homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums!


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums!   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Your News!   » Still "One nation, under God" (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Still "One nation, under God"
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 03:01      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What baffles me about the GameMaster is that he says he spends so much time crafting his posts, that by the end of this process, he is just too exhausted to run them through a spell check. So I just cannot understand why the position he takes and arguments he presents are so incoherent. To take one random example:-

quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
Are you forgetting about separation of church and state?
What seperation? Look at the amendment!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (snip)."

There is no mention of seperation.

Er no Gamemaster, forbidding the establishment of a religion is exactly that. It does ensure a separation of church and state. So this is like arguing that black is white.

Now argument for its own sake, is not a wholly bad thing, and I don't mind people who argue from a position they do not hold, providing that they are actually interested in teasing out the issues, and testing the logical soundness of the various arguments. But when your posts are as illogical and thoughtless as this, (and I believe you are a reasonably intelligent person), there must be more than a suspicion you were trolling, that your main interest was in stirring people up for your own amusement. So I can quite understand why Spungo and others are annoyed, and they are right to be so, as nobody likes such disrespectful treatment.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
z9
Single Celled Newbie
Member # 2786

Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 10:00      Profile for z9         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have all missed the point of the Pledge debate. The ultraleft 9th Circuit, the most overturned Appeals Court in the US, usurped legislative authority.

The phrase "under God" does not violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. The establishment clause is intended to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion (like Islam in Iran).

The phrase "separation of church and state" or anything remotely like it does not appear in the Constitution.

The proper place to address the Pledge issue is writing your Congressman and requesting that they change the law. A man who can't even stayed married to the mother of his child and fullfill his obligations as a father has no business suing on behalf of his daughter, particularly because the daughter and the mother (the custodial parent) disagree.

Cannucks, Aussies, and Brits can be excused for not understanding the nuances of this debate. They have nothing like the Bill of Rights and are much more subject to the free speech limitations of their current governments. And for Cap'n Vic, here is a mispeled word so you can disregard my argument.

--------------------
I was anti-Obama before it was cool!

Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 10:29      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by z9:
You have all missed the point of the Pledge debate. The ultraleft 9th Circuit, the most overturned Appeals Court in the US, usurped legislative authority.

The phrase "under God" does not violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. The establishment clause is intended to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion (like Islam in Iran).


The phrase "separation of church and state" or anything remotely like it does not appear in the Constitution.

The proper place to address the Pledge issue is writing your Congressman and requesting that they change the law. A man who can't even stayed married to the mother of his child and fullfill his obligations as a father has no business suing on behalf of his daughter, particularly because the daughter and the mother (the custodial parent) disagree.

Cannucks, Aussies, and Brits can be excused for not understanding the nuances of this debate. They have nothing like the Bill of Rights and are much more subject to the free speech limitations of their current governments. And for Cap'n Vic, here is a mispeled word so you can disregard my argument.

Hmmm. I wonder who you are. A newbie? Just wading into a hot thread?.....Not likely. [Roll Eyes]

BTW...it is CANUCK [Razz]

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 10:38      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by z9:
Cannucks, Aussies, and Brits can be excused for not understanding the nuances of this debate. They have nothing like the Bill of Rights and are much more subject to the free speech limitations of their current governments.

Umm, try this link. Freedom of religion is in the Australian constitution, and there's a clause preventing the adoption of a state religion. I can't speak for the others, but if you're as thoroughly researched on them as you are on this one, well...

quote:
And for Cap'n Vic, here is a mispeled word so you can disregard my argument.
Oh, very witty [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 10:48      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
Umm, try this link. Freedom of religion is in the Australian constitution, and there's a clause preventing the adoption of a state religion. I can't speak for the others, but if you're as thoroughly researched on them as you are on this one, well...


Hey, look us too!!
Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 11:01      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by z9:
A man who can't even stayed married to the mother of his child and fullfill his obligations as a father has no business suing on behalf of his daughter, particularly because the daughter and the mother (the custodial parent) disagree.

I realize this has very little to do with the point of your argument, but he was never actually married to the mother of his child. That doesn't really excuse him from not keeping at least an amicable relationship with her around his daughter.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
—Miss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 11:03      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by z9:
Cannucks, Aussies, and Brits can be excused for not understanding the nuances of this debate. They have nothing like the Bill of Rights and are much more subject to the free speech limitations of their current governments.

I think you'll find that free speech is alive and well in the UK - for instance we have the right to wear whatever slogan we want on our t-shirts, and to not get arrested for it.

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6530 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 2 posted June 15, 2004 11:45      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, let me get this straight. You get a year in jail for wearing a t-shirt saying "Give peace a chance" but you get nothing for 'broom handling' an Iraqi POW?

That is priceless.

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 13:48      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We Brits don't need no stinking constitution! And no separation of church and state either. The Queen is the righteous head of State and Church. Even if the church was made up so Henry could stop killing his wives.

I have to admit, I don't understand why Americans take the constitution so seriously. It's a law, like any other, written by people just as fallible as the current crop of legislators. If it was perfect, it wouldn't need amending so many times would it?

Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 8 posted June 15, 2004 13:59      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't even get me going on the Queen and Royal family
Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 16:14      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Whatever, he is a fucking moron anyway you slice it. He chose to play his stupid game, and he paid the price. Granted he said he was sorry but how to we know he is not playing another game?
This board has a huge anti-troll mentality that has cost it some good members. While it has driven out a few real trolls the methodology on the board did drag the spirt of the boards down drastically.

Spungo and company have taken over a few hundred threads with mindless jokes, I was in the mood for an argument, and anyone who didn't want to argue me didn't have to. Yes my arguments were crap, but I pulled them all out of butt.

I thought that this topic was one that people wouldn't care so much about, and didn't expect to piss anyone off. I thought everyone would know that I wasn't serious. I've apologized, because I was wrong. I didn't see that such a thing was as trollish as it was, and I am sorry. If you think that my apologies were just another game, fine don't accept them. If you think less of me, don't read anything else I write. I care about what most of the fine geeks on this site think, and I hope they have it their hearts to forgive this young fool...

I think he made an ass out of himself and people will think less of him when he chooses to voice his opinion in the future.
Yes, I did. I'm offering apologies for what I've done, and I hope you'll be gracious enough to accept.

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 16:25      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Take this any way you like, but I believe I shall quote Star Wars here:

Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Usually when anyone is being an ass it is obvious enough without having people point it out. There is a reason I didn't express any opinion on the subject in the two posts I have made in this thread. There generally seems to be more than enough fuel for fires around here without me adding to them.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
—Miss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 16:30      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Callipygous:
What baffles me about the GameMaster is that he says he spends so much time crafting his posts, that by the end of this process, he is just too exhausted to run them through a spell check. So I just cannot understand why the position he takes and arguments he presents are so incoherent.
The reason it takes so long for me to craft a reply is because I have a slight learning disability that I’ve mentioned before. It takes me a while to get the letters in roughly the right order… The thought that when into

Er no Gamemaster, forbidding the establishment of a religion is exactly that. It does ensure a separation of church and state. So this is like arguing that black is white.
Actually the Separation of church and State isn’t the concept of the first amendment, but rather an idea that Jefferson talks about in the federalist papers, and then is defined legally with several Supreme Court rulings; as is the right to privacy. It isn’t the amendment that messes with my f*ed up argument, it’s the courts.

… But when your posts are as illogical and thoughtless as this, (and I believe you are a reasonably intelligent person), there must be more than a suspicion you were trolling, that your main interest was in stirring people up for your own amusement.
My intent wasn’t to stir people up emotionally. I just have a hard time arguing a position I don’t hold. I couldn’t think of many better reasons than those to support leaving the Pledge in.

So I can quite understand why Spungo and others are annoyed, and they are right to be so, as nobody likes such disrespectful treatment.
In hind sight, so can I. That is why I have apologized again and again. I beg you all for your forgivness.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 16:40      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is an idea:

Everyone stop posting in this fscking thread....it will fade into the night.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
SpikeSpiegel
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 17:03      Profile for SpikeSpiegel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

Actually the Separation of church and State isn’t the concept of the first amendment, but rather an idea that Jefferson talks about in the federalist papers

Jefferson had nothing to do with the federalist papers, in fact he hated federalists, him being the head of the original Republican-Democrats [Wink] ,
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay are behind the Federalist papers. Sorry for this interruption, just putting my civics knowledge acquired this year into use [Razz]

--------------------
its been a while

Posts: 3090 | From: Boston | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 17:17      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

Actually the Separation of church and State isn’t the concept of the first amendment, but rather an idea that Jefferson talks about in the federalist papers

Jefferson had nothing to do with the federalist papers, in fact he hated federalists, him being the head of the original Republican-Democrats [Wink]
Correct.
Jefferson is the one who put the "freedom of speech" clause in, then had several of his critics arrested for sedition when he became president.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 19:58      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

Actually the Separation of church and State isn’t the concept of the first amendment, but rather an idea that Jefferson talks about in the federalist papers

Jefferson had nothing to do with the federalist papers, in fact he hated federalists, him being the head of the original Republican-Democrats [Wink] ,
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay are behind the Federalist papers. Sorry for this interruption, just putting my civics knowledge acquired this year into use [Razz]

Sorry, I was reffering to this letter. Your right it wasn't a federalist paper. I know that Jefferson stood opposed to the strong federal government Hamiltion and company wanted.

"Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
'I contemplate with solemn 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. (1)'"

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 20:01      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:

Jefferson is the one who put the "freedom of speech" clause in, then had several of his critics arrested for sedition when he became president.

"The only thing Jefferson was consistent on while president was being inconsistent."
I don't remember who said it, but it fits.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted June 15, 2004 20:06      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:

Jefferson is the one who put the "freedom of speech" clause in, then had several of his critics arrested for sedition when he became president.

"The only thing Jefferson was consistent on while president was being inconsistent."
I don't remember who said it, but it fits.

GM....are you play devils advocate now?

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 04:51      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was John Adams who signed the Alien & Sedition Acts into law. Jefferson had nothing to do with them. Here's a more detailed description.
Posts: 5855 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tut-an-Geek

SuperFan!
Member # 1234

Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 05:57      Profile for Tut-an-Geek   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well of course jefferson was inconsistent. He had to be. He led "The Revolution of 1800" - the first party change in the nation. In the 1800 election, the office of the President moved from the Federalist party to the anti-federalist party. Jefferson had to compromise from both sides to prevent the country from falling apart. Remember, this had never happened before, and some wondered of whether the nation would be able to survive a change in policy as such.
Posts: 3764 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 06:23      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
It was John Adams who signed the Alien & Sedition Acts into law. Jefferson had nothing to do with them. Here's a more detailed description.

I stand corrected.
Sometimes I get my dead slave-owning freedom-fighters mixed up.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
angryjungman

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 2434

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 06:32      Profile for angryjungman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
I stand corrected.
Sometimes I get my dead slave-owning freedom-fighters mixed up.

Hey, Jefferson wasn't just a slave-owner, he was a slave-shagger too. [evil]

--------------------
Meh.

Posts: 634 | From: princeton, nj | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 07:36      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angryjungman:
Hey, Jefferson wasn't just a slave-owner, he was a slave-shagger too. [evil]

Most slave owners were slave shaggers.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
—Miss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
angryjungman

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 2434

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 16, 2004 07:48      Profile for angryjungman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
quote:
Originally posted by angryjungman:
Hey, Jefferson wasn't just a slave-owner, he was a slave-shagger too. [evil]

Most slave owners were slave shaggers.
I know, but you don't see them making a made-for-tv movie out of the slaves that Johnny Average Slaveowner shagged.

--------------------
Meh.

Posts: 634 | From: princeton, nj | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam