They interpret the law, just not the way you like.


Actually, according to them, they're not interpreting the law. I can't
do anything about them, whether or not I like their rulings, but I can
vote for a Democrat in the hope that one of the right wing justices
will retire and be replaced with someone a bit more liberal.