PDA

View Full Version : Celebrate Diversity



White_Male_Canada
04-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Please,can`t we all just get along 8)

Here`s my response to the critics

MORE COWBELL MAN !!!

BeardedOne
04-07-2006, 10:36 PM
Oh my! :shock:

We're posting toy catalogs now? :lol:

chefmike
04-07-2006, 11:01 PM
:roll:

chefmike
04-07-2006, 11:07 PM
Here's another White Male In A White Sheet like yourself....

hwbs
04-07-2006, 11:44 PM
:deadhorse

BeardedOne
04-07-2006, 11:47 PM
OMG! :shock:

Hollywood! That avatar is a weapon in and of itself! :lol:

hwbs
04-07-2006, 11:50 PM
yes.....like they say "no pain no gain" :whoa

White_Male_Canada
04-08-2006, 12:22 AM
Here's another White Male In A White Sheet like yourself....

You mean Democrat Robert ,Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Byrd? Who said,`I vow never to fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.’


Nope,my GF is olived skinned . But keep trying you intolerant bigot.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=opinion/columns/kingcolbert&contentId=A26485-2002Mar1&notFound=true

The American Nightmare
04-08-2006, 01:16 AM
Can we please re-ban the dickhole now?

chefmike
04-08-2006, 01:25 AM
As I've stated before, I vote for the Dems as the lesser (far lesser), of two evils...and I am reminded of the reasons why when I read the drivel from closeted repug swine like yourself...

but if you want to dredge up ancient history, White Male In White Sheet , here's one of your ilk who I would like to believe is roasting on a spit in hell... that is, if I believed in the religious fairy tales that your disgraced party endorses....

Timothy B. Tyson: Review of Jesse Helms's Here's Where I Stand
Source: Raleigh News and Observer (9-11-05)

Timothy B. Tyson won a 2005 Southern Book Award for his history of a racial murder in Oxford, Blood Done Sign My Name.

Jesse Helms has led a remarkable life. The son of a small town lawman, he became the second most politically influential North Carolinian of his generation. His five bruising races for U.S. Senate attracted intense national interest; his 30-year legislative career earned him international fame. His slashing style and amazing money machine virtually reinvented modern politics. Helms bridged the gap between the segregationist South and the New Right. He was also a deeply polarizing figure whose success hinged on his Old South racial views. And so we turn to his memoir with two key questions about his rapid rise and his racial politics: How did he do it? And why did he do it?

His book's title, "Here's Where I Stand" promises an uncompromising plate of North Carolina barbecue, served up hot with red pepper vinegar. But it delivers a broth so thin, as Sen. Paul Douglas once said of a civil rights bill that Helms nevertheless opposed, that it is "like soup made of the shadow of a crow which had starved to death." This tough, bare-knuckled pol begs us to see him as a figure from Mayberry, presenting his life as the nostalgic saga of a small-town boy who makes good by defending the free-enterprise system, befriending his fellow man, and standing by the woman he loved. Of course, Helms could only join Floyd and Andy and Barney down at the barbershop by ignoring huge chunks of his actual life, and therein lies the tale.

Helms begins his story in the small town of Monroe, where he was born in 1921, son of Jesse Alexander Helms Sr., the chief of police. He portrays "Big Jesse" as "six feet five inches tall and tough when he needed to be," and also as a saint who reflected the virtues of his town and his time. "Monroe was the kind of place where you knew just about everybody," Helms recalls, "and just about everybody knew you." What Helms does not tell us is that many of Monroe's black residents knew Big Jesse's boot better than they did the man himself. "He had the sharpest shoe in town," said Ray House, a white man close to the Helms family, "and he didn't mind using it."

Educated at Wingate and Wake Forest, young Jesse Helms started his journalism career at The News & Observer, where he also met and married Dorothy Coble. After a stateside stint in the Navy, Helms met A.J. Fletcher, a right-wing businessman whose Capitol Broadcasting Co. sought to offset the influence of the supposedly liberal News & Observer. Hired as news director in 1948, Helms set out to shield the South where he grew up from the fresh breezes that blew through the postwar era.

Helms' first big break came during the infamous Democratic primary for the Senate in 1950 between Frank Porter Graham, beloved liberal former president of the University of North Carolina, and Willis Smith, a respected conservative lawyer from Raleigh. Ostensibly a reporter covering the race, Helms was deeply involved in Smith's campaign -- a fact he dodges with Clintonian parsing: "I had no official role in Mr. Smith's campaign."

Helms suggests that race was an issue in the campaign but avoids the details. He does not tell us that Smith forces proclaimed "White People Wake Up," warning that "Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Smith organizers accused "Dr. Frank" of being a Communist dupe and called UNC "the University of Negroes and Communists," though it was still segregated. Helms disavows any connection to these ugly attacks, claiming, "It would have been unthinkable for me to do or allow anything to be done that assaulted that fine man's [Graham's] character."

Nevertheless, when Smith won election to the Senate, Helms went to Washington as his administrative aide. Two years later, he joined Richard Russell's segregationist crusade for the White House. Moving back to Raleigh after Russell lost, Helms became a bank lobbyist and served on the City Council.

In 1960, as the sit-ins rippled out across the South from North Carolina, Fletcher again hired Helms at WRAL-TV, this time to do nightly editorials. Here was the crucial break in Helms' life. His attacks on civil rights and campus radicals won him a wide following. And yet his book provides none of the flavor of the editorials he would ride to power. He doesn't mention his diatribes against "Negro hoodlums" and "forced integration," as if segregation had been voluntary. He does not repeat his assertion that the "so-called" civil rights movement "is about as non-violent as the Marines landing on Iwo Jima." Helms does not explain why his byline appeared in the pages of The Citizen, the journal of the segregationist White Citizens Council.

"I never advocated segregation, and I never advocated aggravation," Helms now claims. But in fact, segregationist backlash was his ticket to the top. He supported segregationist candidates and organizations from his early days in politics. Helms outlined what he called "the purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinctions in group intellect" and equated the Ku Klux Klan with the NAACP, though one flung dynamite and the other filed lawsuits. Praised by the KKK, candidate Helms said merely, "I appreciate anybody saying complimentary things about me." When a young black man applied for membership in First Baptist Church in Raleigh, churchman Helms rabidly and successfully opposed his acceptance -- apparently "Here's Where I Stand" did not have room for that anecdote.

His assaults on the civil rights movement won Helms a U.S. Senate seat in 1972, part of President Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy," which hammered together a new white Southern base for the GOP. Strom Thurmond, the old "Dixiecrat" war horse who twice led segregationist stampedes out of the Democratic Party, campaigned tirelessly for Helms.

Helms became a decisive force in the rise of modern conservatism. Along with Richard Viguerie, who marched George Wallace's financial supporters into the armies of the New Right, Helms pioneered direct-mail fund raising. His support for Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican primary in 1976, defying a sitting president of his own party, proved historic. Reagan became first the darling and then the standard-bearer of the New Right. Helms, like Wallace and Thurmond, bridged the old segregationist movement with the new conservative revolution though, unlike Helms, Wallace and Thurmond both recanted their white supremacy and won many black votes.

Unfortunately, Helms' memoir mutes his historic contributions. Denial of his opposition to racial equality is perhaps the central theme of the book; Helms must have been tempted to steal Eleanor Roosevelt's old book title, "Some of My Best Friends Are Negro." His tribute to his father, a notorious racial enforcer who chased peaceful demonstrators off public property in 1961 with a pistol, twice recounts how "Big Jesse" taught him never to use the n-word. His opposition to the MLK holiday, he says, was a matter of anti-communism, not white supremacy. His race-baiting Senate campaigns are carefully scrubbed of content, even the unscrupulous "white hands" ad, which encouraged white working people to blame their economic woes on minorities and affirmative action and nailed Harvey Gantt on the cross of racial backlash.

Denying that he ever cared about race, Helms now claims to have been defending "free enterprise." In fact, segregation undermined the market economy, using laws to restrict whom businesses could employ or serve.

Helms also claims to have been defending "the Southern way of life," and charges that the civil rights movement "ripped away at the customs and institutions people cared about. Black neighbors and white neighbors depended on each other, and the vast majority lived in harmony."

But even in Monroe, the hamlet that Helms calls home, Klan terrorists punished blacks and whites who tried to exercise their freedoms of speech and association. J. Ray Shute, scion of one of Monroe's leading white families who long served as mayor, founded the Human Relations Council in 1955 to encourage "orderly discussion of common problems" across the color line. For this he endured social ostracism, economic reprisals and at least 15 shots fired into his home. Black leaders suffered worse, and Jim Crow laws and customs barred blacks from nearly everything but menial labor. This is the "liberty" Helms lauds, never acknowledging that segregation was not a free choice. "If we had started a fight against [segregation]," Ray House said of Monroe, "somebody would have shot us."

As a literary work, "Here's Where I Stand: A Memoir" never fails to disappoint. Platitudes plod from page to page. Shopworn phrases and political cant grind the reader down. Whatever his failings as a writer, however, Helms must be given his due. After all, he is almost certainly the second most politically effective North Carolinian of his generation.

The most influential Tar Heel of the Helms era, Ella Jo Baker, is a black woman from Littleton whose name will not be familiar to most. But during World War II, Baker built a mass base for the NAACP in the South. In the 1950s, Baker organized the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which lifted Martin Luther King Jr. to international acclaim. And in 1960, when these two organizations proved hesitant in the face of the student sit-ins, Baker summoned these young new Southerners to Raleigh to form the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. These three groups, the NAACP, SCLC and SNCC, won battles that forever altered the arc of American history. Their achievements still echo around the globe, wherever people resist tyranny and combat what King called the "thingification" of human beings.

Helms will go down in history as one of the most able and relentless adversaries of the South's homegrown freedom movement. It is a shame that he lacked the gumption to tell us why.


http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/16614.html

White_Male_Canada
04-08-2006, 01:44 AM
As I've stated before, I vote for the Dems as the lesser (far lesser), of two evils...and I am reminded of the reasons why when I read the drivel from closeted repug swine like yourself...


Still a tolerant ignorant bigot I see.

Helms hasn`t been in the Senate since 2003.

Rober,KKK,Byrd is the longest sitting demorat senator of all time,and considered the "conscience of the senate". And,STILL THERE !

The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105.html

Robert KKK Byrd,"the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

Comparing an ex-senator to the longest sitting senator,who`s still there !

:) What a Loser ! :)

chefmike
04-08-2006, 01:55 AM
I'll give you an E for effort :wink: ... and you aren't fooling anyone here in regards to your repugnant agenda...nice try though, skippy... 8)

chefmike
04-08-2006, 02:10 AM
What About Byrd?
Unlike Thurmond, he renounced his racist past.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002, at 2:28 PM ET


Since posting an item pointing out that, contrary to Washington legend, Strom Thurmond never renounced his segregationist past, Chatterbox has been inundated with rude e-mails. The theme of these e-mails is: What about former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd? Byrd, a Democrat who still represents West Virginia, belonged to the Ku Klux Klan when he was a young man. Past membership in the Klan is heavier moral baggage than past advocacy of segregation. But Byrd, unlike Thurmond, renounced his youthful participation in a racist cause. See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:

Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan
Contrast that with an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond said, "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do." Thurmond said this four years ago!

Chatterbox has not yet received any rude e-mails asking: What about Senate Democrat Ernest Hollings? Hollings ran for governor of South Carolina in 1958 pledging to protect "the Southern way of life," which in those days meant segregation. Once in office, though, Hollings switched sides and supported integration. When Howell Raines of the New York Times asked Hollings in 1983 about his brief career as a segregationist, Hollings didn't just say he knew it was wrong now. He said, "I knew it was wrong" then.

Have Byrd and Hollings atoned sufficiently for their previous views and policies? Probably not. But they have renounced them. Thurmond never will.


http://www.slate.com/id/2075662/

White_Male_Canada
04-08-2006, 02:25 AM
I'll give you an E for effort :wink: ... and you aren't fooling anyone here in regards to your repugnant agenda...nice try though, skippy... 8)

Takes a real ignoramous like you to step on my land mines.

Took a Republican,Abraham Lincoln,to free blacks.As the Democrats ran opposition. Strom renounced his past after he joined the Republican party.Where`d ya get such drivel.

"[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Calhoun turned the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the party of slavery.William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee,all racists.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by more Republicans than demorats.Check the vote count.

You`re a demorat ? Pathetic Loser

chefmike
04-08-2006, 02:29 AM
Robert KKK Byrd,"the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

Comparing an ex-senator to the longest sitting senator,who`s still there

Not that I care anymore about Byrd than the swine that you defend, but that quote is from the 1940's...and on a personal note, do you send your "olive-skinned GF" out for oxy... you know... like the way that your hero rush the junkie sent his maid to procure it? :lol:

White_Male_Canada
04-08-2006, 02:37 AM
Robert KKK Byrd,"the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

Comparing an ex-senator to the longest sitting senator,who`s still there

Not that I care anymore about Byrd than the swine that you defend, but that quote is from the 1940's...and on a personal note, do you send your "olive-skinned GF" out for oxy... you know... like the way that your hero rush the junkie sent his maid to procure it? :lol:

The qoute was accurate. Using a dead man (Thurmond) to criticize is just plain vulgar,as you plainly expose yourself to be when frustrated for a cogent response.

Felicia Katt
04-08-2006, 04:21 AM
YourCanadianDaddy, you are misstating the facts, but since Hannity always does, its understandable you would too.

More Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights act.
Here is the actual vote count. I checked, you should have.

The Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35

A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil rights act than the percentage of Democrats, but that was because it was opposed by the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who were Democrat in name only and Republican in action with their segregationist agenda.

Even the Republican right acknowlege that segregation was ended by liberal Democrats:
"It was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended Segregation"
Newt Gingrich

Byrd renounced his ties to racism over 60 years ago and has worked tirelessly for equality his entire public life . Strom ran as a segregationist 20 years after Byrd had abandoned the Klan and Strom never really apologized. He may be dead, but the illegitimate daughter he had with a black mother, who was concealed in the shadows all her life until his death is still alive. His ongoing shameful actions towards her speak to his racism even louder than the absence of his words apologising for his past.

I'll give you a C- in history and a D- in math LOL

FK

rick_932
04-08-2006, 04:54 AM
lol @ them kkk pictures

White_Male_Canada
04-08-2006, 04:44 PM
YourCanadianDaddy, you are misstating the facts, but since Hannity always does, its understandable you would too.

More Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights act.
Here is the actual vote count. I checked, you should have.


FK

You`re as bold in your BS as you are in your pancake-makeup.Sourcing Wikipedia for truth is akin to asking Kerry for an honest answer as to why he shot rice in his ass,then put himself in for a purple heart.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumners 1875 Civil Rights Act. Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, so Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit the Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson himself played no direct role in the legislative fight.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, the Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote.23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed cloture in regards to the senate debate.


By your own numbers you`ve proven the democrats were more split than Republicans. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The democrats were the majority in congress at the time therefore although more voted for the Republican 64 Act,more voted against it.More Republicans supported their own measure.

Newt was indeed correct,part of the democrat party had to be dragged into supporting and agreeing with Republicans to pass the 64 Act.You are correct.You`re party helped the Republicans.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

The Republicans were the minority party,fighting your racist democrats.


...who were Democrat in name only and Republican in action with their segregationist agenda.

That qoute,priceless in it`s insanity.It`s a keeper. Republican measures and efforts to pass the 64 CRA, were segregationist. From Lincoln to now,all were/are segregationist and the likes of Byrd,Wallace,Gore sr. were the party of equal rights.It`s official,you`re a moonbat.

Next time,try a little more research and true diligence at picking your words.

Felicia Katt
04-09-2006, 04:35 AM
Talk about picking your words carefully. You didn't talk splits or percentages or past history. You said, simply:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by more Republicans than demorats.Check the vote count
NO BS. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act.

You either misstated or misrepresented what the reality was.

Then, scrambling to cover being called on it, you start namecalling with insults, try to impugn my source (which wasn't Wikipedia, for your information) without addressing its accuracy, start flinging irrelevant and incorrect crap about Kerry, and post a mean,and demeaning but meaningless picture of Hillary.

From your reference

The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy
In addition to picking your words more carefully, you should take more care in picking your heros

Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
I'm sure you have no problem with THAT source LOL

George H.W. "Poppy" Bush, running for the Senate in Texas in 1964, opposed the Civil Rights Act. The Republican party under his son is presently against gay rights.

Coretta Scott King: "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King's dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

W's executive order set fire to the crosses of "faith based" organizations which can accept public funds and then refuse to employ persons because they are Jewish, Catholic, unmarried, gay or lesbian. W started his Presidential campaign at Bob Jones University, which bans interracial dating.

Ralph Reed owned up to the "sad record of religious conservatives on race.." saying "the greatest spark of the movement" was triggered by trying to cling to seggregation, admitting that his "faith community" was "on the wrong side of the most central cause of social justice in this century", namely racism. "The white evangelical community allowed our black brothers and sisters to be held in bondage and treated as second-class citizens for four centuries and we quoted scripture to justify it,"

"The right wing of the Republican Party has a long-standing record of using fear and bigotry to set Americans against each other for its own gain," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It is supremely ironic and profoundly sad that this is the party of Lincoln, a party that once sought to unify a nation. It was a party in which 'freedom' was a principle, not an empty platitude espoused purely for political gain as is done so often by present-day Republican leaders."


It's not just a wild coincidence that the white voters of the South - once staunchly, unanimously Democrats - became Republicans when blacks were given the vote. Just like whites deserted the public schools after they were integrated; just like whites deserted the cities for the suburbs when blacks were guaranteed decent housing. The whites fled the Democratic Party when blacks joined
Rheta Grimsley Johnso Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

The Republican party used to be- "the party of Abraham Lincoln" but has become what Robert Scheer has called "the refuge of eternally aggrieved Southern racists"


FK

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 07:58 AM
From your reference

The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy
In addition to picking your words more carefully, you should take more care in picking your heros

Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
I'm sure you have no problem with THAT source LOL


It's not just a wild coincidence that the white voters of the South - once staunchly, unanimously Democrats - became Republicans





The 64 CVA was was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumners 1875 Civil Rights Act.Rewritten to conform with the interstate commerce clause.

Fox ? Only when you employ the lie by omission. Like Paul Harvey says," here`s the rest of the story",

"... The South Carolina (search) senator, then a Democrat…Republican leader Sen. William Knowland (search) of California retorted that Thurmond's endless speech was cruel and unusual punishment to his colleagues….Thurmond succeeded in shattering the previous record set by Sen. Wayne Morse, D-Ore..."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html

So it`s only the south that is racist.Well,let`s take a look see at the county map on who voted for whom.You`ll notice the red counties are the Republican ones.

Why so many? Because the leftists,socialists,neo-marxists employ the Lie by Omission,the Big Lie and of course,Dan Rather`s favorite,the Noble Lie.This plus the fact that most americans prefer less government,not more.Certainly not what the socialist/neo-marxist democrat party wish on every citizen.

Now,wonder why socialists/neo-marxists such as yourself are now the permanent minority?

Felicia Katt
04-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Thank you for helping to prove my point. Strom was a Democrat. He was a racist/seggregationist. Those views were not acceptable to the Democrats, so he took them and all of his racist supporters over to the Republicans, who welcomed them all with open arms. You are the one holding up Strom here as someone heroic. I think he was a disgrace.

I'm not a marxist or a socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not even a Democrat. I'm a registered independent, but if I was pressed to claim a party affiliation, I would say Libertarian. But its a two party system, and I'm not wasting my vote on a candidate with no chance to win an election. The Democrats are far from perfect. But I agree with them way more on most issues, especially those that involve my rights and freedoms. Republicans don't really think I should have any.

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever. The latest polls show Bush's approval ratiing is just 36 percent, and just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress

since you seem to like maps, I thought I'd post this one LOL


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/_/map_jesusland_liberty.gif

FK

Ecstatic
04-09-2006, 05:07 PM
As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever.
FK
I'm glad you mentioned that oft-overlooked fact, Felicia. Both Kerry and Bush passed Reagan's previous record for the most popular votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems don't like to send up "a loser" twice in a row; the last time they did so was in the 1950s with Adlai Stevenson (who, incidentally, in his 1956 second bid for the Presidency against incumbent Eisenhower won the most popular votes ever cast for a losing Presidential candidate - until Kerry), so it seems unlikely that the Dems will re-nominate him this time around.

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 06:34 PM
I'm a registered independent, but if I was pressed to claim a party affiliation, I would say Libertarian.

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever. The latest polls show Bush's approval ratiing is just 36 percent, and just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress

since you seem to like maps, I thought I'd post this one LOL

FK

Better update your map.Canada is Conservative now. The gun registry is being disbanded,concealed carry permits not far behind,mandatory sentencing for criminals not ' it`s societies fault ' probation.Taxes are being cut,terrorists are being fought on the battlefield side by side with US forces,Hamas and Tamil tigers have been branded as terrorist organizations and made illegal,etc. You`re way out of date with your information.

Bush is at 36% !? How deadfull,that means he won`t be able to run for re-election now does it ! :wink:
Polls show unfavorably for Congress in terms of approval rates? Big deal,only one poll counts,that`s in November.And we all know who wins those.

You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.True libertarians do not acknowledge patriachal constructs or confer special rights there upon.We are individuals,dog eat dog best man win ideology.You`re no liberatrian.

Bush has the record for most votes ever,topping 62 million. To you it may mean something,to the Constitution,totally meaningless. He won the Electoral College.Read about it in the Constitution. If you`re a libertarian then the Constitution means exactly what is written.Or does the law say whatever falls from your mouth,ala the King of England.

Your parrotting of the dominant media`s and DNC`s talking points "party of corruption" ,which falls on deaf ears to the majority,this inside the beltway 'gotcha` game'. No one cares about the disgraced Dan Rather or the new parrott,Katie Couric.Only the facts matter.Over the last 30 years about 70 different members of the House have been investigated for serious offenses. Of those only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

Why should you believe the media and DNC IF you call yourself a libertarian.Go to the source,always. Try the records at the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,read their own historical documents.

That map of yours, I just can`t stop laughing at it.It`s an antiquity,Hilarious.

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 07:01 PM
As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever.
FK
I'm glad you mentioned that oft-overlooked fact, Felicia. Both Kerry and Bush passed Reagan's previous record for the most popular votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems don't like to send up "a loser" twice in a row; the last time they did so was in the 1950s with Adlai Stevenson (who, incidentally, in his 1956 second bid for the Presidency against incumbent Eisenhower won the most popular votes ever cast for a losing Presidential candidate - until Kerry), so it seems unlikely that the Dems will re-nominate him this time around.

No one cares about the popular vote,certainly not the US Constitution itself.

You are aware of that pesky thing called the Electoral College aren`t you?

Specifically designed to deny large city centers to dominate.

Yeah,that damn Constitution.Let`s ignore it and pretend it means whatever we say it means/sarcasm off.

Amend it,don`t ignore it.

trish
04-09-2006, 07:02 PM
White_Male_Canada wrote:


You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.

Devout republicans favor denying rights on exactly those basis, which is tantamount to conferring rights to others on the same basis.

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 07:09 PM
White_Male_Canada wrote:


You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.

Devout republicans favor denying rights on exactly those basis, which is tantamount to conferring rights to others on the same basis.

Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse. Republicans chose the patriarchal standard. Libertarians,neither,none.

I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me. You`re obviously biased, in your support of democrats to choose for the individual what is best for him.

Ecstatic
04-09-2006, 07:18 PM
No one cares about the popular vote,certainly not the US Constitution itself.

You are aware of that pesky thing called the Electoral College aren`t you?

Specifically designed to deny large city centers to dominate.

Yeah,that damn Constitution.Let`s ignore it and pretend it means whatever we say it means/sarcasm off.

Amend it,don`t ignore it.
No one cares about the popular vote? Ah, except maybe those who voted?!

I made no reference to the Constitution or the Electoral College. I merely made two observations: one, that Kerry received more popular votes than any other candidate in history except Bush (implying that very nearly half the electorate favored him), and two, that the Democrats would likely not nominate him again simply because he lost last time (regardless of whether he's the best candidate for the job or not). You're reading into my comment intentions that were not there.

For the record, I think the Electoral College is outmoded and has been so for at least the last half century. But that is not the point I was making.

trish
04-09-2006, 08:09 PM
White_Canadian_Male says:


Republicans chose the patriarchal standard ... I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me.

It seems that by so vorciforously supporting the Republican view, you're allowing big pappa to decide what goes or doesn't go in your bedroom. At the same time you seem to support the suppression of other private intimate practices. As far a bedroom philosophies go, liberal principles allow individuals to chose their own course.

Ecstatic
04-09-2006, 08:39 PM
Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse.
Not in any Democratic platform I've seen. That's patently absurd. There is a strong, though hardly universal, tendency amongst Democrats not to confer, but to recognize as already valid rights for all minorities, including gender-based rights. I doubt we'll see same sex marriage recognized on a national level in this country any time soon (unlike many other countries), as even here in Massachusetts there is a strong (though minority) stance oppsing it. But the Massachusetts Superior Court did not "legalize" same sex marriage so much as declare that such marriages were already and had always been legal according to the laws of the Commonwealth and should be recognized as such. And that's just one example.


Republicans chose the patriarchal standard.
News flash: that is by definition "conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse" and I'll have none of it, thank you very much. Nor is it simply patriarchal, but mainstream Christian. The US, unlike most countries, was founded in part on the principle of the separation of church and state. While a significant majority of Americans may be Christian, they have no right to legistate their morality on other citizens. Among those religious groups who in whole or in part reject the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" you can count Unitarians, Friends, UCC, Reform Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Taoists.

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 09:36 PM
White_Canadian_Male says:


Republicans chose the patriarchal standard ... I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me.

It seems that by so vorciforously supporting the Republican view, you're allowing big pappa to decide what goes or doesn't go in your bedroom. At the same time you seem to support the suppression of other private intimate practices. As far a bedroom philosophies go, liberal principles allow individuals to chose their own course.

Really?

Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you. Mohammed married Aisha at the age of 9.

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 09:38 PM
Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse.
The US, unlike most countries, was founded in part on the principle of the separation of church and state. While a significant majority of Americans may be Christian, they have no right to legistate their morality on other citizens. Among those religious groups who in whole or in part reject the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" you can count Unitarians, Friends, UCC, Reform Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Taoists.

So much for majority rule.Damn that fuckin` democracy/sarc off.

Define "separation of church and state" in regards to a church,IE;Church of England ?

trish
04-09-2006, 09:43 PM
White_Canadian_Male writes:


Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you.

Does the republican party?????? My, Goodness! Wait 'til this hits the news!!!

White_Male_Canada
04-09-2006, 10:06 PM
White_Canadian_Male writes:


Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you.

Does the republican party?????? My, Goodness! Wait 'til this hits the news!!!

The democrats preach a good game but are found wanting. So if the sheep likes,what`s wrong with that?Plenty of sites on the net for it,what`s wrong with marriage. Why not 3 people getting married? Why not mom marrying her son? Sez who,Ted Kennedy? Bahh Waaa LOL.

Being neither Republican nor democrat myself the dems love the divide and conquer routine,piting one group against another. The Republicans stick to the original nuclear family. Not an alien concept since it`s been practiced for centuries by the majority of the world. Majority rules whether you like it or not.Don`t,move to Cuba.They`re so progressive they just throw your ass in jail for it.

Felicia Katt
04-09-2006, 10:07 PM
WhiteCanadianMale, for your information, since you apparently need some on this topic:
A Libertarian is one who:
Believes in the principles of freedom our founding fathers fought for.
Believes that you have the sole right to run your life the way you see fit.
Believes that you are the master and government is the servant.
Believes that government gets its rights from you, not the other way around.
Believes in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, without compromise.
From the Libertarian Party Platform

We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles...

we advocate the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals; the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"

Sweetie, by their definition and mine, I'm a libertarian, and while I don't agree with all their positions (some of which are a little extreme), I do with many and the ones most important to me. But what are you? It sounds like you are opposed to equal rights and marriage for gays and transgenders? But here you are on a shemale board? is your philosophy that as long as you can screw a t-girl, who cares if her government does too?

FK

trish
04-09-2006, 10:21 PM
my dear little White_Canadian_Male, you may not considered yourself a republican but you sure are their most ardent supporter. So in light of that obvious bias I'll repeat the question you never answered:

Does the Republican Party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds?

Felicia Katt
04-09-2006, 11:30 PM
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When you try to pass a law based on a religious viewpoint, ie gay marriage, or when you try to pass one to advance religion ie school prayer, you are supposed to be stopped by the wall separating Church and State. Too many on the right think the wall should be more like a speed bump, but the right is just wrong about that.

FK

Ecstatic
04-10-2006, 12:25 AM
So much for majority rule.Damn that fuckin` democracy/sarc off.
Yes, so much for majority rule. With regard to the free exercise of religious beliefs, the very point of the separation of church and state is to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" whereby the few are oppressed by the many. (qv Tocqueville, ""If the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force," Democracy in America; and Mill, "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism," On Liberty.)


Define "separation of church and state" in regards to a church,IE;Church of England ?

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When you try to pass a law based on a religious viewpoint, ie gay marriage, or when you try to pass one to advance religion ie school prayer, you are supposed to be stopped the wall separating Church and State. Too many on the right think the wall should be more like a speed bump, but the right is just wrong about that.

FK
Thanks, Felicia. You saved me having to unravel this for him.

White_Male_Canada
04-10-2006, 01:21 AM
WhiteCanadianMale, for your information, since you apparently need some on this topic:
A Libertarian is one who:
Believes in the principles of freedom our founding fathers fought for.
Believes that you have the sole right to run your life the way you see fit.
Believes that you are the master and government is the servant.
Believes that government gets its rights from you, not the other way around.
Believes in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, without compromise.
From the Libertarian Party Platform

We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles...

we advocate the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals; the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"

Sweetie, by their definition and mine, I'm a libertarian, and while I don't agree with all their positions (some of which are a little extreme), I do with many and the ones most important to me. But what are you? It sounds like you are opposed to equal rights and marriage for gays and transgenders? But here you are on a shemale board? is your philosophy that as long as you can screw a t-girl, who cares if her government does too?

FK

Typical buffet table self professed "libertarian".

You admit you`re not a true libertarian and only agree with certain ideological points that suit yourself.

Government cannot create marriage any more than it can create jobs. If you WERE a libertarian you would understand the difference between the legal and organic.

You`re caught in a self-contradiction.Not wanting government to define marriage,but wanting it to define marriage,only as you see fit.

White_Male_Canada
04-10-2006, 01:40 AM
Define "separation of church and state" in regards to a church,IE;Church of England ?

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When you try to pass a law based on a religious viewpoint, ie gay marriage, or when you try to pass one to advance religion ie school prayer, you are supposed to be stopped the wall separating Church and State. Too many on the right think the wall should be more like a speed bump, but the right is just wrong about that.

FK
Thanks, Felicia. You saved me having to unravel this for him.

Felicia saved your skin by pasting the 1st and not delving into the historical aspects? Hardly.

The establisment clause of the 1st amendment does not require government neutrality between religion and atheism. Do you know why?

You`re avoiding and deflecting from my question,

"seperation of church and state", what was the "church" as defined by Jefferson and others?

As far as De Tocqueville and Chapter 16, he also recognized this as far from an actuality, because of the careful system of checks and balances. Tocqueville used the term “providential” when describing the spread of democracy . He was trying to convey a sense of prehistorical determination and Divine triumph.

Still sticking to him ?

Felicia Katt
04-10-2006, 01:49 AM
Typical buffet table self professed "libertarian".

You admit you`re not a true libertarian and only agree with certain ideological points that suit yourself.

Government cannot create marriage any more than it can create jobs. If you WERE a libertarian you would understand the difference between the legal and organic.

You`re caught in a self-contradiction.Not wanting government to define marriage,but wanting it to define marriage,only as you see fit.

Speaking of buffets, you try to dish it out, but you don't take it. You didn't answer my question, at all. What are you? and what could be more self contradictory than someone who likes t-girls and pornography yet supports those who marginalize or criminalize that world? Government doesn't create marriage, but it recognizes it and rewards it, and presently it unfairly excludes some people from those benefits. As much as I would like to self define my life, the reality is that the government will always limit my ability to do so, and when it does, I want it done fairly, and not arbitrarily.

FK

White_Male_Canada
04-10-2006, 02:03 AM
Typical buffet table self professed "libertarian".

You admit you`re not a true libertarian and only agree with certain ideological points that suit yourself.

Government cannot create marriage any more than it can create jobs. If you WERE a libertarian you would understand the difference between the legal and organic.

You`re caught in a self-contradiction.Not wanting government to define marriage,but wanting it to define marriage,only as you see fit.

Speaking of buffets, you try to dish it out, but you don't take it. You didn't answer my question, at all. What are you? and what could be more self contradictory than someone who likes t-girls and pornography yet supports those who marginalize or criminalize that world? Government doesn't create marriage, but it recognizes it and rewards it, and presently it unfairly excludes some people from those benefits. As much as I would like to self define my life, the reality is that the government will always limit my ability to do so, and when it does, I want it done fairly, and not arbitrarily.

FK

So you admit to being in favor of government sponsored legal contracts called certificates of marriage. Hardly a libertarian point of view.

Government does create marriage,in the form of legal contracts and certificates.Government has no business legally acknowledging marriage,selling certificates,creating data bases,conferring rights based on the certificates,granting tax deductions,etc.

In our world,you wish to "marry" someone,sign your own binding legal contract and put a ring on your finger.Why persist in attempting to conform to the patriarchal standard as defined by government.

What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

TrueBeauty TS
04-10-2006, 02:12 AM
Speaking of buffets, you try to dish it out, but you don't take it. You didn't answer my question, at all. What are you? and what could be more self contradictory than someone who likes t-girls and pornography yet supports those who marginalize or criminalize that world? Government doesn't create marriage, but it recognizes it and rewards it, and presently it unfairly excludes some people from those benefits. As much as I would like to self define my life, the reality is that the government will always limit my ability to do so, and when it does, I want it done fairly, and not arbitrarily.

FK

So you admit to being in favor of government sponsored legal contracts called certificates of marriage. Hardly a libertarian point of view.

Government does create marriage,in the form of legal contracts and certificates.Government has no business legally acknowledging marriage,selling certificates,creating data bases,conferring rights based on the certificates,granting tax deductions,etc.

In our world,you wish to "marry" someone,sign your own binding legal contract and put a ring on your finger.Why persist in attempting to conform to the patriarchal standard as defined by government.


Why can't you answer the questions being put to you? What political party do you belong to, or believe in?

White_Male_Canada
04-10-2006, 02:17 AM
Why can't you answer the questions being put to you? What political party do you belong to, or believe in?

Hardly relevant,but none.

But to satiate all of your curiousities,mainly libertarian,somewhat classical liberal and a little conservative.

Yeah,that means i`m a huge fire-arms owner too.So don`t B&E my home at night :wink:

PS: you put your faith in political parties ! ? how small.

max web
04-10-2006, 02:38 AM
Hi all,

Just thought I would point out that the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, federalist papers, or declaration of independence.

The constitution only asserts that congress can make no laws affecting organized religions. Or congress can't touch religion. Religion did touch politics... Heck the school they taught in was where they worshiped on sundays is just one example.

Just to set the record correct on that one...


Enjoy

Max

bootlova
04-10-2006, 02:55 AM
I love this post

TrueBeauty TS
04-10-2006, 03:44 AM
Why can't you answer the questions being put to you? What political party do you belong to, or believe in?

Hardly relevant,but none.

But to satiate all of your curiousities,mainly libertarian,somewhat classical liberal and a little conservative.

Yeah,that means i`m a huge fire-arms owner too.So don`t B&E my home at night :wink:

PS: you put your faith in political parties ! ? how small.


First of all, I never said that. Nice try. :wink:


Second of all, it would have saved everyone a lot of time if you would have just told everyone you were a troll right from the begining. How mainly libertarian,somewhat classical liberal and a little conservative of you.

Check please!

Felicia Katt
04-10-2006, 03:54 AM
Once again, you didn't really answer the question. You criticize my "buffet" philosophy without really defining your own. "mainly libertarian,somewhat classical liberal and a little conservative", thats a smorgasbord, not an ideology. And you still haven't explained, given your apparent lack of support for gay rights and gay marriage, how your being here is not self contradictory or hypocritical?

I said I was a libertarian, but I never said I wasn't a pragmatist. Government and the institution of marriage are here and are not going away. Recognizing that, I want my Goverment to treat me fairly and equally and not limit my freedoms unreasonably. There are presently over 1000 benefits that a married man and woman have that a man and a transgender cannot have. Its a matter of practicality, not patriarchy.

FK

Ecstatic
04-10-2006, 06:10 AM
Felicia saved your skin by pasting the 1st and not delving into the historical aspects? Hardly.
I didn't say Felicia saved my skin, I said she saved me from unraveling the issue of the separation of church and state for you. I don't need my skin saved, thank you very much.

I really have better things to do than banter with you since you're obviously right and we're obviously wrong. Gawd, I just love newbies on this friggin' board. Sigh.

hondarobot
04-10-2006, 06:30 AM
Oh, come on, don't just give up on this guy. He doesn't sound stupid, although I'd have to say I personally think he's a neocon hiding behind the Libertarian shield (which in my opinion is stupid).

This thread has been great so far. White_Canadian_Male could turn out to be an interesting guy, and he's certainly entitled to his opinion, even if he might be a jerk.

If nothing else, it's interesting to hear opinions contrary to what most of us think here. Just my humble opinion on what I think has been an interesting thread.

thmack
04-10-2006, 06:46 AM
lmao @ this thread

Felicia Katt
04-10-2006, 06:49 AM
What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

hondarobot
04-10-2006, 07:05 AM
Ehhhh, damn, he did seem like he could have been interesting for debate purposes until that.

NAMBLA is clearly wrong, Polygamists just seem a bit weird, and I wasn't aware that "Beastialists" were actually a defined classification.

It's at this point that debate really does seem difficult. Too bad. . .the guy didn't seem like an idiot, but he pulled out some knee jerk reaction nonsense and seems to have dropped the ball.

Ecstatic
04-10-2006, 01:52 PM
What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK
Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Leaving form aside for the moment, I am struck by the tenor of his point above:

You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.
This is non sequitur: the rights in question are not the same. The fundamental right in question is that of two adults to marry, and if that civil liberty is denied to any minority (be they couples of mixed ethnicity, as blacks and whites were denied marriage rights only a few decades ago, or of same sex couples), then there is an unfair conference of civil liberties. GLBT supporters who argue for same sex equality in such civil liberties (which extends to rights of inheritance and other legal issues involved in the institution of marriage, which issues force marriage to be a state issue and not only a religious issue) do not seek to deny that right to any two adults. Polygamy, bestiality, and Man/boy relations are entirely separate issues as they do not involve two adults.

Polygamy has deep repercusions for society involving medical insurance, inheritance, and a wide range of issues. Personally I find it quite acceptable that more than two adults can be in a loving relationship, but the complexities of declaring such a relationship in a legally binding marriage are vast, and as this is a red herring, I do not wish to pursue the subject here. Beastiality and man/boy relations? The very concept of equating these with adult love between two people of whatever gender is an insult.

So long and thanks for all the red herring.

Ecstatic
04-10-2006, 02:09 PM
Hi all,

Just thought I would point out that the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, federalist papers, or declaration of independence.

The constitution only asserts that congress can make no laws affecting organized religions. Or congress can't touch religion. Religion did touch politics... Heck the school they taught in was where they worshiped on sundays is just one example.

Just to set the record correct on that one...


Enjoy

Max
True, in a simplistic way, Max. The declaration of independence and the Federalist papers really don't apply since, while they are quite vital historical documents which influenced the development of the US government, they do not directly form any part of that government. The constitution does, and as has been the case since it was framed, we see a brilliantly structured, carefully worded document which covers an astounding range of issues but whose very terse nature leads to sometimes endless interpretation and modulation.

Very simply put, the priniciple of separation of church and state is inherent in the First Amendment. For example, if the US government passes a law making marriage between one adult male and one adult female only, that law intercedes with the beliefs of many faith groups in the US, including but not limited to Unitarians, Reform Jews, Buddhists, and Wiccans.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle. This is precisely why the Massachusetts Superior Court recognized the legality of same sex marriage: under the existing laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, such couples, being comprised of two adults, are guaranteed the civil liberty of marriage. The state can make no law binding such marriage in the eyes of any given church, but neither can any church or body of faithful practioners enforce their definition of marriage on the general public.

And this is what I mean by preventing the tyranny of the majority.

trish
04-10-2006, 08:11 PM
Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 12:49 AM
What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

Cut `n run, just like the left loves to do.


"What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual's life."

Alfred Kinsey

Check out Table 34 of his book. He used pedophile research who kept detailed records of their child sex, including those of a baby of 5 months and a 4-year-old he sexually manipulated for 24 hours.

Kinsey wrote that the psychic damage to children who have sex with adults comes from the horrified reaction of adults, not from the sex itself.

Do we care to cling to Kinsey and his "studies" or are we going to cherry pick only the parts we like.

January 12, 2006
OTTAWA -- A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships. ``Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,'' says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
``The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.''


This before Canada took a closer step to less government in electing the Conservative party and thereby nulifying the "study" done by liberal hacks designed to give the Liberal party cover.

So drawn to it`s logical conclusion,the next aggreived minority to have it`s laws repealed would be those whose practice was incest,beastiality and sex with minors.

To subjectively draw a line in the sand and delcare,"we are ok,but THEM !? To Jail ! " is arbitrary,intolerant,subjective,and creates millions of demi-gods,who decide for the rest what is "moral" for some,illegal for the rest.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 01:01 AM
Just thought I would point out that the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, federalist papers, or declaration of independence.

The constitution only asserts that congress can make no laws affecting organized religions. Or congress can't touch religion. Religion did touch politics... Heck the school they taught in was where they worshiped on sundays is just one example.

Just to set the record correct on that one...


Enjoy

Max
True, in a simplistic way, Max. The declaration of independence and the Federalist papers really don't apply since, while they are quite vital historical documents which influenced the development of the US government, they do not directly form any part of that government. The constitution does, and as has been the case since it was framed, we see a brilliantly structured, carefully worded document which covers an astounding range of issues but whose very terse nature leads to sometimes endless interpretation and modulation.

Very simply put, the priniciple of separation of church and state is inherent in the First Amendment.

Brilliantly,wrong. Max is closer to the historical facts than you`ll ever be,being a leftist.

The words “separation of church and state” was in a letter from Jefferson. But it only became a constitutional position in the 1940s by a bare majority vote of the United States Supreme Court. It was stuck in the opinion(Everson Vs.Board of Education); it wasn’t even a part of the decision, by Hugo Black. Do you know who Justice Hugo Black was?

When Black was put on the court, he was a Senator from Alabama. He was put on the court by FDR. Do you know that before Robert Bird, he was a member of the KKK? And did you know that Justice Hugo Black despised the Catholic religion? He had all these conspiracy theories about the Pope. He’s the one who slipped that language in that decision. He’s the one that you`re quoting.

So, when we hear socialists going around, “separation of church and state”, they’re not quoting Jefferson,a Deist, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They’re quoting Hugo Black who was a member of the KKK.

After Jefferson wrote that letter? He attended morning prayers.Where? They freely held them in Congress then ! LOL

And here`s the rest of the letter from Jefferson:

" ... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man,and tender you,for yourself,and your Religious Associations,assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Thomas Jefferson Jan.01,1802


Jefferson`s letter was written 14 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted. And several of the states ratifying the Bill of Rights actually had official state religions. If today's "separation of church and state" viewpoint existed back then, the Bill of Rights never would have been ratified by the states, including the states that had official religions.

Know what`s worse than that? Take a tour of the Supreme Court building. In it you`ll find copies of the Decalouge,written in stone,carved into the building itself.

