Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:37 pm
Help me out here. How did those two entities act on a desire to "silence Christians"?I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals.
Help me out here. How did those two entities act on a desire to "silence Christians"?I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals.
battery chucka' one wrote:I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Care to place a wager?battery chucka' one wrote:As opposed to, of course, the Clintons. *big roll eyes*Terry in Crapchester wrote: The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family. Your party has begun to treat the Presidency as though it's a monarchy.
Don't tell me that Jeb wouldn't be lapping the field on your side right now if he was a candidate.
She is for the Dems what Dole was for the Republicans in 96. She will get the nomination. What would you like to wager? Better's choice.
She won't even be eligible under the Constitution in 2012.I hear they're preening Chelsea for a corronation....err...a presidential run in 2012.
Good point. I forgot she was about 14 when her dad was elected. That'd make her what, about 29 right now and 34 in '12. Will they let her be a senator? Maybe they want her in '16.
I'd bet that Jeb would be the Republican nominee if he chose to run this year. More likely, the Bushies are gearing toward a Democratic win in '08, so that they can come back with a "See, we told you so" and run Jeb either in '12 or '16.I don't want anymore Bushes in office. I wouldn't support Jeb if he was running. I don't think many would.
I really think that the Bush block in the Republican party has run its course. I think that he's doing an alright job in the face of what he's had to deal with, but I'm done with them. Again, I don't think I'm alone here. Are the Dems done with the Clintons, though?
I've never voted for anyone named Bush. I probably wouldn't vote for a Bush if you put a gun against my head.Dinsdale wrote:The Bush family is but one of the many faces of PNAC, who are actively trying to overthrow the American government, along with such illustrious names like the Bin Ladens.
Yet you tards vote for them...ponderous.
I realize that puts me among a very small minority on this board.
Repeat.Dinsdale wrote:battery chucka' one wrote:I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals
I didn't realize the ACLU and the 9th were part of the democratic party.
Look at your left hand.
And you talking about keeping your "freedoms intact" is fucking hilariously retarded.
Where you have it written.
What part of that whole "not establishing a religion" are you having trouble understanding?
That you should breathe.
Do you advocate the government reimbursing me for any expenditures that placed the ten commandments and other christain concepts on federal buildings at taxpayer expense?
Now take a breath
No?
Now look at your right hand.
So, you're only into "freedoms" when they apply to YOU?
Where it says to blink so your eyes won't dry out. Now go ahead and blink.
We're still waiting on the dissertation of these evil democrats silencing the christians-btw.
Not a good comparison. The Republican Party has traditionally nominated the candidate whose "turn" it was. The Democratic Party has always been a bit more free-wheeling.battery chucka' one wrote:She is for the Dems what Dole was for the Republicans in 96. She will get the nomination.
Let me get back to you on that one. I haven't thought much about it.What would you like to wager? Better's choice.
I disagree. I think Jeb will be the nominee in either '12 or '16. I think George P. Bush will be the nominee at some point in the future.I really think that the Bush block in the Republican party has run its course. I think that he's doing an alright job in the face of what he's had to deal with, but I'm done with them. Again, I don't think I'm alone here.
That depends on what you mean by "done." I don't think Hillary will be the Presidential nominee, not in '08 or at anytime in the future. If she's interested in running for re-election in the Senate, that's doable.Are the Dems done with the Clintons, though?
Terry in Crapchester wrote:The notion that white Christian males are somehow oppressed in the U.S. would be extremely comical if it were accepted by a half dozen or so flat-earth cranks. But the fact that it has gotten as much traction in this country as it has is scary.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Bill could be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Certainly not by everyone.Dinsdale wrote:Blacks are encouraged to use the N-word.
Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males. Last time I checked, using the n-word is not against the law. It's distasteful to most people, and using it is a sign of ignorance, but you won't get arrested if you choose to use it.Whites are cast out from society for doing so.
You do know his background, don't you? Before he was President, he was, among other things, a Constitutional law professor.Dinsdale wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Bill could be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
PSU, or any other admin --
Could we put this quote right on the topic page of T1B, just so any new members that happen upon this place realize right off the bat what a complete, total, inarguable fucking idiot Terry is?
TIA
Then again, I suppose he could be "nominated"...he does in fact have a license again.
Matter of fact, I'm all for it -- might be the funniest news coverage of the 21st century.
That was quite possibly the stupidest thing ever posted on this board. And since there's people from Kansas City posting here, that's saying a bunch.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:A moment ago you were going after BCO for making precisely the same point you're trying to make here.
I was referring to n-bombs, you knuckle-draggin troglodyte. Where is there a law against them.mvscal wrote:It's called Affirmative Action, you stupid, braindead fuck.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males.
Then how about you give just one reason why he CAN'T be nominated for the Supreme Court?Dinsdale wrote:But really -- you think that Bill Clinton could be nominated for the SCOTUS...you're a fucking idiot,
He was suspended, not disbarred. And he no longer is.mvscal wrote:Newsflash: a Constitutional law professor/skeevy pervert who lies under oath and is disbarred will never get to sniff the bench let alone sit on it.Terry in Crapchester wrote:You do know his background, don't you? Before he was President, he was, among other things, a Constitutional law professor.
Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.
What you're forgetting is that much of the public has a pretty short memory. And Clinton is lookiing pretty good as a President in hindsight, at least compared to his successor.Dinsdale wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote: Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.
Newsflash -- someone who willingly gave up their license to practice law due to a shitstorm for playing duck-and-cover under oath in legal procedings isn't going to be nominated by anyone with intelligence greater than that of Terry
What part of "I never said he will be nominated" don't you get?If you're going to try to weasel your way out of over-the-top fucking stupidity with semantics, just fucking save it.
Now who's talking about over-the-top semantics? Isn't "silencing" Christians a subset of "oppressing" them?Dinsdale wrote:I said nothing about BCO's comments regarding christian men being oppressed.
Without going back and looking, I don't believe BCO even mentioned the subject. He talked about "silencing the christians," which I disagreed with.
Matter of fact, it was YOU who brought the christian-male-oppression to the table.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I was referring to n-bombs, you knuckle-draggin troglodyte. Where is there a law against them.mvscal wrote:It's called Affirmative Action, you stupid, braindead fuck.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males.
A fucking idiot wrote:The notion that white Christian males are somehow oppressed in the U.S.
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Now who's talking about over-the-top semantics? Isn't "silencing" Christians a subset of "oppressing" them?
Something to consider is that A.A. merely treats a symptom, it completely ignores the deeper problem and makes people think that they are accomplishing something when in fact, they're merely blocking it out.Dinsdale wrote: But regardless, I provided examples of both. AA was a program to oppress white males, regardless of what spin you put on it from the other side of the coin. It's truly an example of "two wrongs make a right" at work. Employers are required to hire based on ethnicity, and a white man can be denied a job based purely upon the color of his skin, in favor of a less qualified applicant. This is , by definiton, an oppressive law. A minority can sue for being denied a job based on skin color, but with white men, this behavior is actually encouraged.
Equality is a bourgeois liberal concept. Tell it to BSmack.mvscal wrote:Welcome to life on Planet Earth, pussy.Dr_Phibes wrote:inequity
I guess I set my expectations too high.PSUFAN wrote:I'd love to see any example of this documented.there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians
Are we speaking of equality of opportunity? Or redistribution of wealth in the name of economic equality. The later is what liberals are accused of attempting, the former is what Republicans would have you believe exists in America.Dr_Phibes wrote:Equality is a bourgeois liberal concept. Tell it to BSmack.mvscal wrote:Welcome to life on Planet Earth, pussy.Dr_Phibes wrote:inequity
Back off the pipe mv. "Equality of oportunity" is a fallacy. Just ask the kid bumped out of Yale by Chimpy.mvscal wrote:The equality of opportunity does exist. Get real, you fucking moron.
You're confusing "making a living" with "equality of opportunity"?mvscal wrote:Don't tell me it's hard to make a living in the US. It isn't. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.
Nobody said that. We're talking about equality of opportunity. Which, in any rational sense of the word, means access to opportunity. And the simple fact is that access to opportunities are limited by the size of ones wallet. Ergo, equality of opportunity is a myth.mvscal wrote:Who said equality of opportunity is supposed to mean that everybody starts out rich?BSmack wrote:The simple fact is that "equality of opportunity" is a myth. Opportunity is relative to who you know, how much you know and how much money you have. Sure, you can work and make something of yourself. But don't for a fucking minute think that you have the same access to capital to start a business that say Jenna Bush has. Because it simply isn't true.
The fact remains that opportunity for advancement grows exponentially in relation to ones wealth. Or, as the old saw used to go, the first million is the hardest to make.mvscal wrote:If that were true, nobody would get rich who didn't start out rich.BSmack wrote:And the simple fact is that access to opportunities are limited by the size of ones wallet.
Link?battery chucka' one wrote:Christian fundamentalists (of which I am one) are routinely demonized by the media.
With rhetoric like that, you're making my point for me. There's really not much more to say. You need to learn to accept the fact that not everybody is born with the same opportunities in life.mvscal wrote:Yeah, some people are going to have to work harder than others. Tough shit for them.
What? I thought the government's only reason for existence was to secure your constitutional freedoms?By secularizing Christian holidays, such as Easter (stop the pagan argument. I don't even want to hear it), Christmas, and Thanksgiving, they silence any evangilization that these days could provide.
When did the christians claim Thanksgiving as their own holiday?battery chucka' one wrote:By secularizing Christian holidays... Thanksgiving
And the biggest, baddest Western Civilization ever built came up with a new cornerstone on which their laws and society were built. And it forbids the government from endorsing any particular religion. It also forbids anyone from preventing you from practicing yours, provided you don't violate that same law which allows you to do so. Not that a thumper would ever consider the merits of a two-way street.The Ten commandments are historically one of the earliest societal laws. They are the cornerstone upon which western civilization was built.
Do I really need to quote the Amendment that explains this?Yet we are not to display them in any way that might catch the eye of somebody who is not familiar with them.
Christian fundamentalists (of which I am one) are routinely demonized by the media.
mvscal wrote:How are you doing these days? Missing many meals? Out in the streets? Just look at the lifestyle that you, a blithering idiot, enjoy.
I'm not talking about starting rich or poor. Equality of opportunity means that you or I, based on the merit of our work have the same access to the capital needed to succeed as any other person. That is simply not the case.mvscal wrote:I'm quite comfortable with the fact. Equality of opportunity does not mean that everyone is supposed to start rich or poor for that matter. The only thing it means is that you can succeed in this country. Nobody is going to stop you from trying.BSmack wrote:You need to learn to accept the fact that not everybody is born with the same opportunities in life.
Let me know when the next stock offering backed by brains and work ethic alone is floated on the NYSE.mvscal wrote:You don't need capital to succeed, fuckwit. You need a brain and work ethic.
Bill Gates had every possible advantage along the way. He attended the best prep school in Seattle and had a mother who's connections with John Akers played prominently in the development of MS-DOS. He is the classic example of our time of a kid who was born relatively rich who, by dint of hard work, some theivery and family connections was able to amass a colossal fortune.mvscal wrote:Bill Gates built a 44 billion dollar a year business out of his garage.
So you're just regurgitating a page from The Gotha Programme:mvscal wrote:You don't need capital to succeed, fuckwit. You need a brain and work ethic.
Sorry, but Marx took that and gave it a dialectical bitch-slapping:"Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."
so much for 'equality'.Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
Your forgetting that they had the means to provide for the best possible education, including providing access to a mainframe computer well before the average public school student ever had similar access.mvscal wrote:In short, you continue to make excuses. His parents had nothing to do with the business he built, but he did have two of them who supported and encouraged him in his efforts.
I've seen classic examples of the Asian family and work ethic up close. I used to manage several just off the boat Vietnamese workers at a scrap metal yard. These guys had a capacity for hard work that knew no end. I haven't seen any of these guys in over 10 years, but I have no doubt that they all still working their asses off. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are pooling their money together to bring more family over/start a business. Of course their chances of building a 44 billion a year enterprise are zero to none whatsoever. But, if they work hard enough, their kids might be able to get a decent education and do something with it.That's why Asians consistently outperform every other minority. While the rest of these shitskinned dumbfucks are sittting around crying and making lame excuses for their pitiful failures, the Asians are busting their asses and leaving those other morons in the dust.