|
|
worth thinking about
regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you
honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking It's here http://www.appellateacademy.org/even...rks_110705.pdf Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. |
worth thinking about
"BJ Conner" wrote in message ups.com... It's here http://www.appellateacademy.org/even...rks_110705.pdf Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. Nope, this ain't the speech she gave at Georgetown Univ., on March 9, 2006; as what you linked us to is dated Nov. 7, 2005. Op |
worth thinking about
BJ Conner wrote
Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- remove the 'la' to email me |
worth thinking about
"Fiddleaway" wrote in message news:01c6448c$a15a55c0$05ff1345@micron... BJ Conner wrote Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- I suspect that it would better be asked, what part of "judicial independence" don't you understand? Op |
worth thinking about
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote in article
... "Fiddleaway" wrote in message news:01c6448c$a15a55c0$05ff1345@micron... BJ Conner wrote Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- I suspect that it would better be asked, what part of "judicial independence" don't you understand? Well...now there's a couple a questions ... which article are we going to talk about? And I think it's pretty clear from his tone that he sees beyond the obvious to some deeper level not obvious to those of us with merely a public education. With regard to the article he cited the questions still stand. Who needs to read it? and What does it really mean? -- -dnc- |
worth thinking about
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking Wonderful speech. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. |
worth thinking about
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking I think the speech itself is going to be hard to find - no recordings of any kind. FWIW, I've heard the NPR person has already caught flack for "misrepresenting" what O'Connor said by taking selected parts of the speech and cobbling it together with commentary to put a slant on it. That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers desired or what they intended to design, and given your views as expressed on ROFF, I'd suspect that you'd freak out if such a system were implemented as they intended. Assuming that some here are right about Bush and Co. and an "imperial Presidency" that doesn't answer to the "riff-raff," I think you'd find it closer to what they had in mind than not. So-called (modern) conservatives generally champion laws that don't offend the Constitution but can, and often do, offend the individual, whereas so-called (modern) liberals generally champion laws that make particular individuals feel great but offend the Constitution. As examples, guns (because the 2nd is clear and combined with legislative intent, it is ironclad), most "recreational" drugs, and abortion (because the Constitution is silent directly on-point) should be legislated, not controlled by the Supreme Court. IMO, they should be Federally legal, with caveats, generally without input from or notice by the Supreme Court (form of law excepted, should the case arise) - malum prohibitum vs malum in se, unless the former crosses the line in such a way that the latter would be a foreseeable result, i.e., drunk driving in an unsafe (and uninsured, just to get it all messy) vehicle. OTOH, a lot of what is put forth a "free" press and a separation of church and state is just plain wrong - as examples, there is no language, and no intent, to allow the press to run amok, nor any prohibition against, for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings. TC, R |
worth thinking about
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:46:08 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L" wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking I think the speech itself is going to be hard to find - no recordings of any kind. Someone already posted a link to the speech. It was the same speech she gave back in November of last year. I don't think it is. FWIW, I've heard the NPR person has already caught flack for "misrepresenting" what O'Connor said by taking selected parts of the speech and cobbling it together with commentary to put a slant on it. That's nonsense, the only thing Nina Totenberg can be accused of in that piece is naming names where O'Connor didn't. There was no "misrepresentation" or "slant". Oh, OK...so O'Connor's opinion of a story about her own speech is nonsense? Well, good luck with that and all... The GOP got bitch slapped, and rightly so, they're the party constantly complaining about the left-wing judiciary legislating from the bench. Um, if the speech posted in the link is the speech you think "bitch slapped" the GOP, you might actually want to read the speech at the link posted. TC, R |
worth thinking about
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The GOP got bitch slapped, and rightly so, they're the party constantly complaining about the left-wing judiciary legislating from the bench. Speaking of the GOP, consider Claude A. Allen, Bush's former top domestic policy advisor, who mysteriously and abruptly resigned last month, citing a desire to "spend more time with his family." This guy is a extreme social conservative who developed White House policy on things like abortion, stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, and so on. Bush appointed him the the U.S. Court of Appeals, but those evil Democrats blocked his confirmation. It looks like he'll end up in court after all. Yesterday he was arrested for felony shoplifting. He can spend time with his family during visiting hours. That's what you get for taking the GOP's "lie, cheat, steal" mantra too literally. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
worth thinking about
