|
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. Actual boating posts are corrupted so quickly those people run off and never come back. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:54:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 9:48 PM, Tim wrote: 6:19 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? ....... I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise... Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh? The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of promoting religion. It is just as easy to argue that they are allowing the "free exercise" of said religion. (words that are actually in the article) The word "promote" is not there. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:07:57 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
Did walk by a nice house for sale on our Christmas evening walk at daughters. House near her in Naples, CA part of Long Beach, is for sale and includes 3 open water docks. Tie up your 40'er. Been on market for awhile. Built 1907, but updated. 4000' sq. asking $5.7 million. Probably take an even 5. Sounds like Naples Ca is about like the old parts of Naples Fla. |
Holiday Music
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. You don't understand the establishment clause -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Holiday Music
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:33:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. You don't understand the establishment clause That is something that was invented in my life time. It is not spelled out in the 1st amendment. I don't understand how the courts of the 60s and 70s were interpreting it but I do understand that is different than the way it was interpreted for the first 90-100 years. Bear in mind that is the same court that reversed SCHENCK v. U.S and made it legal to "cry fire in a crowded theater", invalidated the espionage act in the Ellsberg case and also made arbitrary "stop and frisk" legal in TERRY (among several decisions that eliminated 4th amendment protections) so I am not really sure how they were protecting our rights. Warren and Burger certainly were a one, two punch to constitutional reality. They just made up words that were not written there and ignored the ones that were. Justices like Scalia agree with me. I said earlier, this court might rule a different way if the right case was brought to them. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Holiday Music
On 12/29/15 10:27 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! It's always funny when two of the most consistent insulters while about other posters. |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/29/15 10:27 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! It's always funny when two of the most consistent insulters while about other posters. You and Don "while" about what? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com