RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 3:26:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Technically we have and thats the way it will be written. Despite the economic carnage Obama's policies have brought, the papers will treat it as "Obama got us out of the Bush recession after only 6 months", ignoring the fact that it was borrowed money padding government consumption that led to an artificial increase in GDP.


This was chiefly done by Bush and co financing ideological wars on borrowed money and by total federal outlays increasing some 68% in the W adminstration. 

You all most got it right Wilbur. You should have said that prior to pointing out that Obama got it in hand in 6 months.




Real0ne -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 3:33:45 PM)

funny they shoot 24/7 and never die

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-gun.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-gunr.gif[/image]




imperatrixx -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 9:42:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

I think this guy should at least make the short list.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/17/cain-opposing-mosque-construction-is-not-discrimination/


Why, because he understands the law, apparently better than you do?


Can I ask you a serious question?

Do you honestly believe it's okay to deny a minority religion the right to build a house of worship because their religion is unpopular?

Or are you just worried because he's a Republican and I'm an evil liberal and if you give me an inch I'll not only take a mile but try to turn it into a kilometer as well?

Simple question - do you think it's okay or not?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 9:53:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

I think this guy should at least make the short list.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/17/cain-opposing-mosque-construction-is-not-discrimination/


Why, because he understands the law, apparently better than you do?


Can I ask you a serious question?

Do you honestly believe it's okay to deny a minority religion the right to build a house of worship because their religion is unpopular?

Or are you just worried because he's a Republican and I'm an evil liberal and if you give me an inch I'll not only take a mile but try to turn it into a kilometer as well?

Simple question - do you think it's okay or not?


No, and that isnt Cain's reason for opposing it either.

Edit: I may have read too much into your question. I was actually responding to the question ".....okay FOR THE GOVERNMENT to deny a minority religion....". and my answer is no.

I think it is absolutely ok for the local community to deny it.




imperatrixx -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 9:58:56 PM)

You don't think that the American government has a responsibility to protect people's freedom to practice their religion and freedom to assemble peaceably?

How exactly is it different for a community to say "We don't want Muslims to worship here" than for them to say "We don't want black people to buy houses here"?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 10:12:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

You don't think that the American government has a responsibility to protect people's freedom to practice their religion and freedom to assemble peaceably?

How exactly is it different for a community to say "We don't want Muslims to worship here" than for them to say "We don't want black people to buy houses here"?


Freedom of assembly is not the same as freedom to build. That is left to local zoning ordinances and the only Federal responsbility is to ensure that those laws are neutral with regard to religion. The SCOTUS has consistently upheld "time place and manner" restrictions on the building of churches. The site of a church is considered a secular issue, not a tenet of faith.




imperatrixx -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/22/2011 11:32:57 PM)

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 7:14:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.


I disagree with your characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, Islam. If 9/11 was done by Freemasons, there would be just as much objection to a masonic temple being built there. Hitler's atrocities weren't based on religion, but the Pope still recognized that building a church near the site of a concentation camp was insensitive and inappropriate.




Owner59 -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 7:43:16 AM)

If 9/11 were done by Freemasons dick-bush-cheney would have still invaded Iraq.




Moonhead -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 7:57:32 AM)

Hell, if it had been done by smurfs Cheney and his monkey would have invaded Iraq...




lockedaway -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 8:01:21 AM)

Civility...what a fucking joke.  Did any of you libs here O'cocksucker come out and say "I told them I wanted them back here by 11 a.m. to explain how blah,blah,blah".  How can the President "order" congress or the senate to come in at 11 a.m. and do anything?  They are three co-equal branches of the government.  This arrogant piece of monkey shit sees himself as a little dictator.  Aside from all of the other reasons I have outlined concerning why there can be no civility...there's another one.




DomKen -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 8:13:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Civility...what a fucking joke.  Did any of you libs here O'cocksucker come out and say "I told them I wanted them back here by 11 a.m. to explain how blah,blah,blah".  How can the President "order" congress or the senate to come in at 11 a.m. and do anything?  They are three co-equal branches of the government.  This arrogant piece of monkey shit sees himself as a little dictator.  Aside from all of the other reasons I have outlined concerning why there can be no civility...there's another one.

Have you never read the Constitution?
Article 2 section3
quote:

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them




DomKen -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 8:16:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.


I disagree with your characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, Islam.

Cain's own words on the subject
http://nation.foxnews.com/herman-cain/2011/07/17/herman-cain-islam-combines-church-and-state

More blatant desire to violate the 1st amendment I've rarely seen.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 9:09:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.


I disagree with your characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, Islam.

Cain's own words on the subject
http://nation.foxnews.com/herman-cain/2011/07/17/herman-cain-islam-combines-church-and-state

More blatant desire to violate the 1st amendment I've rarely seen.


Another intetnional misstatement by KenDoll (or you dont understand the 1st Amendment, neither would suprise me). What he is complaining about is exactly the opposite...Sharia combines church and state and violates the 1st amendment.




Moonhead -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 2:24:27 PM)

And until such time as somebody tries to practice sharia law at a state (or even county) level, that doesn't even qualify as a strawman.




DomKen -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 2:39:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.


I disagree with your characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, Islam.

Cain's own words on the subject
http://nation.foxnews.com/herman-cain/2011/07/17/herman-cain-islam-combines-church-and-state

More blatant desire to violate the 1st amendment I've rarely seen.


Another intetnional misstatement by KenDoll (or you dont understand the 1st Amendment, neither would suprise me). What he is complaining about is exactly the opposite...Sharia combines church and state and violates the 1st amendment.

By that logic so does Judaism and Christianity (leviticus being a code of laws)




joether -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 2:43:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
Civility...what a fucking joke.  Did any of you libs here O'cocksucker come out and say "I told them I wanted them back here by 11 a.m. to explain how blah,blah,blah".  How can the President "order" congress or the senate to come in at 11 a.m. and do anything?  They are three co-equal branches of the government.  This arrogant piece of monkey shit sees himself as a little dictator.  Aside from all of the other reasons I have outlined concerning why there can be no civility...there's another one.

Have you never read the Constitution?
Article 2 section3
quote:

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them



No, he's been to busy behaving like a twelve year old child since he started posting on the forums. Have you not notice his lack of ability to behave in a civilized manner? How he insults anyone that shows his 'facts' and 'evidence' to be nothing more than crap? That he honestly thinks he's more intelligent than all of us on these boards?

So long as we have someone liked 'lockedaway' or any of the other 'children' these forums will never have a decent level of civility to talk about important.....adult....matters. Unfortunately, there seems to be a shortage of intelligent, wise, and mature ladies & gentlemen of the conservative philosophy. An that truely is a sad thing. The conservatives of the 1940s-1970s would NEVER put the country in the sort of economic peril as the current crop flaunts. If anything, they'd pull out their guns, and shot the current crop for being borderline traitors to the nation.

They would agree to a mutual deal. Some tax cuts for some tax increases. $400-$600 Billion in tax cuts with removing the Bush era tax cuts would be a fair deal. Unlike the current idiots that are 'conservative' in name only, those guys would very much understand what would happen once those programs are cut. They wouldn't like it all the same as their liberal counterparts, but would try to be optimistic rather than the opposite (as the current conservative bemoan by the minute).

You want to have more ciivilty on these boards (asking the forum, not just DK)? Tell the Admins to ban lockedaway and folks like him for the next six months. Call it an educated guess, but I do think things will get PLENTY more ugly without encouragement from the 'little kids table'.




imperatrixx -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 2:46:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Right but the reason they are opposed to it is the specific religion ...Cain even said that the issue is that Islam is a combination of church and state and that they are trying to hide behind first amendment protectionof religion. His issue isn't with freedom of religion...he just doesn't think freedom of religion applies to Islam.


I disagree with your characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, Islam. If 9/11 was done by Freemasons, there would be just as much objection to a masonic temple being built there. Hitler's atrocities weren't based on religion, but the Pope still recognized that building a church near the site of a concentation camp was insensitive and inappropriate.



1. You don't disagree with my characterization of the opposition being due to the specific religion, you're actually justifying it by saying more or less "since 9/11 was done by Muslims, there is objection to an Islamic mosque being built." The fact that there would be no problem with a church or synagogue being built, only a mosque, means the problem is with Islam, not religion.

2. And for that matter I don't see what 9/11 has to do with a mosque being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Is the logic really "Muslims from Saudi Arabia attacked New York, therefore Muslims in Tennessee should not be able to build a mosque?"




kalikshama -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 2:58:20 PM)

quote:

Sharia combines church and state and violates the 1st amendment.


What do you think of Gov. Rick Perry?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/392478/july-19-2011/god-calls-rick-perry-to-run

Much of the transcript:

http://veracitystew.com/2011/07/20/colbert-rick-perry-erases-line-between-churchstate-video/

“The Response rally is open to everyone! Its website clearly states that, ‘People of all ages, races and backgrounds will be in attendance to proclaim Jesus as Savior.’ See? It doesn’t cross the line between church and state, it erases it.”







kalikshama -> RE: Bringing civility back to congress. (7/23/2011 4:47:58 PM)

quote:

By that logic so does Judaism and Christianity (leviticus being a code of laws)


Apparently "Torah" means "The Law."

Here's Jon Stewart's take on Cain (about 6 minutes in.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-july-21-2011-scott-miller




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875