wrote That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers desired or what they intended to design, that could easily be, I'm not an expert, for sure I'd suspect that you'd freak out if such a system were implemented as they intended. I find it amazing how you can understand my views and pin them down so well. I, on the other hand, find myself constantly changing and challenging my own thoughts and often I'm not nearly as certain about what LarryL believes as you are. FWIW, I suggested listening and thinking ... I did NOT suggest a "correct" way to listen. One thing that all members of the Rdean Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club seem to have in common is listening ( reading ) only to find something to attack, as opposed to listening to hear what was said. To me, that pretty much explains why this place contains so little conversation amidst all the noise. It may be built into the media, not just RWAC membership, as I am replying mainly to what irked me g, ........ much of your second paragraph makes good sense to me. Again, fwiw, I think 'social liberals' have way, way, overcooked many of their issues, including prayer in schools and religious symbols in public places. I do NOT claim a religion, but I recently heard a 'conservative' say something to the effect that " freedom of religion' was never meant to imply freedom from exposure to religion, just the right to choose your own" .... I agree. There is some nut in California using all his own time and money fighting every last religious symbol in every last place he can find one .... what a waste of precious life and resource On the other hand, I believe that 'social conservatives' also tend to overcook their issues. By example, I believe that calling 4 cells in a test-tube a 'human' in fact belittles the whole meaning and special-ness of humanity. If a 'complete set' of human DNA, alone, has a 'soul' then having one loses meaning. I can't help but think that reducing 'humanness' to such levels must really **** God off. Or, although I own several guns, I think extending 'right to bear arms' to mean that anybody should be able to have a 50cal automatic rifle or three, and a few grenade launchers, is an insult to the founders ... if they were that stupid we should certainly NOT feel bound by their documents. Carrying any idea to absurd extremes makes that idea .... absurd ... whether the idea started out right or left of center. That last sentence is, I believe, a pretty accurate statement of one of the things LarryL believes. |
worth thinking about
"Larry L" wrote in message ... ...One thing that all members of the Rdean Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club seem to have in common is listening ( reading ) only to find something to attack, as opposed to listening to hear what was said.... Not me, boss. I only listen/read to find sufficient cause to beat, sue, lecture, shoot, pepper spray or citizens arrest the neighbors......um.....and/or their pets. Wolfgang |
worth thinking about
|
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote:
... FWIW, I suggested listening and thinking ... I did NOT suggest a "correct" way to listen. One thing that all members of the Rdean Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club seem to have in common is listening ( reading ) only to find something to attack, as opposed to listening to hear what was said. To me, that pretty much explains why this place contains so little conversation amidst all the noise. ... This untimely little personal attack right out of the blue pretty much explains why I consider you a pompous jackass and a mean-spirited sociopath. I'll bet you were probably an OK sort of guy before you quit drinkin' and started ridin' a high horse, but it's sure hard to tell from the snotty notes you post here now. -- Ken Fortenberry |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote:
wrote I find it amazing how you can understand my views and pin them down so well. I, on the other hand, find myself constantly changing and challenging my own thoughts and often I'm not nearly as certain about what LarryL believes as you are. FWIW, I suggested listening and thinking ... I did NOT suggest a "correct" way to listen. One thing that all members of the Rdean Wolfenberry AbUseNet Club seem to have in common is listening ( reading ) only to find something to attack, as opposed to listening to hear what was said. To me, that pretty much explains why this place contains so little conversation amidst all the noise. It may be built into the media, not just RWAC membership, as I am replying mainly to what irked me g, ........ much of your second paragraph makes good sense to me. I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. Wolfie is just doing it to get a rise from people. He's a weakminded, lonely, bitter man and gets his jollies off by riling people. |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about I was sure that yoiu were talking about Eisenhower's parting speech (featured in "Why We Went to War," showing at a few theaters here and there). |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote: wrote That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers desired or what they intended to design, that could easily be, I'm not an expert, for sure Either is RDean, so you are in excellent company :-) |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote: wrote That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers desired or what they intended to design, that could easily be, I'm not an expert, for sure Either does RDean, so you are in excellent company :-) |
worth thinking about
"Joe Smith" wrote in message ... I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet doesn't say anything. Wolfie is just doing it to get a rise from people. He's a weakminded, lonely, bitter man and gets his jollies off by riling people. If you stop scratching those sores they won't continue to get bigger. Well, not as fast, anyway. :) Wolfgang |
worth thinking about
wrote in message
nor any prohibition against, for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings. and then "Larry L" wrote in message Again, fwiw, I think 'social liberals' have way, way, overcooked many of their issues, including prayer in schools and religious symbols in public places. There are few issues more inaccurately portrayed those of prayer in schools and religious symbols. Religious extremists and conservative politicians have gleefully, and with great effect, promoted those misperceptions to the point, it seems, that nearly everyone believe them. To bust probably the most pervasive myth, let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a problem when the government requires it. Contrary to the hyperbole whipped up by Christian religious fervor, the Constitution actually guarantees that right to pray, not prevents it. It's all right here, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's that simple. The undeniability is that this country is predominantly Christian, so any law that prevents state sponsorship of religion is perceived as anti-Christian and, by extension, anti-God and anti-religion. "Those durned libruls want us to be a godless society." Nothing could be farther from the truth, yet conservatives and preachers spout this bull**** every day to their millions of sheep, and before you can say "founding fathers", it's the prevailing paradigm. As is my test for fairness for most issues, I look at it as if the tables were turned. Suppose some Christian family's little child were in a classroom where the teacher, or even the state school system, required that Muslim prayers be recited every morning by every child. The Christian family would not like it and could and would challenge it on Constitutional grounds. Suppose the courthouse in their hometown wanted to erect a monument of the Koran in front so that every visitor to this government building had to pass by it. Would the Christian family like it? Hell no, but they squealed bloody murder when teacher-lead Christian prayer was outlawed, and those echoes are still heard today. Yet there seems to be the feeling that if 99.99% of a population is Christian, that population gets to **** on the Constitution and to hell with that unfortunate .01% who aren't the "right" religion. And make no mistake about it, the protection of the rights of that .01% is an extremely difficult political fight, because if you win, you have the support of .01% of the electorate, hardly enough to win re-election. That's why most of the fight is in the courts, because politicians of either party aren't going to stand up for the civil rights of Muslims these days. That's also why institutions like the ACLU and AU are so important, and so reviled. Christian America doesn't like having their noses rubbed in the 1st Amendment. So have we liberals "overcooked" the issue? I disagree. The separation of government policies from religious dogma is of primary importance in this country, and one that is under constant attack. Some of the battles can be monumental, some seem trivial; but it is impossible to overstate the importance of each one. Joe F. |
worth thinking about
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:37:12 GMT, rw
wrote: wrote: So-called (modern) conservatives generally champion laws that don't offend the Constitution but can, and often do, offend the individual, whereas so-called (modern) liberals generally champion laws that make particular individuals feel great but offend the Constitution. As examples, guns (because the 2nd is clear and combined with legislative intent, it is ironclad), most "recreational" drugs, and abortion (because the Constitution is silent directly on-point) should be legislated, not controlled by the Supreme Court. IMO, they should be Federally legal, with caveats, generally without input from or notice by the Supreme Court (form of law excepted, should the case arise) - malum prohibitum vs malum in se, unless the former crosses the line in such a way that the latter would be a foreseeable result, i.e., drunk driving in an unsafe (and uninsured, just to get it all messy) vehicle. OTOH, a lot of what is put forth a "free" press and a separation of church and state is just plain wrong - as examples, there is no language, and no intent, to allow the press to run amok, nor any prohibition against, for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings. Conservatives (so-called) are continually whining about liberal activist Supreme Court justices, but they don't bother to define what "activist" means. Well, as long as it's not some goofy system, like going by their shoe size times the square of their Kreh number or something... A reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism can be had with this question: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress? Oh, this ought to be good.... Here are the numbers: Thomas 65.63 % Kennedy 64.06 % Scalia 56.25 % Rehnquist 46.88 % O'Connor 46.77 % Souter 42.19 % Stevens 39.34 % Ginsburg 39.06 % Breyer 28.13 % Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush the First, is the most activist. Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is the least activist. Thomas and Breyer stand about as much chance of being labeled as all-time great SCOTUS justices as you do... The clear pattern is that the judges considered to be "conservative" are most activist than those considered to be "liberal". It that what's clear to you? Man, I'd love to be in the room when they give you a Rorschach...here's a hint: none of the blots are supposed to be Hillary's penis... What conservatives really mean by "activists" is that some judges don't decide cases according to right-wing ideology. Uh, huh...and explain Ginsburg at 40%... |
worth thinking about
rb608 wrote:
let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a problem when the government requires it. I'm in complete agreement with you, Joe, but I want to clarify something. The government not only cannot REQUIRE prayer in schools -- it cannot SANCTION it. For example, it is not permissible for a public school to conduct organized prayer even if they allow students to decline to participate. The Supreme Court has been clear about this, although with our two recently appointed justices that could change. I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God we Trust" removed from coins, the bible removed from swearing-in ceremonies, etc., but there are bigger Constitutional abuses to worry about at the moment. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
worth thinking about
|
worth thinking about
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:38:53 GMT, rw
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:37:12 GMT, rw wrote: Here are the numbers: Thomas 65.63 % Kennedy 64.06 % Scalia 56.25 % Rehnquist 46.88 % O'Connor 46.77 % Souter 42.19 % Stevens 39.34 % Ginsburg 39.06 % Breyer 28.13 % Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush the First, is the most activist. Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is the least activist. Thomas and Breyer stand about as much chance of being labeled as all-time great SCOTUS justices as you do... Stupid and arrogant is a bad combination. Well, duh...that's among the long list of reasons why you'll never be a great SC justice... |
worth thinking about
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:35:38 GMT, rw
