• 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

Ikari said:
White, American. That's all you get.
Click to expand...

Yep, scared, because you know what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot.

Since you're such a chickensh*t, I'll use a generic example:

Someone is being stingy with money. You say "don't be a Jew." That's not an insult to Jews?

I don't expect you to get this, let alone admit it, but there it is on the record.
 
misterman said:
Yep, scared, because you know what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot.

Since you're such a chickensh*t, I'll use a generic example:

Someone is being stingy with money. You say "don't be a Jew." That's not an insult to Jews?

I don't expect you to get this, let alone admit it, but there it is on the record.
Click to expand...

Is the only thing you can do is throw out personal insults? It's really hard to make a point when all you can do is throw out insults. I gave you what you wanted. You'd be more likely to elicit the emotional response you wanted using American. I hold no loyalty to European ancestry.

I also have a couple Jewish friends whom have used that phrase of yours. So try again DQ.
 
Ikari said:
Is the only thing you can do is throw out personal insults? It's really hard to make a point when all you can do is throw out insults.
Click to expand...

Wait - you're complaining about personal insults?

I gave you what you wanted. You'd be more likely to elicit the emotional response you wanted using American. I hold no loyalty to European ancestry.
Click to expand...

Chicken.

I also have a couple Jewish friends whom have used that phrase of yours. So try again DQ.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that you can get away with it if you're one of them.

Go say it yourself in front of total strangers who are Jewish. See how that works out.
 
misterman said:
Wait - you're complaining about personal insults?
Click to expand...

You've used them from the beginning. I didn't. You tried to claim I've made a personal attack when I didn't; it's all you've bitched about thus far. So make your point, DQ. Otherwise, you're just showing how poorly you engage in debate.

misterman said:
Chicken.
Click to expand...

More personal insult. So you're basically saying that you can't do what you've claimed and all you can really do is engage in personal insult and nothing more. Noted.

misterman said:
You know as well as I do that you can get away with it if you're one of them.

Go say it yourself in front of total strangers who are Jewish. See how that works out.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, protected class, blah blah blah. None of this has anything to do with your proposed point, DQ. So let's see this totally awesome hypothetical you have that's going to put me in my place. Come on DQ, put up.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Either you discuss the topic of the thread or you will receive consequences. Cease personal attacks now!
 
Ikari said:
You've used them from the beginning. I didn't. You tried to claim I've made a personal attack when I didn't;
Click to expand...

But you did.

Blah blah blah, protected class, blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything like that.

None of this has anything to do with your proposed point, DQ. So let's see this totally awesome hypothetical you have that's going to put me in my place. Come on DQ, put up.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. You just never stopped to think about it, and you overreacted when I enlightened you.

Sarah Palin has a kid with Down syndrome and she's had people attack her like this in the past by bloggers, and recieved apologies for it, so I think this is on topic btw. She's an idiot and I hate her, but her son doesn't deserve this.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
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!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, she is dangerous. Which God? The Old Testament God, who acted like a jealous and spiteful child or the New Testament God?
 
EgoffTib said:
Yes, she is dangerous. Which God? The Old Testament God, who acted like a jealous and spiteful child or the New Testament God?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the flying spaghitti monster.
 
In danger of actually returning to a non-insulting/depreciating portion of the thread, I would like to answer to the "1st Amendment ambiguities" discussion.

First, let me say that the Amendment is not an iron-clad statement of what is permissable and what is not. The writers used a common speech common sense approach in all of their writings. The Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were all writen in the same manner using pretty much the same language.

Second, you are right, dictionary meanings did not come into play until the 1800s with Webster and a few other compilers. Until then word meanings and spellings were pretty loosely followed.

Given that, I still feel that they are not as ambigious as you claim. Using common sense can determine much of what it covers. Citing laws and judicial findings that have come after the fact and elaborations beyond those really do not change the fact that the basis is there and not that ambigious. I feel that many of the laws and several of the rulings (mostly based on the laws) actually violate the Bill of Rights and should be revoked.

