Not going gently in to the good night...

[Gebeker]

You are right. I should tone it down. I just get frustrated with the constant and relentless bashing of Republicans and conservatives in here, and I tend to blow up every now and then.

Then, he wrote:

Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

I guess it's just fine for you to state that Al Frankin is a greater threat to this country than Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, but that "constant and relentless bashing of Republicans and conservatives" has just GOT to stop.

[Grifman]

Anyone think some conservatives wouldn't love to get rid of this and establish Christianity as the state religion and shut down the ability to speak freely? .

This is silly. I can throw accusations around also - anyone think some liberals out there wouldn't love to get rid of this and shut down all religious expression?

Two can play this game if you want.

Grifman

[Grifman]

Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

Ok with one hand I spank one side, with the other hand I spank the other side. This is ridiculous, MSD, but it does explain your attitude in many ways.

I disagree with liberals AND conservatives on alot of matters, but neither one is going to bring the Republic down. The country lurches from one to the other over time so neither is ever going to get all that they want - which is good in my eyes. But I would never demonize either side as you have done here. Taking half the population and basically saying they are un-American is a bit much to say the least.

The other problem with this attitude is the smugness that you are 100% right. There are many position/beliefs that I have, and some/many of them I don't know if they are necessarily the correct position - I know that I am human and fallible. I know I have been wrong on certain things after certain policies were implemented and things did not go as I thought they would afterwards. But you don't seem to have any of that self doubt. I suggest a little more political humbleness on your part might go a long way.

Grifman

[Tareeq]

No, you are completely missing the point of my post.

Perhaps I missed the point of your post because it was unexpressed?

[Mr. Fed]

As MrFed (a person who knows a bit more about law than MSDuncan, Poleaxe, or myself)

That, I doubt.

[Tareeq]

As MrFed (a person who knows a bit more about law than MSDuncan, Poleaxe, or myself)

That, I doubt.

I don't doubt it but I didn't say it. Gebeker did.

[Grifman]

With all due respect, Red states are notorious for most of those things. As anyone who understands 'conditioning' and 'control' of the populace - the Red states fell into line as they always have. It's not anyone's fault that blue states generally have better opportunity to grow beyond the 'birth/school/work/death' thing... That's just how it is. You can't blame someone because they don't have the advantages that you do - and you also can't fault a human because they grow up in an environment that places emphasis not on what you do - but what you are NOT supposed to do --- i.e. the culture of fear.

I'm lucky I don't live in that world and I don't look down my snout. I was just lucky to get a chance to move out of a red state and see that humanity is more than a bible and that killing innocent people and taking away freedom is not as important than just doing what you can to live and let live - and not telling anyone else how to do it. Cuz red or blue, our shit all stinks and we're all gonna die. So who gives a crap?

McBain, I have a special red tinfoil hat for you.

Grifman

[$iljanus]

Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

I don't know. One of my cousins was telling me about the Evil Liberal Empire over Thanksgiving dinner. He just started with them and says they have great benefits which even cover domestic partners, excellent health care, affordable child care for working parents and a good pension plan. He has a gig on one of their construction planets where he's helping to build a new, improved battlestation. Not only is their planet killing beam generator more eco-friendly, but there are numerous recycling bins on the station, baby changing and lactation stations, and it has the latest in solar power technology which cuts emissions down to zero, unlike the older model which required an exhaust port. Doesn't sound too bad to me. shrug

[CSL]

return to a Constitution that forbids an income tax.

How would the government gain any money? By a sales tax or something?

and even return to the idea that only land owners can vote (since they have a vested interest)

How do land owners have a larget vested interest in America then any other citizen? The idea of having land ownership be a requirement to voting is a step backwards and I'm quite surprised you'd even entertain the idea after all the talk you make about loving democracy.

I agree with you that I think the founders had it right the first time. I recognize that they wisely laid the foundations to abolish slavery when they wrote up that document -- they just realized the political reality that they couldn't yet do it and hold the Republic together at that moment.

If they so wisely saw that why did many of them own slaves until they died?

Why do I back the Republicans and Bush so feverishly? Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

Need I go on? Or will you cling to that misguided statement?

If this movement finally and once and for all seizes control, the Republic will truly be dead, and the chains of government control will wrap ever tighter around our necks for the next several centuries. Call it the political dark ages if you will.

Odd I didn't see that happen under any of the previous democratic Presidents. Roosevelt, Truman, Clinton, etc. Lets just run around with our arms in the air yelling wolf.

I make no mistake that if the Democrats were in power, the 2nd Amendment would be the very first casualty.

Again did that ever occur during another democratic presidency? For that amendment to get revoked the democrats would need to control the house and senet right? I don't see that happening any time soon. Do you?

THAT is why I so blindly and feverishly support Bush.

A yes, blind faith in your President. Thats such a wonderful thing.

We're truly in a pickle -- having to form a united front for a party that doesn't support the old Republic for the sake of keeping a much greater evil at bay. But that's what I do every day.

Well you keep on fighting the good fight. Your doing a great job with the fear mongering, first step towards coercing the populace.

[The Mad Hatter]

[
THAT is why I so blindly and feverishly support Bush.

Blind support of anything or anyone is the antithesis of the American Founding Fathers and the constitution they created. How can you not see that?

So when you see me defend Bush and the Republicans to the nth degree -- it's because I don't want to even open the door to the Democrats to exploit a weakness in order to get into power to further their world socialists positions.

You obviously have no idea what socialism is if you think the Democratic party represents it. I especially love the "world socialism" part, with its echoes of the specter of communism. Nice bit of red baiting there.

[Fireball]

1. You lost. Big time.

On top of being a terrible winner, a real arrogant boaster, you're also not very politically knowledgable. 3% is not a "big time" defeat. Clinton over Dole was a "big time" win. Bush over Dukakis and both of Reagan's victories were "big time" wins (actually both of Reagan's victories were landslides). 3% is not a "big time" win, nor is 51% much in the way of a mandate.

People like you were a great part of the reason that I left the Republican Party in 2002.

[Fireball]

Christianity isn't a religion, it's a faith.

Stupid comments like this make me ashamed to be a Christian. Of course Christianity is a religion -- in fact, it is a collection of religions. You could lump them into three groups: traditonal Christian religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, high church Anglicanism), mainstream Christian religions (low-chrch Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism), and more modern, less historical religions (Baptism, Mormonism, so-called "non-denominational" denominations).

To imply that there is a semantic differentiation between Christianity and other religions is an intellectually devoid assertion. Each particular branch of Christianity is a faith and a religion, just like Islam is a faith and a religion, just as Judaism is a faith and a religion, just as Hinduism is a faith and a religion.... and on down through the great beliefs and practicies of this world's diverse theological ecosystem.

Though I may believe Christianity to be more 'true' than any of the other religions, there is still no logical reason to assert that its various forms are not 'religions,' for by both the colloquial and formal definitions of the word "religion" they most certainly are.

[Fireball]

This entire notion of "poor, persecuted Christians" is nonsense as well. Christians are not persecuted in America. Not even close. In the last election, both political parties, including the so-called Left, proferred devoutly and acively religious candidates for the presidency. The majority of both the Left and the right in this country is religious, and the majority of those religious citizens are Christians -- and we're talking major majorities here.

Being denied the "right" to use state-sponsored events and/or facilities as tools for proselytizing is NOT persecution.

Being denied the "right" to pollute science education classes with religious dogma is NOT persecution.

Trying to require churches to obey zoning laws is NOT persecution.

When they force Christians to sit in the backs of busses, then we can talk persecution. When they force Christians into a religious closet, where they have to hide who they are for fear of being fired, being beat up or being killed, then we can talk about persecution.

When a law is passed that allows police to bust down a Christian's door and arrest him and his loved ones for praying in their own homes, then we can talk about persecution.

When they deny Christians the opportunity to serve their country in the military simply because of their religion, then we can talk about persecution.

When a Christian is unable to visit their loved ones in hospitals, unable to inherit property, unable to even form a durable power of attorney in some states, then we can talk about persecution.

When Christians are systematically denied educational and employment opportunities because of their religion, then we can talk about persecution.

When they pass laws barring Christians from voting, then we can talk about persecution.

When an illness is widely ignored and allowed to spread because it mostly infects Christians, and no one wants to help them anyway, then we can talk about persecution.

Christians in America? Persecuted? That's a fucking absurd thing to say.

[Mr. Fed]

Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away. The governors now have direct control over their states. Fear will keep the local communities in line. Fear of PETA, ELF, Susan Sarandon, and guys dressed like giant sea turtles!

[Eduardo X]

Where for art thou, msduncan?

[Padre]

Where for art thou, msduncan?

#

You know that doesn't mean the same as "Where are you, msduncan?", right?

It's meaning is closer to "Why are you msduncan?". At least, unless my English Literature teachers lied to me.

[Quipp]

Where for art thou, msduncan?

#

You know that doesn't mean the same as "Where are you, msduncan?", right?

It's meaning is closer to "Why are you msduncan?". At least, unless my English Literature teachers lied to me.

Might want to check this thread, Padre.

[Exodor]

Occasional poster?

I had over 7000 posts on Gone Gold, probably 90% of them in the political realm/forum. How many did YOU have?

This isn't GoneGold.

And I wasn't playing the "I post more so my opinion counts more card" - rather pointing out that, based on your recent lack of visibility in this forum, it's hard to take your comments regarding the overall atmosphere here too seriously.

The irrational hatred for Bush and the right as well as out and out anti-Americanism permeates this place. Is it any wonder why I stick and move constantly? I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down.

For the second time, I challenge you to provide any sort of evidence for your sweeping generalizations.

Are there anti-Bush posters here? Of course. Are there anti-American posters? Perhaps - although I'm far more reluctant to throw around labels than some, and that's a particularly vicious label to throw.

And no, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

Doesn't matter - you're making unfounded statements about a forum that I enjoy.

And you still refuse to address your assertion that liberals are more of a threat than Al-Queda.

[Exodor]

Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.

The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away. The governors now have direct control over their states. Fear will keep the local communities in line. Fear of PETA, ELF, Susan Sarandon, and guys dressed like giant sea turtles!

Curses! He's onto us!

[noxiousdog]

As MrFed (a person who knows a bit more about law than MSDuncan, Poleaxe, or myself)

That, I doubt.

I don't doubt it but I didn't say it. Gebeker did.

Do multiple personalities share the brain equally, or does one have more access to the law part?

[Poleaxe]

Not exactly. The restrictions of the First Amendment, like the restrictions of nearly every other right in the Bill of Rights, are applied to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment via the Incorporation Doctrine. The Fourteenth Amendment says, in pertinent part, "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." Through the Incorporation Doctrine, courts ruled that the rights enumerated in most of the Bill of Rights were part of the fundamental liberties protected by the due process clause, and thus protected equally from state and federal infringement. (Also from local infringement, as cities and counties and such are mere political subdivisions of states.)

The Establishment Clause was incorporated as part of the same process that incorporated the rest of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, etc. If that's a liberal plot, then it is equally a liberal plot that your local cops can't lock you up without due process or throw you in jail for criticizing liberals. If liberal twisting of the language exists, it exists in the interpretation of the Establishment Clause, not in the decision to apply it to states vs. the federal government.

It's not that I don't understand this, I do. I also realize that much of this could be reversed over time. And though I would like to see much of it reversed, a court which did so over a short period of time would probably be too activist for my tastes. I am after all a conservative.

However, it makes me laugh when Gebeker insists that the constitution is a living document but also expresses indignation at the idea of pecedents being reversed. What he means by implication is that only changes or interpretations should be made which correspond to his view of right and wrong.

And for the record, as someone who strives to be a Christian, attends church and Bible study, and believes in Christ, I am a firm supporter of an Establishment Clause AT LEAST as vigorous as now interpreted, and in fact see it as an essential bulwark defending my religious liberty from theocracy.

For the record, as an agnostic who hasn't attended mass or taken any sacrement in years, I feel that I am making an objective assessment when I say that we are now far removed from the intent of the framers.

[Gebeker]

However, it makes me laugh when Gebeker insists that the constitution is a living document but also expresses indignation at the idea of pecedents being reversed. What he means by implication is that only changes or interpretations should be made which correspond to his view of right and wrong.

Please don't restate my views in misleading and inaccurate ways. My original posts express my views adequately without you restating them, thanks. NOWHERE did I say (or even imply) that it is never acceptable to reverse a legal precedent.

What I said was the following:

The point that the conservatives in this thread (and elsewhere) continuously overlook is that the government can be unfair even if all they do is advocate a particular religion. I'm not fearing that the government will establish a state religion. I'm fearing that the government will unfairly and unwisely become an advocate for a particular religious view. THAT is unfair.

And...

The men that wrote our Constitution were smart enough to know that it must survive and be relevant for a very long time into a future that they could not possibly foresee. Beyond that, it should be remembered that our founding fathers, themselves, disagreed about the meaning of the establishment clause. That's why the courts have been given the authority to make decisions about whether or not laws violate the SPIRIT of the constitution. Modern society is full of situations and issues that our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined. That's why it's meaningless to just do a quick, literal reading of the constitution and then say, "AHA!!!! The constitution doesn't EXPLICITLY forbid the government from doing X, therefore it's ok!"

I wonder how many of the conservatives that are always attacking the separation of church and state have read the important court decisions that deal with the establishment clause. A tremendous amount has been written on the subject by various judges who have devoted their lives to interpreting and defending the constitution. To dismiss their collective conclusions as being the work of "those damn liberals" smacks of arrogance in the extreme. It also seems like a prime example of the unwillingness of the extreme right to consider the complexities of some issues, preferring instead to blame everything they don't like in the world on "those damn liberals".

There is nothing in anything that I wrote that compels me to agree with any and all reversals of established legal precedents.

Edited to correct a couple of errors.

[Poleaxe]

Fine Gebeker, but let me restate my point more clearly.

It is exactly your view of the constitution which would be the instrument by which our government comes closer to advocating religion. You would damn the document to the whims of politics. Worse: with liberal groups challenging things like nativity scenes, displays of the ten commandments, religious use of public property, non-denominational school prayer, the pledge of allegiance- extreme religious groups find political support among moderate christians and the most powerfull political force in the country is created. Even worse: on this issue blacks, hispanics, religious conservatives, and religious moderates generally find common political cause. The most obvious manifestation of the power of this voting block is recent state balloting on the issue of gay marriage where fully 65-70% of the electorate rejected the idea in multiple states from different regions of the country.

By finding no room for compromise on the issue of separation, advocates of extreme secularism have ignited a political battle they can not win. Because they can not win at the ballot, their refuge has been the courts. This in turn has forced advocates of religion to use the political process open to them for changing the makeup of the courts. All of this could have been avoided by a more conservative interpretation of the first amendment. The result will be an extreme conservative court in response to past extreme liberal decisions.

I wonder how this will impact more important areas of the law? And there are more important issues than separation of church and state.

[RunningMn9]

I imagine this won't make any more splash than the last groups that released information and coincidences on the voting patterns versus the exit polls. As Fireball has noted, depite wide variances from the first exit polls that were released, the ultimate numbers matched up very well with the final exit poll data.

I just want to enjoy being right. No splash.

I don't have time to re-read the thread, but was any of the stuff LM's gaming buddy's wife talking about related to the Berkeley study released a few weeks ago?

Maybe related to what LM's friend was talking about.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I imagine this won't make any more splash than the last groups that released information and coincidences on the voting patterns versus the exit polls. As Fireball has noted, depite wide variances from the first exit polls that were released, the ultimate numbers matched up very well with the final exit poll data.

I just want to enjoy being right. No splash.

I don't have time to re-read the thread, but was any of the stuff LM's gaming buddy's wife talking about related to the Berkeley study released a few weeks ago?

Maybe related to what LM's friend was talking about.

For that to be even marginally impressive, someone would have had to challenge that assertion. I didn't notice anyone arguing with you... perhaps that was just the voices in your head?

But feel free to congratulate me on knowing the sun was going to come up this morning.

[LordMortis]

Nope, not related to my knowledge. The interesting stuff all died on the vine, and as I am not an authority, to say more than that is just hearsay. No splash.

Falling far short of the reform mark, an important objective was achieved, though. New Hampshire demonstrated a good and efficient methodology for tracking votes, which seems to be lacking in many other states and can be championed as a model for other states to look at. The point being that if voters are disgruntled that there is real process in place to deal with their issues other saying "get over it."

[Eduardo X]

I heard this morning that the recount in Ohio won't be ready until well after January. And that 95,000 votes were thrown out. They were vague with the specifics, but it seemed they said that the electronic voting machines were the culprits in those lost votes. That's a lot of messed up votes!