wrote: rb608 wrote: let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a problem when the government requires it. I'm in complete agreement with you, Joe, but I want to clarify something. The government not only cannot REQUIRE prayer in schools -- it cannot SANCTION it. For example, it is not permissible for a public school to conduct organized prayer even if they allow students to decline to participate. The Supreme Court has been clear about this, although with our two recently appointed justices that could change. And just what do you think they meant, on that Fifteenth Day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, when they said, right out of the starting gate, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God we Trust" removed from coins, the bible removed from swearing-in ceremonies, etc., but there are bigger Constitutional abuses to worry about at the moment. Well, shoot, boy, if you weren't so stupid and arrogant, maybe you could get up there and straighten it all out... |
worth thinking about
|
worth thinking about
Wolfgang wrote:
"Joe Smith" wrote in message ... I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet doesn't say anything. While I disagree with most of what each of them say, it's obvious that they believe what they say. You are just playing some silly game. My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. |
worth thinking about
"Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. You guess wrong |
worth thinking about
"Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. Wolfgang wrote: "Joe Smith" wrote in message ... I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet doesn't say anything. While I disagree with most of what each of them say, And who do you suppose gives a ****? it's obvious that they believe what they say. Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say anything. You are just playing some silly game. You're a dumbass. My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. Husband those guesses......they're all you've got. Wolfgang |
worth thinking about
"Wayne Knight" wrote in message ... "Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. You guess wrong Old habits are hard to break. :) By the way, did you call me yesterday?......or did I have a really odd fever induced dream? :( Wolfgang |
worth thinking about
Wolfgang wrote:
"Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. Wolfgang wrote: "Joe Smith" wrote in message ... I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet doesn't say anything. While I disagree with most of what each of them say, And who do you suppose gives a ****? Oh wow, 20 questions. I do, I do. it's obvious that they believe what they say. Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say anything. Show me where I said that did. You are just playing some silly game. You're a dumbass. Sticks and stones my little pretty. My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. Husband those guesses......they're all you've got. Thank God. I'd hate to have to put up with you in real life. On this board, you're just a pitiful little person. |
worth thinking about
"Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. Wolfgang wrote: "Joe Smith" wrote in message . .. Wolfgang wrote: "Joe Smith" wrote in message ... I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what they spout. That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet doesn't say anything. While I disagree with most of what each of them say, And who do you suppose gives a ****? Oh wow, 20 questions. Looks like just one to me......but then, I'm not a good reader. I do, I do. Well, that makes roughly two of you. it's obvious that they believe what they say. Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say anything. Show me where I said that did. Show me where I said that you said that did. You are just playing some silly game. You're a dumbass. Sticks and stones my little pretty. True enough......but it doesn't make you any less a dumbass, does it? My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do with you. Husband those guesses......they're all you've got. Thank God. Well, MOST people would thank their gods on being informed that they have something MORE than just guesses. To each his own, eh? I'd hate to have to put up with you in real life. You'd hate it more than you can possibly guess. On this board, you're just a pitiful little person. Yeah, not the sort of thing you'd bother with.......right? Wolfgang |
worth thinking about
|
worth thinking about
Fiddleaway wrote:
wrote And just what do you think they meant, on that Fifteenth Day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, when they said, right out of the starting gate, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think it's pretty clear there is a disagreement about what they meant. I'm also pretty sure that after all the arguments are in and the dust settles the disagreement won't be resolved. That's why we have a Supreme Court. And they've made an interpretation about what was meant, which is what they've been charged to do. It could be overturned ... or not. It won't stop the losing side from ****ing and moaning about how badly the SC misinterpreted language whose intent is obvious to all but the severly obtuse. The First Amendment, and in particular the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is very clear and unambiguous. Compared to the Second Amendment, with its "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...", the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
worth thinking about
rw
... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity... it clearly prohibits itself ;-) |
worth thinking about
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... By the way, did you call me yesterday?......or did I have a really odd fever induced dream? :( Yup, I called. I owe you half a lunch. |
worth thinking about
rb608 wrote: So have we liberals "overcooked" the issue? I disagree. The separation of government policies from religious dogma is of primary importance in this country, and one that is under constant attack. Some of the battles can be monumental, some seem trivial; but it is impossible to overstate the importance of each one. It's ironic (but an understandable development, since they are linked) that while send boys and girls to die fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, our own homegrown version is flourishing. |
worth thinking about
Fiddleaway wrote:
rw ... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity... it clearly prohibits itself ;-) How do you figure? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
worth thinking about
"rw" wrote in message k.net... Fiddleaway wrote: rw ... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity... it clearly prohibits itself ;-) How do you figure? yeah, i don't understand that position. yfitons wayno |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter