ThinkFast: April 21, 2006
ThinkFast: April 21, 2006
Corrupt defense contractor Mitchell Wade picked up the tab for a $2,800 dinner last year for Rep. Katharine Harris (R-FL) at “one of Washington’s most exclusive restaurants,” at the same time he was “seeking help…for $10 million in federal money.”
Much pomp, little progress during Hu’s visit: “In terms of substance, what’s noteworthy is what didn’t happen: China didn’t give ground on Iran, North Korea, or anything else.”
President Bush’s counsel Harriet Miers may be the next White House shake-up casualty. “Moving Ms. Miers would be a strike at the heart of Mr. Bush’s emotional bonds in the White House,” notes the New York Times.
One day after a security officer who guards the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters appeared on NBC News to blow the whistle on lax security practices, “his fellow guards were told to sign secrecy oaths” that one officer said were meant to “keep the guards from talking to the press.”
WSJ editor Daniel Henninger psychoanalyzes the blogosphere: “I don’t think the blogosphere is breeding cannibals. But it looks to me as if the world of blogs may be filling up with people who for the previous 200 millennia of human existence kept their weird thoughts more or less to themselves.â€
Cambodia rejected a U.S. request for non-combat forces to assist with humanitarian work in Iraq. Prime Minister Hun Sen said, “Cambodia will not send forces to Iraq because the operation in Iraq is not a United Nations operation — it is an intervention on the part of some countries.”
After initially claiming he would not be forced out of power due to U.S. pressure, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari indicated that he would drop his bid to retain his post, a move sure to please President Bush. The Shiite coalition is expected to vote today on whether to keep Jaafari as their candidate.
Earmarks extend to Iraq appropriations. A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops’ night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for the V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.
The federal government wasted at least $7.8 million on no-bid Hurricane Katrina contract for portable classrooms from the Alaskan company Akima Site Operations LLC. According to a federal audit, the Army Corps of Engineers passed up chances to negotiate a lower price with Akima, which has connections with several powerful conservatives.
And finally: Former FEMA director Michael Brown has some advice for Donald Rumsfeld. “I think I should call the secretary and say watch your back, because you never know… here today, gone tomorrow.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
After initially claiming he would not be forced out of power due to U.S. pressure, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari
Democracy in Iraq was rather short lived…
April 21st, 2006 at 9:06 amA Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops’ night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for the V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.
Apparently to these boys in Washington, it’s not about quantity of your toys, but the quality. Unfortunately, they’re not doing to well on either.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:09 am“What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.”
Is anyone else aware of this chemical threat? Dihydrogen Monoxide
It seems pretty dangerous,
DHMO contributes to global warming and the “Greenhouse Effect”, and is one of the so-called “greenhouse gasses.”
DHMO is an “enabling component” of acid rain — in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Contact your local representative to get this chemical banned ASAP
April 21st, 2006 at 9:09 amState Board of Education member Connie Morris took exception Wednesday to a picture of a made-up creature that satirizes the state’s new science standards hanging on a Stucky Middle School teacher’s door.
Fellow board member Sue Gamble told The Eagle that Morris asked for the picture to be removed.
The creature, called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is the creation of Bobby Henderson of Corvallis, Ore. It looks like a clump of spaghetti with two eyes sticking out of the top and two meatballs flanking the eyes.
Henderson created the entity and an accompanying mythology on the origin of mankind to make fun of Kansas’ recent debate over the teaching of criticisms of evolution, including intelligent design.
In November, the board voted 6-4 to allow criticisms of evolution to be taught in Kansas schools.
http://www.kansas.com
April 21st, 2006 at 9:14 amDihydrogen Monoxide = H2O
April 21st, 2006 at 9:16 am#3 Too old joke, Scrooge. Even without following the link I see the lame attempt of misleading. And btw, if the DHMO (lol) increased so much that the sun’s light could not reach us, you think that it would not be important, and our guilt? Never has happened before the industrial era.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:18 amContact your local representative to get this chemical banned ASAP
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 9:09 am
Careful Squeegie, you’re sounding like you care about the environment. Not a conservative talking point, you know.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:18 am#4 “The creature, called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is the creation of Bobby Henderson of Corvallis, Ore. ”
In fact, the truth is, just like you or me, Bobby Henderson is a creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
“The federal government wasted at least $7.8 million on no-bid Hurricane Katrina contract”
From the article
““Faced with the urgent need for classrooms, they chose to purchase them by placing an order, noncompetitively, on an existing agreement with Akima,†the report said.”
Sounds like the concern in this case was speed, not cost, after all, isn’t a childs continued education worth the cost? Instead, if they had waited a week longer to hammer out pricing details TP would be complaining about how they delayed to save a few bucks at the expense of education.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:18 amIn fact, the truth is, just like you or me, Bobby Henderson is a creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 9:18
“It was two little pieces of paper on the door,” she said. “It was poking good fun.”
Gamble said she told the principal that it was his decision whether the monster could stick around.
“I advised the principal that Morris has no authority,” she said. “I told him to deal with his staff as he saw fit, not by what a state board member says.”
Board chairman Steve Abrams, who voted for the new standards, didn’t see the picture but said he thinks that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is silly.
“Personally, I think it’s juvenile,” he said.
The picture was still on the door at the end of the school day Wednesday.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:24 am“The protester was standing on a camera platform on the South Lawn. The woman continued shouting as she was led away by uniformed Secret Service agents.
She shouted in English, “President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong!†and in Chinese, “President Hu, your days are numbered.â€
The Chinese government condemns the spiritual movement Falun Gong as a cult. China began a crackdown on the group in 1999. The Epoch Times, which disavowed the protest, is affiliated with the Falun Gong movementâ€
http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ POLITICS/ 04/ 21/ bush.china/ index.html
April 21st, 2006 at 9:26 amThe coming crack up in the Christian Right: Fact or fiction?
Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson calls for civil debate after being attacked by evangelical brethren
Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson was recently roughed up for supporting legislation that some on the right have charged is too “gay-friendly.” When more than 80 highly respected evangelical leaders signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative — a campaign recognizing that global warming is a serious threat to the planet — they were blasted for cavorting with the enemy. And even the Rev. Pat Robertson — once considered untouchable by his Christian right colleagues — has gotten cuffed around by former close associates over a string of controversial commentaries he’s made over the past several months.