The US Constitution can only be modulated via the Amendment process , is not fluid and open to personal interpretations.If it were then it would be called a "living document". A living document means the original context are dead,therefore,the Constitution means whatever an unelected black robed judge says it means.That is a judicial oligarchy.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 01:58 AM
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Some context here that undercuts your argument. The specifics of L vs W was Providence's practice of soliciting ministers for prayers and then controlling the content of the prayer and had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

The Supreme Court allowed the phrase "one nation, under God" (a phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954 during the Cold War) to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance , reversing a district court decision that stated that the phrase "under God" in the pledge constituted "a profession of religious belief" in public schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.

Clearly stated,the School cannot solicit a specific Rabbi,priest,minister or any other to recite a prayer. But student initiated prayer is permissable.

Ecstatic
04-11-2006, 02:04 AM
Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.
Agreed! Good point, Trish.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 02:23 AM
Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.
Agreed! Good point, Trish.

Hardly.

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Individuals come together to bring into existance,make,establish their organization first,then are usually granted 501(C)3 status if they meet the rules of that section,which can even include corporations.Even Anton Levay`s Church of Satan is eligble for tax-exempt status.But they choose not to.

Ecstatic
04-11-2006, 02:35 AM
Brilliantly,wrong. Max is closer to the historical facts than you`ll ever be,being a leftist.
My, the non sequiturs keep on coming. One's political leanings do not dictate how accurate one's grasp of historical fact is; there is no correlation between the two. Max may or may not be closer to the historical facts, but not by virtue of political belief. That is patently absurd.

The words “separation of church and state” was in a letter from Jefferson. But it only became a constitutional position in the 1940s by a bare majority vote of the United States Supreme Court. It was stuck in the opinion(Everson Vs.Board of Education); it wasn’t even a part of the decision, by Hugo Black. Do you know who Justice Hugo Black was?

When Black was put on the court, he was a Senator from Alabama. He was put on the court by FDR. Do you know that before Robert Bird, he was a member of the KKK? And did you know that Justice Hugo Black despised the Catholic religion? He had all these conspiracy theories about the Pope. He’s the one who slipped that language in that decision. He’s the one that you`re quoting.
Please do not impugn nor insult my intelligence, thank you very much. You could easily make your case re: Hugo Black without resorting to a feeble attempt to belittle me. More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black, and it does not.


So, when we hear socialists going around, “separation of church and state”, they’re not quoting Jefferson,a Deist, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They’re quoting Hugo Black who was a member of the KKK.
No, they are indeed and intentionally quoting (if perhaps misinterpreting: that's a separate matter) Jefferson, just as Black did. The later deliberation by Justice Black does not supercede the direct reference to Jefferson, although I'll gladly concede that it does inform the debate.


After Jefferson wrote that letter? He attended morning prayers.Where? They freely held them in Congress then ! LOL
The Constitution and other documents of the time, as the men who wrote them (and they were men), were brilliant but flawed.


And here`s the rest of the letter from Jefferson:

" ... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man,and tender you,for yourself,and your Religious Associations,assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Thomas Jefferson Jan.01,1802


Jefferson`s letter was written 14 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted. And several of the states ratifying the Bill of Rights actually had official state religions. If today's "separation of church and state" viewpoint existed back then, the Bill of Rights never would have been ratified by the states, including the states that had official religions.
Likely true; this concept, as many others, has evolved with time.


Know what`s worse than that? Take a tour of the Supreme Court building. In it you`ll find copies of the Decalouge,written in stone,carved into the building itself.

The US Constitution can only be modulated via the Amendment process , is not fluid and open to personal interpretations.If it were then it would be called a "living document". A living document means the original context are dead,therefore,the Constitution means whatever an unelected black robed judge says it means.That is a judicial oligarchy.
I take it you are a strict Constitutionalist? But as with any such document, there is margin for error and in part the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of its ability.

The American Nightmare
04-11-2006, 02:36 AM
Excuse me for hijacking this fascinating discussion, but I am curious about something.

Why all the focus on whether someone is on the left or right? As far as I'm concerned, if someone is in the Klan, they can kiss my ass whether they are a donkey or an elephant.

The issue bothers me because it seems to promote a racist-like mentality. Take this example:

Robert Byrd is in the KKK. Just goes to show, those democrats hate black people.*

How is this line of thought any different from...

The DC sniper was black. Just goes to show, those darkies love to shoot people.

I can't help but feel that, much like racism, this twisted form of logic serves only to fuel hate, kinda like watching the O'Reilly Factor.

*I am aware that this statement was never specifically made, but many like it have.
Also, I realize that people who are right/left/black/white/male/female do this type of thing. It's not unique to any one sect.

Ecstatic
04-11-2006, 02:39 AM
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Some context here that undercuts your argument. The specifics of L vs W was Providence's practice of soliciting ministers for prayers and then controlling the content of the prayer and had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
I never said it did. Neither the context nor the author of a statement in themselves qualify nor obviate whatever truth there is in the statement. The principle Blackmun states here stands complete and does not require said context.


The Supreme Court allowed the phrase "one nation, under God" (a phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954 during the Cold War) to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance , reversing a district court decision that stated that the phrase "under God" in the pledge constituted "a profession of religious belief" in public schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.
Yes, I was born in 1951 so I am well aware of this, and I do not endorse the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge.


The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.

Clearly stated,the School cannot solicit a specific Rabbi,priest,minister or any other to recite a prayer. But student initiated prayer is permissable.
No argument there.

Ecstatic
04-11-2006, 02:41 AM
Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.
Agreed! Good point, Trish.

Hardly.

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Individuals come together to bring into existance,make,establish their organization first,then are usually granted 501(C)3 status if they meet the rules of that section,which can even include corporations.Even Anton Levay`s Church of Satan is eligble for tax-exempt status.But they choose not to.
Good distinction. I should have picked up on the difference but it slid past me.

Felicia Katt
04-11-2006, 02:46 AM
Excuse me for hijacking this fascinating discussion, but I am curious about something.

Why all the focus on whether someone is on the left or right? As far as I'm concerned, if someone is in the Klan, they can kiss my ass whether they are a donkey or an elephant.

The issue bothers me because it seems to promote a racist-like mentality. Take this example:

Robert Byrd is in the KKK. Just goes to show, those democrats hate black people.*

How is this line of thought any different from...

The DC sniper was black. Just goes to show, those darkies love to shoot people.

I can't help but feel that, much like racism, this twisted form of logic serves only to fuel hate, kinda like watching the O'Reilly Factor.

*I am aware that this statement was never specifically made, but many like it have.
Also, I realize that people who are right/left/black/white/male/female do this type of thing. It's not unique to any one sect.

good point, I mean, I certainly don't assume all white males in Canada are unable to argue civilly or hold or advance hypocritical or hateful viewpoints :)

FK

trish
04-11-2006, 03:00 AM
White_Male_Canada writes:

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Perhaps on a literal interpretation of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution provides the seed from which later law grows. Current interpretations of this clause, at for now, keep prayer out of public schools.

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

By the way you never did answer my question.

I wrote:

White_Canadian_Male writes:

Quote:
Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you.


Does the republican party?????? ...

I assume the answer is “no”. So your point back there was, the Republican Party differs from the Democratic Party because they both are against polygamous marriages involving 9 years olds??? I’m guessing you’re real point is that you prefer a government that would allow the abuse of 9 year olds. Hey, now don’t go jumping to the conclusion that I’m making any judgments here…that’s your own guilty conscious talking.

bye-bye my little revisionist.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 03:06 AM
there is margin for error and in part the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of its ability

We must err on the side of caution and not on the side of judicial activism. That or RB Ginsburg is correct in her radical departure when she states explicitly, "would be bound by 'the Law of Nations,' today called international law.. At the outset, I should disclose the view I have long held: If U.S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others including Canada.."


…has evolved with time.

The “Living Constitution” approach is just the judicial extension of the broader perspective that truth is relative, not absolute. The Constitution is authoritative and Justices are charged to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. But because they don’t recognize the Constitution’s authoritative nature, they then can effect any outcome they want.

It is "We the People of the United States," not judges, to whom the Constitution looks to "form a more perfect Union." And not ginzberg`s radical departure when she said ,we the judges , "honor the Framers' intent 'to create [sic] a more perfect Union'".



Read the pre-ambles to various state constitutions lately ?



More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,
" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 03:14 AM
White_Male_Canada writes:

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Perhaps on a literal interpretation of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution provides the seed from which later law grows. Current interpretations of this clause, at for now, keep prayer out of public schools.

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

By the way you never did answer my question.



bye-bye my little revisionist.

I revise a post at my whim,be it for grammatical errors,clarfifying or adding codicils as I see fit. Don`t like it ? Tuff luck then.

Look, I even leave,come back and re-post too !


The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 03:29 AM
I assume the answer is “no”. So your point back there was, the Republican Party differs from the Democratic Party because they both are against polygamous marriages involving 9 years olds??? I’m guessing you’re real point is that you prefer a government that would allow the abuse of 9 year olds. Hey, now don’t go jumping to the conclusion that I’m making any judgments here…that’s your own guilty conscious talking.

bye-bye my little revisionist

You missed one of my posts.Kinsey didn`t exactly call it abuse and you know how much the left love kinsey.


"What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual's life."

Alfred Kinsey

Check out Table 34 of his book. He used pedophile research who kept detailed records of their child sex, including those of a baby of 5 months and a 4-year-old he sexually manipulated for 24 hours.

Kinsey wrote that the psychic damage to children who have sex with adults comes from the horrified reaction of adults, not from the sex itself.

Do we care to cling to Kinsey and his "studies" or are we going to cherry pick only the parts we like.

January 12, 2006
OTTAWA -- A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships. ``Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,'' says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
``The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.''


This before Canada took a closer step to less government in electing the Conservative party and thereby nulifying the "study" done by liberal hacks designed to give the Liberal party cover.

So drawn to it`s logical conclusion,the next aggreived minority to have it`s laws repealed would be those whose practice was incest,beastiality and sex with minors.

To subjectively draw a line in the sand and delcare,"we are ok,but THEM !? To Jail ! " is arbitrary,intolerant,subjective,and creates millions of demi-gods,who decide for the rest what is "moral" for some,illegal for the rest.

ezed
04-11-2006, 06:22 AM
I've tried to abstain from responding to this post and have given up trying to read the messages. But I have absorbed the slant of "White_Male_Canada".

Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. Get a job or a hobby or something. Who gives a flying fuck about what you think. Reflect on that! I don't give a fuck about what I think.

I said you're a pain in the ass. I was wrong! You're a talking ass. I saw one once in the early seventies when I was peyote or mescaline. I was all hard and ready to fuck this beautiful ass, when wouldn't you know it, the ass started bitching at me!

I put on my clothes and ran out of the room.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. With that being said....LET'S CHANGE THIS THREAD TO A CREAMIE PIE THREAD....WHAT SAY YOU!!!!! :screwy

Ecstatic
04-11-2006, 03:51 PM
More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,
" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."
This is my last response to our revisionist friend as I refuse to continue any discussion with someone who continually tells me what I intended. You may infer what you wish, but my quote of Blackmun regarded the entirety of the principle of separation of church and state (as I see it and have addressed it, not as Black addressed it nor Jefferson for that matter except as Jefferson is a touchstone for the principle in all later debates). I was emphatically NOT quoting Blackmun with reference to sexual intercourse and that was NOT implied. You seem to want to educate us who you apparently see as less educated and knowledgable than yourself, but first you should learn to distinguish between inference and implication.

You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 06:06 PM
More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,
" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."
This is my last response to our revisionist friend as I refuse to continue any discussion with someone who continually tells me what I intended. You may infer what you wish, but my quote of Blackmun regarded the entirety of the principle of separation of church and state (as I see it and have addressed it, not as Black addressed it nor Jefferson for that matter except as Jefferson is a touchstone for the principle in all later debates). I was emphatically NOT quoting Blackmun with reference to sexual intercourse and that was NOT implied. You seem to want to educate us who you apparently see as less educated and knowledgable than yourself, but first you should learn to distinguish between inference and implication.

You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.


Parse you words all you wish.Give us the Slick Willy "depends what 'is is and was was" tap dance.

Here`s your words:


"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle.


In one paragraph you try relate the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage.

No small inferrance on your part,a clear overt implication, a failed attempt at a logical relation between two wholly different propositions.One being State sponsored school prayer and the other,same sex marriage.

White_Male_Canada
04-11-2006, 06:28 PM
What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

You`re either feigning ignorance to protect your postition or really are out of touch.

You`ve obviously never heard of ,or even read DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal by C.Moser and PJ Kleinplatz.

Professionals from UCLA to Hong Kong in the field of psychiatry and psychology agree that a lack of consent from the child doesn't necessarily mean adult-child sexual relationships are harmful.

You`re either a phony,or a complete moron.

Ecstatic
04-12-2006, 06:12 AM
You'll take the last word, I'm sure, and accuse me of being a cowardly leftist walking away. Great. Have fun preaching to the mirror.


Parse you words all you wish.Give us the Slick Willy "depends what 'is is and was was" tap dance.

Here`s your words:


"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle.


In one paragraph you try relate the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage.

No small inferrance on your part,a clear overt implication, a failed attempt at a logical relation between two wholly different propositions.One being State sponsored school prayer and the other,same sex marriage.
OK, so sometimes the mirror speaks back. And guess what, WMC, you are not the fairest in the land. You can quote, but you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.

I will spell it out one last time for you: I was not in any way referencing Blackmun's opinion regarding school prayer nor claiming that he was making a reference to same sex marriage. The portion of his statement which I quoted stands separate from either and is in fact the assertion that a government cannot be founded upon the principle that all its citizens are created equal if it also confers preference to a single faith group. This is the whole of the argument (read carefully now), which Blackmun applied to his opinion regarding school prayer. The same argument equally applies to same sex marriage in the context of this discussion (that is, that the assertion of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman) where any law intended to so delimit marriage in principle and in fact is in opposition to the beliefs of certain faith groups in the US (the aforementioned Unitarians, Friends, Reform Jews, Buddhists, and others).

I'll put it another way. WMC claims "In one paragraph you try relate [sic] the redefinition of marriage with a Providence school prayer case. It is quite clear that Blackmun WAS NOT refering to same sex marriage." I never said he was referring to same sex marriage. He presented his ruling regarding school prayer with reference to a transcendent principle, viz. "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." This principle holds in many quite different instances, including both school prayer and same sex marriage (and I would argue including "under God" in the pledge of alliegance and a vast array of discrete but related issues). That statement of principle, clearly articulated by Judge Blackmun, is not dependent upon the school prayer case on which he was ruling, but rather the school prayer case was dependent upon it. It is the superior, or ruling, principle which he was citing relative to the specific case. It is perfectly justifiable to cite that same principle, and to quote Blackmun's succinct statement of said principle, with regard to other issues such as same sex marriage.