• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

Nothing in the Constitution about that though. Read it.

9th and 10th amendment

Where does it say that anywhere in the Constitution? Now you have to go find it. Have fun.

9th and 10th amendment

But you get my point about burkas anyway. You won't admit it, but you do.

No, your point, as has been the case with much of your arguments I have thus far encountered, is nothing more than hyperbole garbage based on nothing. The government cannot force me to wear anything beyond decency. They can say I can't go outside in view of the public naked; and that's where it ends.
 
I would define thinkheaded as someone who read the posts (well I hope you did) in which we discussed the decorations not being bought ON BUDGET and then still trying to ram that point home...

That's just one issue. Even if something is paid for with private funds, it is authorized by a law to be put on public land.

But yeah, I'd say its "thinkheaded" of me. :lol:
 
Surely that is the apex of jesting. Obama is the king communist. Down with Obama and up with The Pope.

no up with obama and down with capitalism

we need a new order of communism.

capitalism has ruined america
 
"Intervene"? In what? This is the government's actions we're talking about in the first place.

The federal issue is a non-issue. The First Amendment binds the states too.

that depends on whether or not it is a constitutional matter... I wouldn't consider it one. It is the federal gov't interfering in a local community when say, an ACLU lawyer comes to town, sees the 10 commandments in the county courthouse, and sues.



By that standard, I could set up a complete theocracy, with Imams running the government and making the laws, and as long as you weren't "forced" to worship anything, it would be constitutional.

Governments can do nothing without the use or threat of force. So no, you couldn't.

You could set up a system, say you call it a theocracy, but I could simply ignore you. Now, if you became a nusance, putting up symbols to piss me off, I might sue you for being a nusance, but not necessarily for violating my constitutional rights.
 
9th and 10th amendment



9th and 10th amendment

Anyone can just say that, over and over.

I do hope you fully support Roe v. Wade.

But you get my point about burkas, though you won't admit it.
 
Wrong. They can't violate anyone's rights.

Of course they can't. Displaying a religious symbol on public land does not violate anyone's rights.

Dear God, I've already explained in detail that the states are also bound by the Federal Bill of Rights.

And I've already told you why you're wrong.

Sidewalks are public land.

But never mind. Can the people vote to ban any religious practice by individuals on public land?

People are free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
 
That's just one issue. Even if something is paid for with private funds, it is authorized by a law to be put on public land.

But yeah, I'd say its "thinkheaded" of me. :lol:

haha Good catch, consider it edited. ;) However, you still have yet to prove (that means other than just saying it or using talking points) that decorations = law. Give us some links or something man. Back up your talk.
 
Of course they can't.

You just insisted that they could do anything they want.

Displaying a religious symbol on public land does not violate anyone's rights.

Sometimes it does.

People are free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

Yes, so stop yammering about "their land, their choice" and all that crap.
 
Anyone can just say that, over and over.

I do hope you fully support Roe v. Wade.

What does Roe v. Wade have to do with you being wrong all the time? I told you exactly in the Constitution where it says what you wanted. The Constitution is not a limiter on the rights and liberties of the People. The Constitution limits the power and authority of the government. The People are the sovereigns, we have no limiter beyond not being able to infringe upon the rights of others, rightfully that is.
 
You just insisted that they could do anything they want.

The people can do whatever they want. So long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. If those people choose to put up a religious symbol on public property, it is their choice and decision and they are more than free to do so. There's nothing the government can rightfully do about it.

Sometimes it does.

In the context for which we are talking about it, no it doesn't.

Yes, so stop yammering about "their land, their choice" and all that crap.

I will, when you understand what that means.
 
haha Good catch, consider it edited. ;) However, you still have yet to prove (that means other than just saying it or using talking points) that decorations = law. Give us some links or something man. Back up your talk.

You guys just need stuff repeated four or five times, don't you?

You don't even bother to respond, if you're reading it at all. You just reflexively say "you've proven nothing" or "you haven't explained."

It's okay, I have small children, so I understand.

I don't need a link to explain to you that everything a government does is authorized by a law somewhere. Every penny spent, every manager hired, every acre of public land bought, every decoration put up was the result of a law either declaring it, or giving someone else the power to do it.

It's called the rule of law.

If you want a link so bad, here:

What is the Rule of Law?

In any event, hanging your hat on the word "law" is silly. It's obvious the First Amendment would be a joke if governments could simply circumvent it by saying their actions weren't really "laws." You're opening it up to an equally absurd claim that the government can do all kinds of things to restrict freedom of religious practice, speech, etc.
 
Everything the government does, it has done because the People have authorized it. Nothing you have says why the People can't put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land. It's not law. Acts of Congress, even acts of the Judiciary these days (sadly) can be laws. The People choosing to put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land is not. It's the freedom of the community, of the individuals comprising that community, to use their property and money as they see fit. And so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, there's nothing the government can rightfully do about it.
 
Everything the government does, it has done because the People have authorized it. Nothing you have says why the People can't put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land. It's not law. Acts of Congress, even acts of the Judiciary these days (sadly) can be laws. The People choosing to put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land is not. It's the freedom of the community, of the individuals comprising that community, to use their property and money as they see fit. And so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, there's nothing the government can rightfully do about it.

well that would work if people used there money properly that is why we need to control how people spend there money so it is used properly.
 
well that would work if people used there money properly that is why we need to control how people spend there money so it is used properly.

I'm not sure I follow. People can use their money as they see fit. If they use it irresponsibly, that's their business too. They are, of course, accountable for the repercussions there of; but otherwise they are free to do as they like; with the aforementioned limitation in that they may not infringe upon the rights of others.
 
I'm not sure I follow. People can use their money as they see fit. If they use it irresponsibly, that's their business too. They are, of course, accountable for the repercussions there of; but otherwise they are free to do as they like; with the aforementioned limitation in that they may not infringe upon the rights of others.

some people believe that there free to do everything they want but people use it irresponsibly and say they can do it because its there money that is why the government should control some of the things people do
 
You guys just need stuff repeated four or five times, don't you?

Well you certainly are good at repeating yourself...

You don't even bother to respond, if you're reading it at all. You just reflexively say "you've proven nothing" or "you haven't explained."

I respond with "you haven't explained anything" because you haven't. You use talking points. Do you know what talking points are?

It's okay, I have small children, so I understand.

Lucky them...

I don't need a link to explain to you that everything a government does is authorized by a law somewhere.

So the Postmaster at a Post Office, who of his own volition puts up Christmas decorations is actually a puppet of the Federal Government bent on pushing their Christian Agenda, which is clearly outlined in the many laws regulating, nay FORCING, him to do so?! MY GOD! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!?! :roll: :lol:

Every penny spent, every manager hired, every acre of public land bought, every decoration put up was the result of a law either declaring it, or giving someone else the power to do it.

There is no "Make **** look festive" law, but I could be wrong...once again, care to PROVE it? I know you hate to prove what you're saying, but I could be wrong.

It's called the rule of law.

If you want a link so bad, here:

What is the Rule of Law?

HOORAY! A LINK! TO THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA NO LESS! GO HAWKEYES!! Oh wait, this is a research paper done by two students...alright, fair enough, they're Hawkeyes so I'll give it a go!

In any event, hanging your hat on the word "law" is silly. It's obvious the First Amendment would be a joke if governments could simply circumvent it by saying their actions weren't really "laws." You're opening it up to an equally absurd claim that the government can do all kinds of things to restrict freedom of religious practice, speech, etc.

Hanging your hat on this notion that these lawn decorations are somehow legislated onto the front lawn is silly.


On to the RULE OF LAW! Paper by By Helen Yu and Alison Guernsey

The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.

Right off the bat, we're going to have some issues I can tell...No precise definition? well you must love that since you don't like dictionaries or words with concrete definitions. From what they've mentioned in this paragraph the "Rule of Law", doesn't have any application to LAWN DECORATIONS...

A. Elements of the Rule of Law

In his book The Morality of Law, American legal scholar Lon Fuller identified eight elements of law which have been recognized as necessary for a society aspiring to institute the rule of law. Fuller stated the following:

OK now we're on to a legal scholar talking about Morality of Law? Alright...I'll run with that...Here we go:

1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.

Ok, so where does this apply to lawn decorations being put up? Is it the fact that the law that requires they be put up doesn't exist? or that not everyone obeys it?

2. Laws must be published.

Excellent, then you should be able to provide me with the laws to which you are referring, Misterman.

3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.

Still not seeing a relation to decorations...

4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.

Well clearly if ever such a law was written about these lawn decorations, it sure as hell isn't written clear enough!

5. Law must avoid contradictions.

6. Law must not command the impossible.

Alright, well if the law exists, I can agree with this.

7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.

Once again, if the law exists, I'm sure there was enough time to put up/take down said lawn ornaments.

8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.

Once again, again, if the law exists, Then let's be consistent with it!
 
Therein lies one of the reasons the left is so afraid of Sarah Palin. She wants to get back to the fundamentals of God and how this nation was founded, something the progressive left wants nothing to do with.

Wants a nation to rededicate itself to God? Stop her now! She is dangerous!!!!!!!

Because the history of the United States is not entirely dedicated to the servitude of God and His will, even during its founding. Many were Deists, many were dedicated servants of God, but what was dangerous was instituting too many litmus tests in Government.

Furthermore, Sarah Palin represents little of the nation's beginning policies, and perhaps necessarily so. I'm not one who is chained to the attitudes and policies of the 18th and early 19th centuries, but it is ridiculous to be so promoting of her politics as a return to the Founding ideals.
 
:lol: This is beyond hilarious. You actually think "respecting" is about personal opinions or something.

Uh, that's what you said, not me. Those were your words in your post, not me in mine.

From the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It means "with respect to" as in referring or relating to. Not respecting as in respect vs. disrespect.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I sometimes wonder why my thought process is so strange, that I would liken the first amendm- oh ****, Winters Grasp is about to start, brb....
 
well that would work if people used there money properly that is why we need to control how people spend there money so it is used properly.
:roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll:
 
Uh, that's what you said, not me. Those were your words in your post, not me in mine.

Oh, man. They aren't my words - they are from the First Amendment. I quoted it in my reply.

Never mind. Just never mind.
 
Last edited:
I respond with "you haven't explained anything" because you haven't. You use talking points. Do you know what talking points are?

Please try to have a discussion like a human.

So the Postmaster at a Post Office, who of his own volition puts up Christmas decorations is actually a puppet of the Federal Government bent on pushing their Christian Agenda, which is clearly outlined in the many laws regulating, nay FORCING, him to do so?! MY GOD! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!?! :roll: :lol:

Nope, didn't say that.

Hanging your hat on this notion that these lawn decorations are somehow legislated onto the front lawn is silly.

Yet they are.

Right off the bat, we're going to have some issues I can tell...No precise definition? well you must love that since you don't like dictionaries or words with concrete definitions.

If you actually need a definition, that's why you're so hopelessly confused by this stuff.

You're woefully ignorant about this stuff, and it shows. You're not smart enough to realize it, so you argue from ignorance. That's your problem, not mine.[/QUOTE]
 
Wintergrasp is over. It was good fight. We lost the fortress and lost the battle but the defenders usually do. The battle was long and both sides put up one hell of an effort with the maximum 240 players showing up to represent. It was a great HK soak.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm03136FTI4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Goon Squad captures Wintergrasp in 62 seconds[/ame]


****
Oh, man. They aren't my words - they are from the First Amendment. I quoted it in my reply.

Never mind. Just never mind.

Your post 197, you said:

Okay, first of all, I didn't say it's always illegal. It can be though.

In a nutshell:

1. The First Amendment says you can't "respect an establishment of religion."

2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
3. That applies to the state governments too (14th amendment).
4. Public land is the government - it is owned and controlled by the government.
5. Therefore, IF the government puts up a religious display, or allows someone to put one up without allowing any other religious displays, its the same thing as the government declaring that there is an official religion, and that would be a violation of the First amendment.

It's not like this isn't found all over the place in the caselaw though.

I'm quoting your entire post for context, and bolded what I responded to in red.

You were clearly paraphrasing the first amendment "in a nut shell" with partial quotes of the amendment with your own words.

You did not merely quote the 1st amendment as you are now claiming.


***
In your post 197, you said that I am forbidden by law from respecting religion.
 
Last edited:
Please try to have a discussion like a human.

Oh, the irony!

Nope, didn't say that.

Sarcasm and theatrics, not quoting what you said.

Yet they are.

You have yet to show me where they are, I can't find it. I must be biased or ignorant. or blind.


If you actually need a definition, that's why you're so hopelessly confused by this stuff.

I give you all that, and you give me this crap? You're the one hung up on definitions and meanings. :D

You're woefully ignorant about this stuff, and it shows. You're not smart enough to realize it, so you argue from ignorance. That's your problem, not mine.

:lol: I'm sorry, what did you say Mr. Kettle?
 
Back
Top Bottom