Is the Christian conservative movement heading for a crack up? Or, are right-wing watchers making much ado about much too little?
Dr. Dobson, the founder of the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based Focus on the Family (website), a multi-million dollar mega-media ministry, received heat from Christian conservatives who accused him of being soft on gays because he had expressed support for a bill in the Colorado state legislature making it easier for non-traditional partners to share certain benefits.
Brannon Howse, the President of the American Family Policy Institute, and the host of a weekly radio broadcast heard over 225 Christian stations, was one of a number of Christian conservatives who were critical of the signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Howse penned a column for Conservative Worldview Network accusing the 80-plus evangelical leaders who signed the call to action of being in league with “pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, globalist foundations.”
In an interview with Marvin Olasky, the Rev. Pat Robertson, bristling from ongoing criticism from leading Christian conservatives over his controversial comments, both defended himself as well as admitted that he had recently hired an experienced newsman to sanitize his comments.
http://www.mediatransparency.org
April 21st, 2006 at 9:29 am#9 also on that kansas website
“We know it’s a satire. I don’t mind the ridicule; it comes with the job. But I do personally object to my own religious beliefs being ridiculed, and that’s what the Pastafarians delight in doing.”
April 21st, 2006 at 9:29 amhttp://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/living/education/14384110.htm
Since when did Brownie become a celebrity? He’s tossed out for sheer and incredible incompetence, but then shows up on Steve Colbert’s show, is nearly hired as a consultant in LA, and now is making cracks on Rummy?
Shorter: The dumber you are, the more press time they give you?
April 21st, 2006 at 9:30 amCambodia rejected a U.S. request for non-combat forces to assist with humanitarian work in Iraq. Prime Minister Hun Sen said, “Cambodia will not send forces to Iraq because the operation in Iraq is not a United Nations operation
April 21st, 2006 at 9:32 ambugga another coujntry off the list off the coalition of the bought, dragged co-ercied willing
#14 bugga another coujntry off the list off the coalition of the bought, dragged co-ercied willing
Was cambodia ever part of the coalition of the willing?
April 21st, 2006 at 9:36 amAfter initially claiming he would not be forced out of power due to U.S. pressure, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari indicated that he would drop his bid to retain his post, a move sure to please President Bush. The Shiite coalition is expected to vote today on whether to keep Jaafari as their candidate.
democracy is on the move…. an non voter is getting his way
April 21st, 2006 at 9:37 am“We know it’s a satire. I don’t mind the ridicule; it comes with the job. But I do personally object to my own religious beliefs being ridiculed, and that’s what the Pastafarians delight in doing.â€
http://www.kansas.com/ mld/ kansas/ living/ education/ 14384110.htm
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 9:29 am
The religious far right is still trying to play the victim. They are the ones trying to force their beliefs on everyone while lamenting how they are being persecuted. That passive-agressive double standard makes me ill.
The thing about the FSM is that it’s showing how ridiculous some beliefs of religious organizations are. Though, personally, I thought them considering ‘Intelligent Design’ as Science to be proof enough, I think Bobby Henderson just put it in terms they understood – their own. It’s not ridicule, it’s a dose of their own medicine. Much, much different. And apparently just as bitter.
I am, like the founding fathers, for seperation of religion and politics. As we see what the current administration fusing them together has done to weaken our nation, I understand the brilliance of their foresight.
For a child, you’re a far superior debater than several of the old trolls around here. :)
April 21st, 2006 at 9:39 amUSA wants to request for them to be part of the willing
April 21st, 2006 at 9:39 amI was in Cambodia for 1 year 92/93…. as part of the UN i have seen how the USA likes spreading democracy and help
April 21st, 2006 at 9:41 amGood morning Unbelievable – I’ll give your post at #11 a big ‘yikes!’. Pretty scary that there are those who consider Dobson too moderate.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:41 am#17″I am, like the founding fathers, for seperation of religion and politics.”
The founding fathers we’re not for a seperation of religion and politics, just against a state religion, such as the Anglican Church. How many of their speechs/sessions start out by thanking god?
#16 “democracy is on the move…. an non voter is getting his way”
Reminds me of all the illegals protesting for their ‘rights’ here. Once again, non-voters getting there way.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:43 amGood Morning Quadrajet,
I think it’s just part of this whole out-of-control extreme evangelical movement that has these folks fighting over their usual nothing. You know?
I grew up exposed to several different religions – mom even took us to a temple one weekend. On my own, I’ve explored other religions. In the end, I wound up giving them all up because I realized that with the hundreds of thousands of predefined ideologies to choose from, the odds of choosing none was only about 1% worse than choosing none at all. And might as well enjoy my life instead of fearing demons and Hell and the wrath of someone who choses to be silent and invisible in a world so desperate for direction.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:50 am#21 – “”I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” – Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802″
April 21st, 2006 at 9:50 amDamn, has any government agency become so dysfunctional so fast as the DHS?
#8: “Sounds like the concern in this case was speed, not cost, after all, isn’t a childs continued education worth the cost? Instead, if they had waited a week longer to hammer out pricing details TP would be complaining about how they delayed to save a few bucks at the expense of education.”
Nobody has a problem with emergency no-bid contracts but these are open-ended and without review. (Let me translate that into language a right-winger should understand: It wastes taxpayer dollars.) It seems common-sense that a no-bid contract should have a sunset date built in, but for some inexplicable reason, this supposedly fiscally conservative administration seems to find fiscal conservatism radioactive.
#13: “Since when did Brownie become a celebrity? He’s tossed out for sheer and incredible incompetence, but then shows up on Steve Colbert’s show, is nearly hired as a consultant in LA, and now is making cracks on Rummy?”
Some information came out after Brown left and Chertoff and the DHS were being looked into themselves that somewhat exonerated Brown. He was still a crony and a hapless amatuer but it was a mistake to blame him for all the Katrina bungling. He just happened to be the focus of the initial investigation and got tarred for what were the systemic failures of the government’s response.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:53 am21. yes good point. But have they got there way? or has it gone on holiday at the present time? they face deportation does the C-IC face the same? will it affect his life or just the people he sent there.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:53 amThe founding fathers we’re not for a seperation of religion and politics, just against a state religion, such as the Anglican Church. How many of their speechs/sessions start out by thanking god?
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 9:43 am
I recind my back handed compliment! :)
Yes, they were for seperation of religion and politics – hence the First Amendment, and subsequent proclamations of such. Thanking God is not any kind of endorsement for combining the two. Don’t be silly.
Besides, aren’t you an Agnostic?
April 21st, 2006 at 9:54 amI was in Cambodia for 1 year 92/93…. as part of the UN i have seen how the USA likes spreading democracy and help
Comment by koalablue
I doubt you’ve seen anything besides your navel in years. Too bad you weren’t there in the early to mid 70s to see how the communists handled things. What a fucktard you are!
On July 25, 1983, the “Research Committee on Pol Pot’s Genocidal Regime†issued its final report, including detailed province by province data. Among other things, their data showed that 3,314,768 people lost their lives in the “Pol Pot time.â€[8] But that report was quickly forgotten inside Cambodia, and it never became known outside of Cambodia — until 1995.
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/toll.htm
April 21st, 2006 at 9:54 am“the world of blogs may be filling up with people who for the previous 200 millennia of human existence kept their weird thoughts more or less to themselves”
Nope. The world has always been weird. The part that makes the 21st century unique is that the blogger and the press and the POTUS are all using the same technology to distribute their thoughts.
And of all things, you can blame capitalism for it.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:57 am#23
Jefferson’s reply was on a national level. The Baptists were concerned about state level issues.
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
The 1st amendment means the congress can’t create a state religion. However it does nothing to stop states from creating state religions. Which was the Batist concern that Jefferson failed to address.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:57 amiri. gee you are a winner…
April 21st, 2006 at 10:00 am#26
Besides, aren’t you an Agnostic?
Damn straight, that has nothing to do with the discussion though, I’m just arguing my interpretation of the founding fathers.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:01 amDamn straight, that has nothing to do with the discussion though, I’m just arguing my interpretation of the founding fathers.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Let’s look at this from a different angle. Why wouldn’t men in the middle of watching religious persecution in England not want to prevent the same in this country? Isn’t logical that they wouldn’t try to fix the mess the Church of England was causing at that time by doing something that was considered drastic back then.
Did you read the CNN article I posted above about the Chinese woman yelling at President Hu to stop persecuting her religion?
“The Chinese government condemns the spiritual movement Falun Gong as a cult. China began a crackdown on the group in 1999. The Epoch Times, which disavowed the protest, is affiliated with the Falun Gong movementâ€
Do you really want state religions to be declared and enforced?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:06 amThe V22 Osprey is an amazing story of system engineering failure. It’s amazing that even Dick Cheney as Sec Def in 1989 couldn’t kill it (he cut funding, but it got put back in). There are too many jobs in swing states attached to the program. As VP I guess Cheney now thinks its a good program. Most of the money goes to the manufacturers, Boeing and Bell Helicopter Textron, who have major plants in Philadelphia and Fort Worth, Texas.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:11 am#32 Do you really want state religions to be declared and enforced?
Hell no, and from my understanding, I don’t think thats possible anymore because there is now precident that state constitions are assumed to have at least the freedoms granted in the constition, so you can be more free, but not less free, however at the time of the founding fathers this precident had not been set yet.
“Isn’t logical that they wouldn’t try to fix the mess the Church of England was causing at that time by doing something that was considered drastic back then.”
The way they tried to fix it was to not allow a federal level state religion, but to not disallow state level state religions, so if you didn’t like the choice of your state, you could always go to anouther one of the social experiments that states where at the time that would allow/not oppress your religious choice.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:11 amDear Dan Hengenner Whack, I guess you didn’t read Libbies Book? Or Lynn Cheneys?
You guys are self-protectionist Idiots. And WE will take you and your hypocritic asses out. Judith Miller was a Screaming Paranoid Chicken Little, Anne Coulter is the Anti-Intellectual of the Century, and shes a Lawyer, Falwell and Roberston are Blow people up wackos, WTF is this Guy on? Does he even get out of the House?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:12 amHey Dude. YOU are so way off base in your ‘Group think’ blame you prolly think Faux News is Good.
As VP I guess Cheney now thinks its a good program. Most of the money goes to the manufacturers, Boeing and Bell Helicopter Textron, who have major plants in Philadelphia and Fort Worth, Texas.
This ‘aircraft’ is a dangerous unworkable POS. The Main Rotors are too large and creates anm extremely unbalanced one winged helicopter if something goes wrong. It SHOULD have FOUR Props and engines to balance the wings. I wouldn’t fly on that V-22 Osprey no way no how.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:15 amThe way they tried to fix it was to not allow a federal level state religion, but to not disallow state level state religions, so if you didn’t like the choice of your state, you could always go to anouther one of the social experiments that states where at the time that would allow/not oppress your religious choice.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 10:11 am
That’s not my take on it at all. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said ‘church and state’, but ‘church and federal government’. Back then, I think people were better educated and they actually used the words that applied rather the first word out of their mouth, which they would later defend in an inane argument over sematics.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:15 am#22- I’m with you there Unbelievable, pretty much our philosophy here at the Church of Quadrajet. I’m disappointed in our friends in Kansas who are trying to prevent the the presentation of the Pastafarian viewpoint, I thought the idea was to teach alternatives to evolution? Is the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and more or less provable than say, Intelligent Design?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:17 amiri- try this-http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Friends_PolPot.html
April 21st, 2006 at 10:20 am#37″Otherwise they wouldn’t have said ‘church and state’”
“Back then, I think people were better educated and they actually used the words that applied rather the first word out of their mouth”
Funny that you would use both of those in one post:
amendment 1: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.
Seems like they said congress can’t make laws, nothing about state legislatures.
“which they would later defend in an inane argument over sematics.”
Hey, thats me!!
April 21st, 2006 at 10:21 amI guess the self procliamed “Doctor” err Editor also forget to mention the DHS Cops and the Weird Thoughts of those, umm Bloggers? Hardly.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:21 amMr Doctor Editor Hennenger, I Find what you say to be nothing but inflammatory Rhetoric, no wonder PEOPLE, and thats all it is, are turning to blogging, and away from Nutwork Wacko Editors as Yourself, the Mcarthyites. SInce you make such ODD comparisons that are based on nothing but opinion, and not even a balanced opinion, you are that ‘BLOGGER’, and its YOU that the people should not READ or Listen TOO.
Don’t go away Mad Editor Man, just Go AWAY.
IRI- or this http://eatthestate.org/01-47/PolPotAlly.htm
April 21st, 2006 at 10:22 amI thought the idea was to teach alternatives to evolution?
I’m guessing that they didn’t think it through when they said that, thinking everyone would assume Christianity. Their own limited perspective has come back to bite them, and really, they have no one to blame for it but themselves. Brilliant irony, isn’t it?
Is the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and more or less provable than say, Intelligent Design?
Comment by Quadrajet — April 21, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Nope. And I think that’s what irks them the most. Because anything they could do to refute the FSM could just as aptly be turned to refute their own blind faith. Bobby Henderson really did create something ingenious. I hope someone has given that guy a job by now :)
April 21st, 2006 at 10:23 amone eye buck tooth,
The problem you are referring to is known as vortex ring state. That is just one of the many problems witht the Osprey.
The DoD could have replenished the entire Vietnam era CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters by now if they hadn’t been wasting their money on the Osprey. I would guess that as long as Pennsylvania is a swing state, the Osprey will never be killed by anyone.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:24 amiri. gee you are a winner…
Comment by koalablue
And you’re a moron and a liar. Nobody can go to Cambodia without hearing about the “Killing Fields” and nobody with an ounce of morals would say something rude about US Aid to Cambodia in light of that knowledge. So, are you a liar or just a terminally stupid and hateful fuckstick?
And people wonder why I hate the Filthy Left?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:25 amThat’s not my take on it at all. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said ‘church and state’, but ‘church and federal government’. Back then, I think people were better educated and they actually used the words that applied rather the first word out of their mouth, which they would later defend in an inane argument over sematics.
agreed, one can never win an argument of opinion. Religion is an Opinion, whos God is What, and What your God Says Versus another persons opinion of GOD. If you take a Group of Bush Christians and Clinton Baptists, Both will say their GOD, or Version of the Same GOD, is the correct and only Version, Yet neither can prove either one.
Once Religion did make it into Schools then the REAL BATTLES would start. And they Would all basically be speaking of the same GOD.
It’s Inane.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:28 amSay nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
- Thomas Jefferson
April 21st, 2006 at 10:30 amSeems like they said congress can’t make laws, nothing about state legislatures.
We were talking about Jefferson’s quote that Democrat Soldier posted. About what the Intent of the Founding Father’s was. But, if you wanna spin it back to that, okay…
Quote from the Treaty of Tripoli:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Hey, thats me!!
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Really? I hadn’t noticed…. :)
April 21st, 2006 at 10:31 amy’ever notice how every time I-RIGHT-I opens his mouth it smells like stale jizz? Same thing when he farts.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:32 amIt’s Inane.
Comment by one eye buck tooth [X^B — April 21, 2006 @ 10:28 am
:)
April 21st, 2006 at 10:34 amAnd people wonder why I hate the Filthy Left?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 21, 2006 @ 10:25 am
You Don’t hate the Filthy Left IRI, you hate the World.
If their was No Left, you would HATE the middle, and Once you Killed the Middle, you would hate the Center, and once the Center was Killed and Hated, you would hate your Dog, and Kill it, then you wouild hate your wife,poor lady, and kill her, then you would hate that world because you hated everthing else..
Don’t you get tired of Thinking of Nothing but hate IRI?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:36 amSurely, even you, can see, that the Filthy Left didn’t cause Dick or Roves Demise, no It was the Actions of the Filthy Neo-Cons themselves, so Really IRI what you HATE is that your GROUPs HATE destroyed it, Yet that was Inevitable. Too bad your HATE blinds you so.
But You see Darkly thru the light? LOL, Cmon IRI I want to see you just IMPLODE and totally lose it, CMON MAN!
Run Outside and scream at the World, run thru your office cursing the ‘Filthy Left’ grab a gun and go back and take a Few shots IRI, because you are ‘Postal’.
#48 Fine then, back to his qoute
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Whole american people would mean all of them, the only area that affects all of them is the federal level.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.â€
As for this, sounds like we were already pandering to muslims that long ago, I guess 9/11 isn’t clintons fault for ignoring them, it goes all the way back to the founding of the nation.
The federal gov’t covers all international diplomacy, the federal gov’t is not allowed to have a state gov’t. So the federal gov’t itself can have no issue with the religon of the muslims. The individual states are still left free to ban/oppress muslims if they wanted, or make it their state religion.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:40 am“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
—Thomas Jefferson
April 21st, 2006 at 10:40 amQuestion with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.â€
AYE!, The Small GOD that misleads you is the small man, as the little man who pulled the chains of the ‘Great Wizard’, as Yisrael fought that God and crossed the River, YOU all of you must Challenge that what you are told, diligently so, and remove your Bias or you shall never have that chance to fight that Small man, and cross that River, and then stand upon your own.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:47 am“And you’re a moron and a liar”- from i-retard-i.
And where do you get your facts from, our own government? Oh yes! the installment of corruption by and for the people, which i’m sure isn’t always doing it’s business based on it’s own self-interest.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:49 amSqueegie, this sounds like the Constitution trumphs State’s rights to me:
Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
States’ rights refers to the idea that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in the politics of the United States and constitutional law. They are guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under the United States Bill of Rights. The states’ rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government of the United States seeks to override, or a perceived violation of the bounds of federal authority. The term has also been a code word used by supporters of racial segregation.
The principle of federal powers over those powers held by the states was laid out by John Marshall, the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the seminal case of McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall asserted, based on the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, that the laws of the federal government were generally paramount over the laws of the separate state governments.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:51 amSqueegie, in fact the Supreme Court heard a case on Oregon’s Right to Die Law as they declared jurisdiction over the state.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207572.htm
I forgot my source for my post above – here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_rights
April 21st, 2006 at 10:55 am#56 Unbelievable
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Where does the consitution prohibit states from creating laws that affect religions? It only prohibits the Congress from doing so. So if the consitition dosn’t ban states from doing it, its a power reserved for the people or the states.
And like I said above, I know there is now precident that would not allow states to form state religions, but at the time of founding it could have happened.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:56 amAh, if only Henninger kept his weird thoughts to himself…
April 21st, 2006 at 11:00 amSqueegie, you are missing that the Constitution establishes the boundary. It says ‘No endorsement of religion’. The states cannot circumvent or override that. Their rights can only be added to those NOT covered in the Constitution. The Constitution is the bottomline. It says Congress because Congress establishes laws and Amendments, not the states. Quit arguing semantics with me. Only Tundra is allowed to do that. :)
April 21st, 2006 at 11:01 amit says “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.”
I don’t remeber endorsement, maybe you meant establishment, or maybe I’m forgetting it being mentioned somewhere else.
But, assuming you meant establishment, it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Nothing about the states being able to or not, just congress.
I really don’t think this one is semantics, it seems more like a fundemental disagreement on the first/tenth amendment.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:17 amit says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Nothing about the states being able to or not, just congress.
Because ONLY Congress can make that establishment of law in regard to the Constitution. It would be absurd to name anyone or anybody else because no one else has that authority. Not in regard to the Constitution. Do you get it yet?
I really don’t think this one is semantics, it seems more like a fundemental disagreement on the first/tenth amendment.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 11:17 am
I’d say more like a fundamental disagreement on your ability to understand. If the Constitution is the highest authority, and only Congress can establish laws in regard to the Constitution, then you don’t have to list the inumerable bodies who can’t establish law, because it is redundant and to anyone who understands the heirarchy, pointless.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:24 amunbelievable, squeegee – did you notice that The Flying Speghetti Monster itself posted yesterday? i forget which thread tho…the website is great – if you haven’t been there, do so…
April 21st, 2006 at 11:28 am“and only Congress can establish laws in regard to the Constitution”
And the constitution dosn’t make any mention of religion on a state or personal level, so if a state made religous laws it would not be in regard to the consitution.
If you take 2 entities, A and B, and you tell A, you can not make any laws regarding C, and anything that isn’t specifically left to you as a power belongs to B, what is the logic that then says B also can’t make any laws regarding C?
To me, it means that the power to make laws regarding C was left out of the powers given to A, so it automatically belongs to B.
Now we both know I’m bad at logicizing things, so maybe I’m missing something.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:31 amThe Web is nothing if not “social.” But the blogosphere is also the product not of people meeting, but venting alone at a keyboard with all the uninhibited, bat-out-of-hell hyperbole of thinking, suggestion and expression that this new technology seems to release.
Of course this would never apply to the editorial page of the WSJ, whereupon its editorial opinions are corrupted by some of the most devastating lies(leading to the deaths of thousands upon thousands for no apparent or valid reason) of the last five years, are presented as reliable and reasonable arguments for the destruction of nations, the impoverishment of large swaths of their populations, and the ruin of their economies.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:32 amkaty,
Yes on both questions :) Funny to watch the Christian Extremists whine over that one! I thought it was interesting how the hate mail Bobby got was so poorly written and so violent, while those who sent him endorsements mostly had PhDs and used perfect grammar and wit. Interesting…
April 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am#63 Did it really? But I thought it used its noodley appendages to remove all proof that it exists, although in this case, maybe it removing all of its evidence was so good it was constituting proof thru total lack of evidence, and had to leave a crumb or two to keep us guessing.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:32 amGovernment tolerates the blogs at the moment because it gives them a list of people to pick up for the Labor/re-education camps! When goons come to your door someday asking for “GoatboylikesDogs25″ then you will know why the blog posts were allowed >lol.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:33 amNow we both know I’m bad at logicizing things, so maybe I’m missing something.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 11:31 am
You’re trying to complicate and then rationalize it. It’s not that complicated.
The Constitution has ultimate authority. This means that states cannot establish anything they want in violation to it. States can just make additional rules that supplement it OR address issues that the Constitution does not mention.
If the Constitution is the ‘final word’, then Congress is that final authority – which, buy the way, is a body comprised of ‘Representatives’ to the States. The states, indirectly, have bought into the system through the fact that they compose it.
Any help?
April 21st, 2006 at 11:38 amI just passed a student walking down the hall while sucking her thumb. In high school.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:40 am“The Constitution has ultimate authority. This means that states cannot establish anything they want in violation to it.”
And where does it say states can not establish laws regarding religion? Besides legal precident, if a states constitution did not include a religon clause similar to the 1st amendment, why would it be illegal for them to create a law regarding religion?
April 21st, 2006 at 11:43 am#70 “I just passed a student walking down the hall while sucking her thumb. In high school.”
When exactly do you manage to sneak in time for teaching? your responses have been decently quick to me :)
April 21st, 2006 at 11:45 amAnd where does it say states can not establish laws regarding religion? Besides legal precident, if a states constitution did not include a religon clause similar to the 1st amendment, why would it be illegal for them to create a law regarding religion?
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Go read the Constitution.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:47 amWhen exactly do you manage to sneak in time for teaching? your responses have been decently quick to me :)
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 11:45 am
This week has been a lot of testing, fields trips and Career Assessment. The few left have been watching educational movies and working on individual assignments. Plus, I can multi-task rather well. I do get lunch and a planning period as well. Not the same as Corporate America.
So, what’s your excuse?
April 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am#74 Poor work ethic :) …. I mean multitasking, yes….thats it.
Reread the constition, I still agree with me.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pmAfter initially claiming he would not be forced out of power due to U.S. pressure, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari
Democracy in Iraq was rather short lived…
Comment by unbelievable
We’ll let ‘em know when their smart enough to rule themselves. We’re going to treat them exactly like the Democrats treat their constituents.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:09 pmReread the constition, I still agree with me.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Guess now I understand why Bush doesn’t understand it either… Or you just are a typical conservative who refuses to change his mind no matter what.
Well, good thing I don’t teach government either. ‘Cause my attention span for this conversation just ran out…
April 21st, 2006 at 12:10 pm#53 – I’m adding that one to my quote collection.
#69 – It’s clear to me, but then I don’t have ADD. Squeegy?
#70 – I saw a girl in the high school with what looked like glue in her hair (please, please, let it have been glue), and sucking on a baby pacifier. She was heading into the office, so I’m hoping they were taking her to a nice quiet place, after drug testing, of course.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pm#53 – I’m adding that one to my quote collection.
That’s one of my favorites. If Thomas Jefferson were a live today, I’d want to marry him. His brilliance is sexy.
#69 – It’s clear to me, but then I don’t have ADD. Squeegy?
You can have your kid back now :).
#70 – I saw a girl in the high school with what looked like glue in her hair (please, please, let it have been glue), and sucking on a baby pacifier. She was heading into the office, so I’m hoping they were taking her to a nice quiet place, after drug testing, of course.
Comment by Zookeeper — April 21, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Ew…
April 21st, 2006 at 12:35 pmBut it looks to me as if the world of religious fundamentalists may be filling up with people who for the previous 200 millennia of human existence kept their weird thoughts more or less to themselves.â€
April 21st, 2006 at 12:40 pm“One day after a security officer who guards the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters appeared on NBC News to blow the whistle on lax security practices, “his fellow guards were told to sign secrecy oaths†that one officer said were meant to “keep the guards from talking to the press.â€
I would hope so, it seems a little late to me. I have no problem with the security guards for the DHS not being able to explain all of the security precautions to the general public.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:41 pmThe Osprey is the Corvair of aircraft.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pmAnd where does it say states can not establish laws regarding religion? Besides legal precident, if a states constitution did not include a religon clause similar to the 1st amendment, why would it be illegal for them to create a law regarding religion?
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 11:43
The mormons had to specifically denounce the concept of polygamy in order to achieve statehood, did they not? This was because the other states would not accept polygamy as being constitutional, I think.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pm#78 It’s clear to me, but then I don’t have ADD. Squeegy?
ADD-Never tested for it, so couldnt tell you, but I probably do. Besides, I think most people who are diagnosied with it are really just lazy/lacking proper motivation to excel.
If it’s so clear to all of you, then explain whats wrong with my logic from #64. Also, depending on your interpretation of the 9th amendment, my argument will fall flat, or still make sense.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:49 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Pretty much this argument has been going on for a couple hundred years.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pmDo his emotional bonds inhibit his ability to effectively lead. Emotional bond! He’s a grown man, for heaven sack, in the ultimate position of leadership. Gosh, if this is the kind of stuff that makes him emotional, can you imagine when it really counts. Or does he get emotional when it only affects him personally, and the heck with the rest of the country. Heck with Katrina victims.
That has been true no matter the communications method. Some would say Fox, Limbaugh, and the National Enquirer fit that description. I stopped reading certain newsgroup at google because the language was foul and the ideas were crazy. Lots of closed, hateful minds. There was more fighting than problem solving – like the Bush administration. Like anything else, you make an educated decision whether it has value or not. This is why a healthy Democracy has to have an educated populace.
“With Honors” is an interesting movie, where the lead character, a Harvard PS senior, writes a thesis on the advances in technology will create a better Democracy.
Where is all the billions of dollars going? Or is that trillion now? Certainly a far cry from what Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush had told us it would cost. Of course that was a lie to take our country into war in the first place, but hey American corporations like Halliburton, those that private militaries, and Exxon are doing great.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:53 pmIf it’s so clear to all of you, then explain whats wrong with my logic from #64.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
It isn’t logic. Seriously, I’m not insulting you or joking. Just letting you know that there are tennents of logic that you do not follow. It’s why I suggested learning about it online.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pmHere Squeegie:
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
April 21st, 2006 at 1:00 pm#83
Polygamy was made illegal(1862) in the US territories, over 30 years before Utah became a state, I think it was outlawed on moral grounds, but unless the congress ignored the first amendment it couldn’t have been (openly) about religous reasons.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:01 pmIn fact, I think this is worth posting in general:
Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
Something is currently unexplained (or insufficiently explained), so it was not, or could not, be true.
Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”: not having evidence for something is not proof that that something does not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that another alternative is instead the case–it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.
Argument from ignorance is also known by its Latin title of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Argument from personal incredulity
Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true” (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
“That’s not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying.” (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of “people in general” is claimed to agree with the speaker’s opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.)
An argument from personal incredulity is the same as an argument from ignorance if, and only if, the person making the argument has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as “evidence” that the alternative scenario is true (i.e., the person lacks relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).
Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further “evidence.” In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
April 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pm“absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceâ€:
The Sphinx: To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.
The Sphinx: He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.
The Sphinx: When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.
The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage…
Mr Furious: …your rage will become your master? That’s what you were going to say. Right? Right
Sounds incredibly mysterious to me
April 21st, 2006 at 1:13 pmUnbelievable, squegeeboo,
The First Amendment is the establishment clause: It estalishes that Congress cannot make laws regarding the individual’s right to exercise (or not) their religion. In other words, the federal government must stay away from endorsing, or banning, any religion:
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.
Wikipedia: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Squeegeeboo is right that nowhere does it mention the states, and so it is a moot point. However, precisely because of that “mootness” on this, as well as many other legal aspects, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the constitution after the civil war:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Wikipedia: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment established the people’s right to freedom of religion, speech, peaceful assemly, and the Fourteenth compelled the individual states to comply with it.
Also, most states have the principle of freedom of religion included in their constitution.
My two cents…
April 21st, 2006 at 1:15 pm#79 – You can have your kid back now :)
But you are doing so well with him. Seriously, I thought he was making progress yesterday. Today…
#84 – ADD-Never tested for it, so couldnt tell you, but I probably do. Besides, I think most people who are diagnosied with it are really just lazy/lacking proper motivation to excel.
So are you admitting that you are lazy and lack proper motivation to excel? :-p
Read unbelievable’s post at #90. Focus…just settle down for a minute and let it sink in. Then go back to your Constitution/State’s rights problem.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:16 pmunbelievable, Beyond all the flawed logic that I do here for fun, I am a computer program, and have done some work into AI and problem solvers, I actually do understand logic.
Given:
1.First Amendment says congress can’t pass laws on religion.
2.tenth amendment says anything not given to the feds goes to the states and/or the people.
3. The rest of the consitution
Inference:
1.At no point in the consitution is the federal gov’t, congress or otherwise, given the ability to pass laws regarding religion
2.using inference 1, and given 2, we get that the states and/or the people are given the the ability to pass laws on religion.
Conclusion:
April 21st, 2006 at 1:17 pmThe states have the ability to pass laws on religion.
I am a computer programer
I meant.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:18 pmThe states have the ability to pass laws on religion.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
No Squegeeboo, that would be unconstitutional. See my post above.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:20 pm#94 – Conclusion: The states have the ability to pass laws on religion.
Comment by squegeeboo
They could, but the laws would probably be overturned under the 14th Amendment. Gregor has a link in #92.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:21 pm#97 Right, but my argument has been, that this is how it worked at the founding, and that precident had been set down that would make it impossible today.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:23 pmSounds incredibly mysterious to me
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
You done picking flowers yet? I have the vases lined up all over my house… ;)
April 21st, 2006 at 1:23 pmthat precident had been set down that would make it impossible today.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
That precedent is called the constitution…
April 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe First Amendment established the people’s right to freedom of religion, speech, peaceful assemly, and the Fourteenth compelled the individual states to comply with it.
