You can't see what's wrong with the assertions made in that letter. Why was it that there are no Muslim signers on the constitution? Wait where are African Americans (slaves), Hispanics, or Asians? Might of had something to do with the fact they were not land owning white men, and not all white male landowners qualified either, you need to be a large land owning white male. In some areas it was based on both the amount of property you owned and the number of slaves possessed. Never marched in a parade is kind of baffling, like that is a metric for trustworthiness. The Girl Scouts is a Euro-centric assumption of values. Then using examples of terrorist attacks to paint all Muslim's as extremists shouldn't have to be explained, it is a transparent attack on a group of people.
Are you saying that there were Muslims (other then slave traders) involved with this country pre-constitution?
The Girl Scouts are a bad thing?
Have you grasped the point about freedom of speech?
You can't see what's wrong with the assertions made in that letter. Why was it that there are no Muslim signers on the constitution? Wait where are African Americans (slaves), Hispanics, or Asians? Might of had something to do with the fact they were not land owning white men, and not all white male landowners qualified either, you need to be a large land owning white male. In some areas it was based on both the amount of property you owned and the number of slaves possessed. Never marched in a parade is kind of baffling, like that is a metric for trustworthiness. The Girl Scouts is a Euro-centric assumption of values. Then using examples of terrorist attacks to paint all Muslim's as extremists shouldn't have to be explained, it is a transparent attack on a group of people.
Are you saying that there were Muslims (other then slave traders) involved with this country pre-constitution?
The Girl Scouts are a bad thing?
Have you grasped the point about freedom of speech?
Have you grasped the point about freedom of speech?
Good Lord.
Where is the lack of freedom of speech???
He was threatened with being fired because a friend posted it on social media.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect you in the workplace, in general. I can't have a racist tirade or a sexist one and expect to keep my job in the morning.
You can't see what's wrong with the assertions made in that letter. Why was it that there are no Muslim signers on the constitution? Wait where are African Americans (slaves), Hispanics, or Asians? Might of had something to do with the fact they were not land owning white men, and not all white male landowners qualified either, you need to be a large land owning white male. In some areas it was based on both the amount of property you owned and the number of slaves possessed. Never marched in a parade is kind of baffling, like that is a metric for trustworthiness. The Girl Scouts is a Euro-centric assumption of values. Then using examples of terrorist attacks to paint all Muslim's as extremists shouldn't have to be explained, it is a transparent attack on a group of people.
Are you saying that there were Muslims (other then slave traders) involved with this country pre-constitution?
The Girl Scouts are a bad thing?
Have you grasped the point about freedom of speech?
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I doubt that, if I'm being honest. I'm going to continue post how I'd like to. I don't feel as if I'm, or anyone else is, posting in such an outlandish manner that we need others to step in and moderate. This is an open and public fourm and I will practice my first amendment right here.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I doubt that, if I'm being honest. I'm going to continue post how I'd like to. I don't feel as if I'm, or anyone else is, posting in such an outlandish manner that we need others to step in and moderate. This is an open and public fourm and I will practice my first amendment right, here.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I doubt that, if I'm being honest. I'm going to continue post how I'd like to. I don't feel as if I'm, or anyone else is, posting in such an outlandish manner that we need others to step in and moderate. This is an open and public fourm and I will practice my first amendment right, here.
You got me all wrong but, it's my fault that you did. I didn't really pay any attention to the fact that my post followed yours, Alan and I apologize for the appearances of that coincidence. But, I assure you, my post was not a reply to your posts only.
A "higher level of discourse" is a much more concise and effective way of saying what I was trying to say to everyone but my choice of words was just,.....bad. It wasn't understood at all as I had intended it to be.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I doubt that, if I'm being honest. I'm going to continue post how I'd like to. I don't feel as if I'm, or anyone else is, posting in such an outlandish manner that we need others to step in and moderate. This is an open and public fourm and I will practice my first amendment right, here.
You got me all wrong but, it's my fault that you did. I didn't really pay any attention to the fact that my post followed yours, Alan and I apologize for the appearances of that coincidence. But, I assure you, my post was not a reply to your posts only.
A "higher level of discourse" is a much more concise and effective way of saying what I was trying to say to everyone but my choice of words was just,.....bad. It wasn't understood at all as I had intended it to be.
Sorry, there's just a few of us participating in this conversion and I thought that your comments were directed at me. These topics in particular tend to be polarizing in nature and can quickly devolve. Hopefully, this can be water under the bridge as a misunderstanding.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
No one wants you to stop posting. This is a fourm and not everyone is going to agree with your view. I always thought you posted these things because you were hoping to start a dialogue. Most of my frustration comes from when you become dismissive to dissenting commentators.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
No one wants you to stop posting. This is a fourm and not everyone is going to agree with your view. I always thought you posted these things because you were hoping to start a dialogue. Most of my frustration comes from when you become dismissive to dissenting commentators.
That happens when someone gets completely off topic of the post. That is all I have to say.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
No one wants you to stop posting. This is a fourm and not everyone is going to agree with your view. I always thought you posted these things because you were hoping to start a dialogue. Most of my frustration comes from when you become dismissive to dissenting commentators.
That happens when someone gets completely off topic of the post. That is all I have to say.
I don't think this is a first amendment issue for you. I think you're upset that someone that holds your views on Islam was fired. I don't think you would have posted this story if the individual in question was supporting an anti-Christian or anti-Semitic view.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
No one wants you to stop posting. This is a fourm and not everyone is going to agree with your view. I always thought you posted these things because you were hoping to start a dialogue. Most of my frustration comes from when you become dismissive to dissenting commentators.
Save your breath, or keyboard. If you disagree you will be considered "stupid" or "ignorant." Reason and logic fall on deaf ears with particular members of this crowd. I quit responding some time ago and now just laugh at the hatred, rhetoric, and chest thumping. It is quite entertaining after all and viewing it objectively from the outside is thoroughly enjoyable.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
No one wants you to stop posting. This is a fourm and not everyone is going to agree with your view. I always thought you posted these things because you were hoping to start a dialogue. Most of my frustration comes from when you become dismissive to dissenting commentators.
Save your breath, or keyboard. If you disagree you will be considered "stupid" or "ignorant." Reason and logic fall on deaf ears with particular members of this crowd. I quit responding some time ago and now just laugh at the hatred, rhetoric, and chest thumping. It is quite entertaining after all and viewing it objectively from the outside is thoroughly enjoyable.
Hey Gordon. Long time no see. I didn't think I'd ever see you on this thread. I remember you saying, emphatically, that if JD quit posting so many different threads and started putting everything in one thread that you'd never read it or respond to it. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I enjoy civil discourse, I just got to ask. Why? Looks like a "blood in the water" situation to me but surely it's not. Please, tell me it's not that. Reason and logic will not fall on deaf ears with me.
I have a thought. On the forum, let's stick to our own opinions and not define, the opinions of others. Let each man here speak for himself. K?
JD made a red herring argument, that's why I commented on his post. It's also a fourm, I don't think it's proper to allow only the OP and their conversator to continue a conversation. If you want a higher level of decorum to take place in a conversation, I'd be all for that. My trolling comment came after JD's dismissive one. I apologize, I know this is an informal conversation but I shouldn't be a *** on purpose.
My comment was directed at everyone. My point was for us to focus on the topic and not any comments about one another.
I doubt that, if I'm being honest. I'm going to continue post how I'd like to. I don't feel as if I'm, or anyone else is, posting in such an outlandish manner that we need others to step in and moderate. This is an open and public fourm and I will practice my first amendment right, here.
You got me all wrong but, it's my fault that you did. I didn't really pay any attention to the fact that my post followed yours, Alan and I apologize for the appearances of that coincidence. But, I assure you, my post was not a reply to your posts only.
A "higher level of discourse" is a much more concise and effective way of saying what I was trying to say to everyone but my choice of words was just,.....bad. It wasn't understood at all as I had intended it to be.
Sorry, there's just a few of us participating in this conversion and I thought that your comments were directed at me. These topics in particular tend to be polarizing in nature and can quickly devolve. Hopefully, this can be water under the bridge as a misunderstanding.
Yes, Agreed. It's water under the bridge for sure. We're good.
Hey Gordon. Long time no see. I didn't think I'd ever see you on this thread. I remember you saying, emphatically, that if JD quit posting so many different threads and started putting everything in one thread that you'd never read it or respond to it. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I enjoy civil discourse, I just got to ask. Why? Looks like a "blood in the water" situation to me but surely it's not. Please, tell me it's not that. Reason and logic will not fall on deaf ears with me.
pelirrojo:
This! If you make your own thread, rather than 6 new ones every day, I promise I'll never open it or read anything in it and I definitely won't respond to it. Then all will be right with the world, and we'll both be happy.
Well shoot Bob, looks like you got me. I just couldn't contain my pure elation that jd might finally stop the copy and paste game that starts such wonderful discussions around here. I was just trying to help ol' Eulogy out a little. Guess I'll go back to the corner and be quiet. Thanks for the reminder.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
I hope you don't stop posting threads, I like having debates on conservative/liberal ideology. It wasn't my intent to anger anyone, just to have a dialogue. I believe political ideology becomes stagnant when people cannot come together and try and see things from other people's perspectives. They only way to keep an open mind about the world around us is listen to, and debate across political and social lines. I may not have agreed with you on the last point in its entirety, but I can see why you took that position. I hope you will continue to post your thoughts and have a debate on its merits because I think we all win that way.
Nope. It is all my fault. I evidently did not make it clear enough that this was about freedom of speech. So in order to make everyone happy I will no longer post in this thread. Which will be a shame with all that is going on in this country, and the up coming elections.
I hope you don't stop posting threads, I like having debates on conservative/liberal ideology. It wasn't my intent to anger anyone, just to have a dialogue. I believe political ideology becomes stagnant when people cannot come together and try and see things from other people's perspectives. They only way to keep an open mind about the world around us is listen to, and debate across political and social lines. I may not have agreed with you on the last point in its entirety, but I can see why you took that position. I hope you will continue to post your thoughts and have a debate on its merits because I think we all win that way.
I've been posting this very opinion for years. The Forum is very rewarding when others are willing to see things that way. We Americans have, in general, forgotten how to find our strength in diversity. Each side complains that "the other" is demanding that everyone be in lock step with them. Both sides are right. At least, at the far ends.
I have to laugh all the time seeing some person or group who is proving how tolerant they are by being intolerant to some group / person who isn't tolerant of what the person being intolerant wants them to be tolerant of.
So it goes.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Hey Gordon. Long time no see. I didn't think I'd ever see you on this thread. I remember you saying, emphatically, that if JD quit posting so many different threads and started putting everything in one thread that you'd never read it or respond to it. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I enjoy civil discourse, I just got to ask. Why? Looks like a "blood in the water" situation to me but surely it's not. Please, tell me it's not that. Reason and logic will not fall on deaf ears with me.
pelirrojo:
This! If you make your own thread, rather than 6 new ones every day, I promise I'll never open it or read anything in it and I definitely won't respond to it. Then all will be right with the world, and we'll both be happy.
Well shoot Bob, looks like you got me. I just couldn't contain my pure elation that jd might finally stop the copy and paste game that starts such wonderful discussions around here. I was just trying to help ol' Eulogy out a little. Guess I'll go back to the corner and be quiet. Thanks for the reminder.
LOL I couldn't resist bustin your chops a little bit on that one.
"One key problem with originalismthe theory that the Constitution should be interpreted as its drafters understood itis that the men who wrote our constitution had some pretty barbaric views about humanity. The author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, owned hundreds of slaves. The same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment segregated schools and opposed womens suffrage. Under originalist theory, almost every landmark equality case, including Brown v. Board of Education, is almost certainly wrong. Few originalists, however, have the courage to admit that their theory would lead to an appallingly unequal and unjust America.
South Carolina, it turns out, is the glittering exception to this cowardice. In a jaw-dropping amicus brief recently filed with the Supreme Court, the states attorney general argues for a truly originalist understanding of the 14th Amendment, insisting that the Constitution permits discrimination not just against gays, but also against women. This argument is as morally abhorrent as it is historically accurate. And South Carolina deserves some credit for having the chutzpah to raise it.
Heres the gist of South Carolinas fascinatingly sexist argument. The state wants to prove that the 14th Amendmentwhich guarantees equal protection of the laws to every personwas not intended to displace state marriage laws. And what did those laws look like at the time? One major feature: In many states, married women were not permitted to own property or enter into contracts and had no legal existence apart from their husbands. According to South Carolina, the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly preserved the rights of states to deprive married women of the ability to function independently from her husband. This right to deprive married women of basic liberties, South Carolina argues, is enshrined in the 10th Amendment and is not at all undercut by the 14th Amendments guarantee of equality."http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/04/09/south_carolina_we_can_discriminate_against_women_so_why_not_gays.html
It's tough to base laws off of how they were intended when written. The second amendment back then did not have to worry about TOW missiles and SAWs...civilians had the same arms as the military, I guess minus cannons. I think the spirit of the law is important, but not necessarily the context. Does that make sense? Agree? Disagree?I'm also not a fan of court precedent. "Well, I see your point...but if I make this decision then I'm saying the other judge is wrong and I'd hate to do that.."
Randy, Randy, RANDY. The second amendment huh? Really? You think I don't see what you're doing? Drop this steaming pile of stink and walk away? Hell naw. I ain't pickin' it up. I'll let someone else get it. I gotta go mow the lawn.
That argument definitely throws out the notion of precedent. Laws are constantly evolving, our own legal framework is based on European courts and precedent. Strict constitutionalists seems to miss the part where the framers themselves allowed for amendments and described the constitution as a living document. Arguing that me must follow the original intent of a law as it was written in order to deprive civil rights to a group of people is deplorable. What arbitrary metric would they use when deciding other important legal matters like women's suffrage, searches and seizures, or Miranda rights just to name a few. Precedent are created in order to expand personal freedom in most cases, and it is true that bad laws are made; but judges can choose not to prosecute, police can choose not to enforce, and individuals can practice civil disobedience. These are our tools to fight bad laws, not deciding that the deck is stacked against you and asking to hit the reset button over two-hundred years to try again.
A female CEO in Texas has come under fire this week.
With the hormones we have, there is no way [a woman] should be able to start a war, Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.
Whoa Nelly! What a horrible person she must be. Somebody heat up the tar while I pluck some feathers!
Comments
What ever you say.
A "higher level of discourse" is a much more concise and effective way of saying what I was trying to say to everyone but my choice of words was just,.....bad. It wasn't understood at all as I had intended it to be.
That happens when someone gets completely off topic of the post. That is all I have to say.
Save your breath, or keyboard. If you disagree you will be considered "stupid" or "ignorant." Reason and logic fall on deaf ears with particular members of this crowd. I quit responding some time ago and now just laugh at the hatred, rhetoric, and chest thumping. It is quite entertaining after all and viewing it objectively from the outside is thoroughly enjoyable.
Well shoot Bob, looks like you got me. I just couldn't contain my pure elation that jd might finally stop the copy and paste game that starts such wonderful discussions around here. I was just trying to help ol' Eulogy out a little. Guess I'll go back to the corner and be quiet. Thanks for the reminder.
Both sides are right.
At least, at the far ends.
I have to laugh all the time seeing some person or group who is proving how tolerant they are by being intolerant to some group / person who isn't tolerant of what the person being intolerant wants them to be tolerant of.
So it goes.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
With the hormones we have, there is no way [a woman] should be able to start a war, Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.
Whoa Nelly! What a horrible person she must be. Somebody heat up the tar while I pluck some feathers!