Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 36,387
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:53:09 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.


Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference.


I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious
preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as
Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too.
  #22   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 10,424
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

On 2/1/17 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:53:09 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/1/17 12:46 AM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.


Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference.


I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious
preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as
Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too.



That's just more of your lunatic nonsense. I don't care who or what you
worship or whether you worship at all. I simply don't want anyone's
religious beliefs shoved onto my plate or the plate of my society or
country. And I am certainly not looking to convert anyone to agnosticism
or atheism.
  #23   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Tim Tim is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,111
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all


10:03
- show quoted text -
I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious
preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as
Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too.
......

I would say "evangelical skepticism" would probably be more defining Greg. But both could be correct
  #24   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,756
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

Keyser Soze
On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:

- show quoted text -
Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one
Â*cares about your preferences.


"Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are."



I agree wholeheartedly with this post!
  #25   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 10,424
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

On 2/1/17 11:31 AM, Tim wrote:

10:03
- show quoted text -
I was basing my responses on the link you provided not your religious
preference and these days evangelical atheism is as much a religion as
Islam. You just worship the void and insist everyone else do so too.
.....

I would say "evangelical skepticism" would probably be more defining Greg. But both could be correct



I have no idea what evangelical atheism is. Do you? I'm well into the
Age of Decrepitude, year-wise, and so far no atheists or agnostics have
tried to convert me. We do get the occasional stray christian on the
street, knocking on doors to pump up local church attendance or, even
rarer, to ask if we've found jesus or somesuch nonsense. I mean, really,
what would Trump's ban on Middle Eastern refugees, why would jesus be
here?



  #26   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Tim Tim is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,111
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

" I mean, really,
what would Trump's ban on Middle Eastern refugees, why would jesus be
here? "

Huh?
  #27   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2017
Posts: 1
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/1/17 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:17:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 9:00 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:45:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 12:41 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:01:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 11:50 AM,
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:45:23 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/17 7:58 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12952/...ngconservative

or: http://tinyurl.com/jbgaf3d



"Official" religious groups should have no place on a publicly funded
university.

Neither should political groups,


There's nothing in the Constitution that precludes the mixing of
politics and higher education.

There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a publicly
funded college from promoting religion as long as it was not required
in a law passed by the US congress.
The 1st amendment is what it says, not what you think it should say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In fact congress could not pass a law banning a college from
exercising a religious program.

If I want to push that envelope to the ridiculous extreme you project,
it would be a violation of the hatch act for a college to promote a
political position because they are getting funding from the executive
branch, via the Department of Education that goes toward their salary
so they are federal employees.


Allowing "official" religious organizations is establishing religion.
Not interfering with an individual's right to practice a religion is not
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the same as school prayer. No formal group prayers, no prayers led
by teachers, for example, but if a kid wants to pray, no one is to stop
him.

We're talking about public schools here.


That was what the Warren court said. Who knows what the Roberts court
might say. It still comes down to what "law" did "congress pass" that
"established" a religion when a university has a policy that spans
lots of diverse religions?

These prejudices cross the spectrum from Catholic, Protestant, Muslims
and Jews.


I wouldn't want to see a public university providing official financial
support to any religious group, nor would I want to see it providing a
building to a specific religious group. I have less objection to an
all-faith chapel or meeting area, but not one where formal religious
services can be held or where the walls are adorned with religious
paraphernalia. Religious structures should be off campus and not
supported by the public university, except to have them pointed out on a
campus map or brochure.


Try to keep up. This was over a policy, not a building or a funded
group and the policy reflects the traditional view of several
completely separate religions. You can boycott over the policy but
trying to say this is an unconstitutional case is bull****.
If Trump does survive and succeeds in putting a couple more
conservatives on the court, don't be surprised if that Warren era
decision gets a haircut.


Try to keep up. I stated *my* preference.


Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one
cares about your preferences.


Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are.


I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway.
What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading,
compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language,
etc. Have I forgotten anything?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
  #28   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 10,424
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

On 2/1/17 4:00 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are.


I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway.
What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading,
compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language,
etc. Have I forgotten anything?


Of course you care. The repetitive insults you drop are all you have
here. What is funny is that you really think that I give a flying ****
about what you post, as if you were someone whose opinions mattered to
me. You're just a ball-less twerp whose psychological development
stopped in junior high school, the kid no one wanted on their kickball
team and the one no decent looking girl would date.
  #29   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,750
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:37:23 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/1/17 4:00 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are.


I dont particularly car what you say. Its all bull**** anyway.
What you do defines you. For instance draft dodging, tax evading,
compulsive lying, bankruptcies, foreclosure, disgusting language,
etc. Have I forgotten anything?


Of course you care. The repetitive insults you drop are all you have
here. What is funny is that you really think that I give a flying ****
about what you post,


Obviously you do. You respond to every one. The thing is, Justan has you pegged, and that ****es you
off. He is so correct with his comment that 'what you do defines you'. Your continuous anti-Trump
tirade doesn't demonstrate any sense, but just the opposite. Read the **** you post.

Yeah, Justan forgot something in his list - you're a real sore f'ing loser.
  #30   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2016
Posts: 649
Default CA travel funding...last line says it all

True North wrote:
Keyser Soze
On 2/1/17 10:26 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:

- show quoted text -
Try to keep up. It should be obvious to you by now that no one
cares about your preferences.

"Obviously, you do. You keep commenting on them. But, hey, if it weren't
for me and the occasional post from Donnie, you'd have nothing on which
to comment here, dumb as you are."



I agree wholeheartedly with this post!


Of course you do. You are a dumb lemming.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Funding the Deniers jps General 0 April 1st 10 07:46 PM
When you control the funding... Wizard of Woodstock General 0 July 24th 09 01:17 PM
Funding a marina purchase bobruddy General 4 May 30th 07 06:17 AM
Line by line debunking of latest BuSh attack ad..... JimH General 16 October 24th 04 05:06 PM
ICW dredge funding COM-TEC Security Systems Cruising 0 April 13th 04 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017