If it was already required (At founding) why did they need the fourteenth amendment?
April 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe First Amendment established the people’s right to freedom of religion, speech, peaceful assemly, and the Fourteenth compelled the individual states to comply with it.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — April 21, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
I still think it was clear with just the First Amendment that the Founding Fathers wanted no establishment of religion on any level. The fact that it had to be spelled out further to me is not proof of their lack of intent, but in the inability of the average person to follow their logic that the First Amendment was the authority. And, probably, in light of that, smart that Congress made it clear. Or who knows what we’d be presently dealing with, with the zealous nut in the oval office…
Thanks for your two cents. Always appreciated.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:28 pmI am a computer programer
I meant.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
I liked it better the other way :)
April 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pm#100 That precedent is called the constitution…
Touche Gregor
but it wasn’t part of it until 1868, before that it was still just precident.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pmIf it was already required (At founding) why did they need the fourteenth amendment?
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
It was not required… or, more appropriately, it was a moot point when it came to the individual states. The First Amendment was clear that, at the federal level, the government could not violate your rights, but not a word at the state level. That’s what the Fourteenth Amendment clarified.
It clarified legal aspects not only on religion, but also on citizenship and civil rights.
The Wikipedia has a very clear explanation on it.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:32 pmbut it wasn’t part of it until 1868, before that it was still just precident.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Right, but your statement “the states have the ability to pass laws on religion” is wrong.
They were at one point, or could argue they were. Not anymore.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pmIf it was already required (At founding) why did they need the fourteenth amendment?
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Better safe than sorry…
April 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pm#102 “I still think it was clear with just the First Amendment that the Founding Fathers wanted no establishment of religion on any level. The fact that it had to be spelled out further to me is not proof of their lack of intent, but in the inability of the average person to follow their logic that the First Amendment was the authority.”
#90 “Argument from personal incredulity
Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true†(The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
“That’s not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying.†(Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of “people in general†is claimed to agree with the speaker’s opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) ”
Weird, your argument seems to fit the definition :)
as to this part:”I still think it was clear with just the First Amendment that the Founding Fathers wanted no establishment of religion on any level. ”
After your defense of Jefferson, and some googling of other founding fathers views, I now agree with your position about the intent of it.
now I’m done with thinking for the day, and back to flawed logic and pointless humor.
#103 I liked it better the other way :)
So like this?
I meant.
I am a computer programer
April 21st, 2006 at 1:38 pm#108 – now I’m done with thinking for the day, and back to flawed logic and pointless humor.
Comment by squegeeboo
That’s my Squeegy! ;)
Seriously, Squeegy, I liked how you worked on your position today. I don’t know if we convinced you, but you fought like hell! Now stop banging your head on the table and go throw a frisbee.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:48 pmWeird, your argument seems to fit the definition :)
When you chop it up in little pieces, maybe.
I wasn’t being incredulous. I was following the logic that I spelled out to you above.
After your defense of Jefferson, and some googling of other founding fathers views, I now agree with your position about the intent of it.
No way… Really? We might just convert you to the dark side yet Master Luke. :)
So like this?
I meant.
I am a computer programer
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Ha ha. You being a computer program. Like virtual pets – except you’d be a virtual troll. With an off switch :)
April 21st, 2006 at 1:48 pmWith an off switch :)
Comment by unbelievable
Ah, the “off switch.” I love it when they come with that feature. You have to pay extra for it…
April 21st, 2006 at 1:51 pmOk, I lied, one more thinking for me.
Gregor: That part of amendment 14
April 21st, 2006 at 1:52 pmNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you take it litterally whats your view on this:
State A makes a law declares Relgion B illegal. You are caught practicing religion B, you go on trial and are found guilty of it.
How does that not match up with the amendment?
and go throw a frisbee.
You aren’t going to argue like Squegee that his little frisbee habit is a sport are you?
April 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pmAh, the “off switch.†I love it when they come with that feature. You have to pay extra for it…
Comment by Zookeeper — April 21, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
On him, I’d pay for it… :)
Remember what it was like to be 20 and indestructable? I noticed that the older we get the more fragile we become – mentally.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:55 pm#109 Seriously, Squeegy, I liked how you worked on your position today. I don’t know if we convinced you, but you fought like hell! Now stop banging your head on the table and go throw a frisbee.
Zookeeper
HA, I tried to tell my boss i was sick and had to go outside for the rest of the day (its wonderful in rochester today) They told me no, I even offered to toss with them, said it would help my ’sickness’ still no.
Slave drivers I tell yah, slave drivers
At least my first league game on sunday though, the team I joined sucks, so even though my skills are decent at best, I should be their allstar in 2-3 games.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:58 pmAh, the “off switch.†I love it when they come with that feature. You have to pay extra for it…
It works out to even for me, Im what you would call a ‘budget’ model.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:59 pmComment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
How’d you come up with that as a screen name?
April 21st, 2006 at 1:59 pmI don’t know, Ive used that, or derivations of it, such as squegeebooo for AIM/email for about 10 years now, and I can’t remeber the initial reason for it.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pm#112 – Squeegy, the law would be overturned before anyone went to trial. Don’t make me come over there.
#113 – Oh, hell no.
#114 – I don’t know, Salma, I’m a lot tougher than I was even 10 years ago — mentally.
#115 – Slacker. You don’t really think it’s a sport, do you? It’s only a sport if while you’re tossing the frisbee there are bears chasing you.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:04 pm;)
State A makes a law declares Relgion B illegal. You are caught practicing religion B, you go on trial and are found guilty of it.
How does that not match up with the amendment?
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
No individual state could pass such a law without it being challenged and very likely struck down, because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment in one fundamental way: That state would be passing a law to abridge individuals’ rights -as put forth in the First Amendment.
The First Amendment gives all citizens of the United States freedom of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly says no state can pass any law that would violate that right.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pm#120 The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly says no state can pass any law that would violate that right.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Explictly because your considering it as a privilege due to the first amendment?
#119 #115 – Slacker. You don’t really think it’s a sport, do you? It’s only a sport if while you’re tossing the frisbee there are bears chasing you.
I consider it a club level sport. Solid running for an hour(depending on your exact rules). Rule system that has points/scoring etc. Seems as much as sport as soccer is. Although tundra prob. won’t give me that one either.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm#121 – Well, if you’re comparing chasing a frisbee to soccer, I’d agree with you.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:13 pmExplictly because your considering it as a privilege due to the first amendment?
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Now you are getting silly and pigheaded…
Fourteenth Amendment: “(…)nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (…)”
No law can be passed to restrict your right to freedom of religion. That’s the supreme law of the land. No state can supersede that law.
This is not just my opinion. Read the entry in the Wikipedia for a primer… sheeess…
April 21st, 2006 at 2:20 pm#123 – I leave him to you on this one, Gregor. Good luck!
If nothing else, you can start saying things like, “You’re absolutely correct in your assertion that the Fourteenth Amendment protect us….blah, blah blah.” It gets his noggin spinning in a cute way.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:25 pm:-)
I consider it a club level sport.
There are no clubs in Frisbee, if there was it would be a sport (Unless it was like golf and you didn’t hit each other with said clubs).
Seems as much as sport as soccer is
April 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pmI rest my case. Honestly though it’s not a bad womans sport I guess.
Actually read it now Gregor.
“At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the due process clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials.”
How much longer until it extends to the second amendment?
and interesting bit on the controversy around it being ratified.
“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
April 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pmI took to mean the laws of the states the people where with in. But your view on it makes more sense.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV .
Cornell Law School: First amendment
It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the first amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself. Nevertheless, a general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed,(…)
April 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pmWikipedia: United States Constitution
#125 – Tundra, because we have a consensus on risbee/soccer being sports, I shall ignore the “woman’s sport” crack. Date much?
#126 – Actually read it now Gregor.
Ah, now the problem reveals itself. Gregor’s going to blow a gasket, Squeegy, and that wouldn’t be right. I like Gregor. Done now?
April 21st, 2006 at 2:41 pm#128 – …consensus on frisbee/soccer NOT being sports.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pmProofread much? Shit.
#126 I meant I’ve actually read it now.
As in, now I’ve read it, Gregor.
But like usual my grammatical skills have failed me. Its why im a computer major, not an english major, well that and wanting a job after college.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pmActually read it now Gregor.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
aaarrrggghhh!!!
I had the feeling you hadn’t…. I managed not to kick my desk…
April 21st, 2006 at 2:45 pm#131
Did you see the part about how incorporation of the religous part of the 1st amendment took until the 1940’s to happen, and that the 14th amendment wasn’t even used that way until either 1897 or 1925? Don’t really have a point, just found it interesting.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:51 pm#130 – I knew what you meant, Squeegy. I’m used to your grammatical flair. See? Look what you’ve done to Gregor.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:52 pmHa, http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS/604210574/1001/NEWS0105
Some congressional candidate had 97K stolen by a campaign person, and now that its been returned she can’t put it back into her fund because it would break maximum campaign contribution rules.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:56 pmI rest my case. Honestly though it’s not a bad womans sport I guess.
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Ahem… (arms crossed, foot tapping)
April 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pmSome congressional candidate had 97K stolen by a campaign person, and now that its been returned she can’t put it back into her fund because it would break maximum campaign contribution rules.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 21, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
You shoudl date one another. You have the same faulty logic… :)
April 21st, 2006 at 3:11 pm135
Ahem… (arms crossed, foot tapping)
What?? You don’t think women could handle soccer? Well let me just say I think they can. If Squegee can do frisbee then women can do Soccer. They may have to shorten the field a littlebit and have a man for a goalie (You know the ball flying at them the whole game and all) but I’m sure they could do it.
:)
April 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pmWhat?? You don’t think women could handle soccer?
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Guess you’ve never heard of Mia Hamm, then?
Are any of your children girls?
April 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pmGuess you’ve never heard of Mia Hamm, then?
April 21st, 2006 at 4:26 pmIsn’t she that sports bra model?
Isn’t she that sports bra model?
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Operative word being ’sports’, perhaps?
April 21st, 2006 at 4:42 pmOperative word being ’sports’, perhaps?
Well then she can’t play soccer :)
April 21st, 2006 at 5:42 pmHave a great weekend, ya’ll.
April 21st, 2006 at 6:24 pmThe trails are calling me — Come, Zookeeper, walk upon our pine needles, enjoy the nature silence, and take pretty pictures of our wildlife — but leave the f*cking dog home.
“But it looks to me as if the world of blogs may be filling up with people who for the previous 200 millennia of human existence kept their weird thoughts more or less to themselves.â€
Then WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
The WSJ needs to hire Adam & Eve to factcheck THEIR blathering nonsense. Maybe they should just hire another of Adam’s ribs. After all, his ribs work cheap.
‘Thou shalt not kill,’ WSJ. Unless there’s a sufficient profit in LOSING YOUR SOUL.
April 21st, 2006 at 6:46 pm“I don’t think the blogosphere is breeding cannibals.” Daniel Henninger
Hmmmm, I’m sure Mr. Henninger would go quite nicely with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:54 pmHmmmm….. So the “Marine Corps” would prefer that instead of getting equipment clearly needed in Iraq and elsewhere, the money should be used to further fund the ongoing “development” of the “Osprey”, currently entering it’s third DECADE of “development”. What a BRILLIANT idea!!! Ummm… no. When it is referred to as “Emergency Appropriations”, for the mess in Iraq, the Senators’ “pet projects” just have to wait their turn. Or, they could always put their funding wants into the regular budget bill. It is still open for “additions”, isn’t it? Something about the “differing versions” of the bill the President signed? Troop needs first. Simple, something all ‘voters’ can understand. And Politicians would be hardpressed to explain NOT funding it first.
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 amWell then she can’t play soccer :)
Comment by Tundra — April 21, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
Don’t tell that to the French. Or Ricky Martin… allez, allez, allez!
Several years ago I had some friends who played competition frisbee. It was rugby with a disc instead of a ball. Most of those guys were routinely bruised or bandaged in some form. So, if ice curling can be considered a sport, then I don’t see why full-contact frisbee counldn’t.
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:49 ambut leave the f*cking dog home.
Comment by Zookeeper — April 21, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
You’re a trip Pippi! LOL! Enjoy it!
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 amGolf Swing Training Aid Clubs
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pmCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:25 amRugby Training Equipment
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm1 800 flowers
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
March 27th, 2008 at 4:03 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pmVases
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmBankruptcy Laws Fl
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pmCash Loan Advance
Phenomenal cash loan program approving cash loan advances for US residents.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:35 am