As to specifics - the canabilistic religionist is not a violator of the Bill of Rights unless he/she is producing the dead bodies to consume. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to say on the legal form of Marriage - whether to multiples or whatevers. These are all laws at the State level since the States license marriage, not the Federal Government.

Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.

I believe those were the specifics that people threw up as objections although a few may have escaped into the trash discusions.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, iron-clad laws do not do well in the long haul. The Bill of Rights is over 200 years old now. If it had limited free speech to the ability to talk in public assembly then any talk using electronic media would be able to be limited. Any further technological advance in communications would also be able to be limited. But the Amendment says "Free Speech'. Speech in this case is communicating an idea or ideas through written, spoken, transmitted, or any other form of communications. By not being iron-clad it can adjust to changing technology, society, and culture.
 
carlkay58 said:
In danger of actually returning to a non-insulting/depreciating portion of the thread
Click to expand...

Careful, you might produce some substance!

Second, you are right, dictionary meanings did not come into play until the 1800s with Webster and a few other compilers. Until then word meanings and spellings were pretty loosely followed.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Dictionaries had been around before that, and remember, this is about legal definitions, which were discussed extensively in law books. I don't think it's the lack of dictionaries that mattered, but rather the lack of court cases and precedents to discuss these issues and hash them out.

Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
carlkay58 said:
Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
Click to expand...

While I would disagree that religious displays on government property are promotion of a particular religion, I do agree that fundamentally this needs to be handled on the community level. This isn't something for the federal government to get involved in. If a community wants a manger scene on the lawn of the city court; more power to them. I don't view this as promotion of religion less there were actual law compelling one to practice a particular religion. In the end, I think the people of a community can make rules for themselves about the use of their public land. They ultimately pay for it, so they can do what they want for the most part with it.
 
GOD FORBID...er...rather...CONSTITUTION FORBID a Post Office put up a Nativity scene on its front lawn during Christmas...I mean...the HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!! and NO FEDERAL BUILDING should have a statue of the Ten Commandments because it oppresses all the non-christian religions! :lol:

Congress shall make no law. Nothing in there about cosmetic stuff of no consequence to laws.
 
EpicDude86 said:
GOD FORBID...er...rather...CONSTITUTION FORBID a Post Office put up a Nativity scene on its front lawn during Christmas...I mean...the HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!! and NO FEDERAL BUILDING should have a statue of the Ten Commandments because it oppresses all the non-christian religions! :lol:

Congress shall make no law. Nothing in there about cosmetic stuff of no consequence to laws.
Click to expand...
i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
 
liblady said:
i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
Click to expand...

Well that's fine. As long as we can act as respectable adults and not go crazy, there shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: oh wait, we apparently can't.
 
carlkay58 said:
Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
Click to expand...

Christmas cannot because its a federal holiday so until that is lifted, Christmas displays are legal despite what some local groups claim.
 
liblady said:
i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
Click to expand...

Nope sorry. Christmas is a federal holiday therefore it would not be illegal to display the nativity scene.
 
aps said:
Excuse me, if you'd like to discuss Obama and god, I suggest you start a thread. :roll:
Click to expand...

Would you dodge what I posted in another thread also?
 
liblady said:
i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Sure, it would be nice if they put up other symbols, but they don't have to. It's up to the community as to what they want displayed on their public land. End of story. If they want only a manger scene, so be it. So long as none of this is being codified into law where people are compelled to follow a certain god; there's nothing the federal government can rightfully do about it.
 
texmaster said:
Christmas cannot because its a federal holiday so until that is lifted, Christmas displays are legal despite what some local groups claim.
Click to expand...

Christmas as a federal Holiday is unconstitutional. See, it's got CHRIST in there...and you can't have CHRIST in a law! 1st Amendment just won't allow it!


:lol:
 
EpicDude86 said:
Christmas as a federal Holiday is unconstitutional. See, it's got CHRIST in there...and you can't have CHRIST in a law! 1st Amendment just won't allow it!


:lol:
Click to expand...

LOL Yeah! Its separation of church and state! Wait, that isn't in the Constitution either.... never mind :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom