Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Point is, Mike, with your shitty attitude and need to feel like you're educating people instead of debating with them on the level, you don't make many friends.

 

You are a pox to intelligent discussion on this board and your abscence only that made that more the obvious apparent. The only reason you're still here is because you manage to take your uncredible and unrealistic positions and expand on them with wordy language, making it appear to look like it makes sense. I don't know if you're reading from transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show or what. Your posts in the Chomsky thread were actually quite interesting and thorough, but that was one rare spot of intelligence and since then you've just been reading talking points and demonizing people as being either cruel or stupid for their opposite positions.

 

Point is, even Marney would tackle people's points while calling them cretins and wastes of cellular organic matter. You, on the other hand, made a whole post saying RoboJerk pulled stuff out of his ass and called him a child and a sandy vagina. You didn't prove anything. Way to go.

[Guest MikeSC]

Point is, Mike, with your shitty attitude and need to feel like you're educating people instead of debating with them on the level, you don't make many friends.

You aren't on my level. Simple as that. You're not even close.

You are a pox to intelligent discussion on this board and your abscence only that made that more the obvious apparent. The only reason you're still here is because you manage to take your uncredible and unrealistic positions and expand on them with wordy language, making it appear to look like it makes sense. I don't know if you're reading from transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show or what.

 

Point is, even Marney would tackle people's points while calling them cretins and wastes of cellular organic matter. You, on the other hand, made a whole post saying RoboJerk pulled stuff out of his ass and called him a child and a sandy vagina. You didn't prove anything. Way to go.

I can't disprove point he pulls out of thin air.

 

But you're too dense to get that.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You aren't on my level. Simple as that. You're not even close.

Read my edit about your posts on the Chomsky thread. If you actually put that much information into your posts rather than just sitting around in controversial subject threads telling everyone their opinions is wrong for not aligning with yours, perhaps you'd be more useful here.

[Guest MikeSC]

You aren't on my level. Simple as that. You're not even close.

Read my edit about your posts on the Chomsky thread. If you actually put that much information into your posts rather than just sitting around in controversial subject threads telling everyone their opinions is wrong for not aligning with yours, perhaps you'd be more useful here.

And your usefulness will commence eventually, right?

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Wait, this isn't a thread on gay porn?

 

All the dick-waving tells me otherwise...

[Vyce 0]

I WISH this was a thread about gay porn.

[SuperJerk 0]

Maybe I can "invent some quotes" about gay porn.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm sure you can. It's what you do best.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

right, so, the topic?

[Special K 0]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm sure you can. It's what you do best.

I'm only quoting him so he can claim I invented this quote as well.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

That's why I didn't respond.

[Dr. Tom 0]

As an atheist, I hate getting lumped in with a bunch of cretins who want to expunge all mentions of the word "God" from everything that could possibly be seen by human eyes.

 

"Under God" is in the pledge? Don't care.

"In God we trust" is on money? Don't care.

Ten Commandments in public buildings? Don't care about that, either.

 

Really, there are more important things to worry about.

[SuperJerk 0]

Is there a point you're willing to draw the line?

 

Surely you see the difference between government displays of religion and "everything that could possibly be seen by human eyes."

 

I've stated before why, on principle, I think those things are wrong. Am I willing to anything more than express my opinion about it on an internet message board? No. But I've definitely got a clear line drawn that I think people shouldn't cross when it comes to mixing politics and religion.

 

What bothers me most about this is the way the religious right uses stupid things like the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments as a rallying cry for voting their lackeys into office. I bothers me when immoral politicians use people's religious beliefs to hide their own blatant immorality. Allowing government displays of religion helps these politicians to buy votes with hallejuahs. They can use their office to look holy in public, while being the devil behind closed doors.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Allowing government displays of religion helps these politicians to buy votes with hallejuahs.  They can use their office to look holy in public, while being the devil behind closed doors.

Don't tell me that wasn't a little heavy-handed.

[SuperJerk 0]

Allowing government displays of religion helps these politicians to buy votes with hallejuahs.  They can use their office to look holy in public, while being the devil behind closed doors.

Don't tell me that wasn't a little heavy-handed.

Okay, I won't then.

 

You can't tell me, though, that trying to appear like a God-fearing church goer by favoring this stuff wasn't a major part of a certain former Arkansas governors' numerous reelection campaigns.

[NoCalMike 0]

"Under God" is in the pledge? Don't care.

"In God we trust" is on money? Don't care.

Ten Commandments in public buildings? Don't care about that, either.

Most people don't care about those issues when you single them out, individually. Well maybe they do with the public display, but the other two, nope. I think what matters is the bigger issue overall, and the constitutional law and how it relates to these matters, not so much joe blow pulling out a dollar and being offended by the "god" on the bill.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll admit, there's something very comforting about seeing that "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill before I stick it in a stripper's g-string.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I really don't care what the pledge says or money for that matter. On the surface its seems innocent enough. I do WORRY however that this issue isn't a trojan horse for after-school groups i.e. recruiters for whatever local churches want to strong arm impressionable kids into joining. One thing you can always count on from people is excess regardless of their affiliation.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Most people don't care about those issues when you single them out, individually

Exactly. My life isn't over with "In God We Trust" on money. I questioned it's appearance there as a little kid, but nobody was really able to answer why it was there and I just moved on to something else.

 

But when all these things add together in a great wad, it's not going to be long before everybody else in the world sees my country as Christianity's World Power, and that's not something I'm really proud of.

 

I can live with the money as it is, to be honest.

 

I can live with religious displays on public property as long as that property is being used by the government (i.e. courthouse) and someone can submit something equally non-religious and have it put up, too. Unfortunately, my lack of interest in general religious displays is shattered by the extremist-religious types like what's his name's salute to the killing of Matthew Shephard. Unfortunately, he ruined it for everyone.

 

I can live with public recognition of Christmas since it's both a religious and non-secular holiday, although nativity plays at the public school are an iffy one.

 

I'm generally a pretty accepting guy. I just don't like to see the Ten Commandments on my courthouse and I don't like Under God in the pledge because it wasn't just some vague allegory to a creator, but an intended affirmation of faith in the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

They want some restrictions.

 

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

 

Hell, I personally want to change America's hearts and drive abortionists out of business, not make their form of savagery illegal.

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

I would say that's a bit of a generalization. Certainly it applies to some groups on both sides, but there are still pro-life radicals who favour shooting abortionists and so on. Likewise, I'm pro-choice but I agree with the partial-birth abortion ban as unnecessary and quite barbaric, and there are others who see it that way as well.

[NoCalMike 0]

A lot of Pro-lifers still want all abortion banned, they just feel slower, smaller steps need to be taken, and/or they look at other cases that don't directly involved abortion, try to get a law written up, and then take that law and try and apply it to abortion.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

 

Hell, I personally want to change America's hearts and drive abortionists out of business, not make their form of savagery illegal.

    -=Mike

I have some pro-lifers I'd like you to meet. But beyond that, the last part of your post interests me, because it was something like an idea I was thinking of storing in my head for the next abortion thread. Clearly, we'll never be able to agree on the soundbyte issues, like whether abortion is murder or not. We can't agree on that, but we can come to some sort of level of what an agreed-upon ideal scenario would look like and how to achieve that.

 

Ideally, to achieve this scenario, we will both be able to agree that you cannot make people stop fucking. Whether it's for purposes of procreation or because it feels so good that people want to do it over and over again for pleasure, you cannot make it so that people won't fuck. It's an instinctual thing to want to, as they say in the scientific circles, "tap that."

 

See, I'd be at peace in a world where people weren't getting abortions because the pro-life movement, rather than petitioning government to outlaw the practice, has changed the position of our culture to make abortion a very taboo thing. I would not mind if abortion doctors went out of business because regular use of contraceptives replaced abortion.

 

This comment from you is refreshing, because it reflects the socially conservative position while still maintaining the basic conservative tenets of reductionist government, as opposed to the weird, half-assed conservatism wherein the government is actually expanded in ways that allow the conservatives to get what they want on other issues, like abortion, the culture war, bankruptcy laws, etc.

[Guest MikeSC]

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

 

Hell, I personally want to change America's hearts and drive abortionists out of business, not make their form of savagery illegal.

    -=Mike

I have some pro-lifers I'd like you to meet. But beyond that, the last part of your post interests me, because it was something like an idea I was thinking of storing in my head for the next abortion thread.

Most of the ones I know recognize that it'll remain legal in some instances. Many, like me, believe that the excuses pro-choicers give tend to be BS (abortion is seldom done for health, rape, or incest --- and there is no medical reason, whatsoever, to do a partial birth abortion). I'm sure some pro-lifers want it completely banned, and I can honestly appreciate that view. I do believe abortion, flat out, is murder.

 

But I also recognize that the view that abortion is murder is not held by most people. Most people DO find it distasteful and unpleasant to say the least (which is why Clinton had to run as wanting abortion to be "rare" --- if abortion really was just a woman's health issue to most people, why would anybody want it to be "rare"?)

See, I'd be at peace in a world where people weren't getting abortions because the pro-life movement, rather than petitioning government to outlaw the practice, has changed the position of our culture to make abortion a very taboo thing. I would not mind if abortion doctors went out of business because regular use of contraceptives replaced abortion.

I feel outlawing it is too easy. Outlawing it does not solve the fundamental problem of people finding the practice not offensive enough to not do it.

 

But I really don't want it illegal. And it does cause me some serious quandary, as I do, legitimately, feel abortion is infanticide. Plain and simple. I do, personally, feel it's murder and a human rights catastrophe.

 

And it concerns me that I could live with it legal. It concerns me deeply.

This comment from you is refreshing, because it reflects the socially conservative position while still maintaining the basic conservative tenets of reductionist government, as opposed to the weird, half-assed conservatism wherein the government is actually expanded in ways that allow the conservatives to get what they want on other issues, like abortion, the culture war, bankruptcy laws, etc.

I don't support most socially conservative issues, to be honest.

 

I don't oppose gay marriage --- I oppose judges inflicting it upon people. If people choose to vote for it, then permit it for all I care.

 

I've already expressed my displeasure with the outlawing of marijuana (though, again, the advocates make some real ridiculous arguments in defense of it that I don't think they believe) and prostitution. It's not my concern if somebody pays for sex and I'd rather see somebody smoke pot than drink vodka. Fewer problems that way, in most instances.

 

I oppose all speech codes (well, outside of a time of war, where some limits on what the press can report --- such as troop locations --- is vital).

 

I oppose the FCC's crackdown on "vulgarity", but recognize that the desire for the "V Chip" under Clinton is, ultimately, what led to this. Not blaming Clinton, just the forces that he obviously recognized were forming. I also think "family time" restrictions are pretty much bullshit. A network would eventually do it to avoid social pressure, but the gov't should not be mandating that.

 

I don't agree with social conservatives on many issues.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

They want some restrictions.

 

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

While there are some pro-choice folks who oppose all restrictions on abortion, not even the Roe decision went that far. The Roe decision, which I agree with on principle but acknowledge uses some shaky Constitutional justifications, does allow for restrictions on abortion.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

They want some restrictions.

 

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

While there are some pro-choice folks who oppose all restrictions on abortion, not even the Roe decision went that far. The Roe decision, which I agree with on principle but acknowledge uses some shaky Constitutional justifications, does allow for restrictions on abortion.

And SUBSEQUENT decisions have done away with a lot of the restrictions Roe pretended to support.

 

Again, partial birth abortion is LEGAL, in spite of the lack of any medical need for it and the barbarism of its practice.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

They want some restrictions.

 

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

While there are some pro-choice folks who oppose all restrictions on abortion, not even the Roe decision went that far. The Roe decision, which I agree with on principle but acknowledge uses some shaky Constitutional justifications, does allow for restrictions on abortion.

And SUBSEQUENT decisions have done away with a lot of the restrictions Roe pretended to support.

Such as?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you're proving their point.

 

On your abortion link, this poll basically supports that people want partial-term abortion curtailled, not abortion in general.

They want some restrictions.

 

The pro-choice groups oppose ALL restrictions, while pro-lifers have come to grips with some abortion existing.

While there are some pro-choice folks who oppose all restrictions on abortion, not even the Roe decision went that far. The Roe decision, which I agree with on principle but acknowledge uses some shaky Constitutional justifications, does allow for restrictions on abortion.

And SUBSEQUENT decisions have done away with a lot of the restrictions Roe pretended to support.

Such as?

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/...62_0416_ZO.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/...6_0747_ZD1.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/...28_0052_ZO.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/...97_0417_ZO.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=462&invol=476

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/...32_0519_ZO.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/.../88-805.ZO.html

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Please explain how each, or any, of those decisions has done away with the restrictions on abortion that the Roe decision supported.

 

(Although, you didn't just list the decisions, but the dissenting opinions as well, which are irrelevant since they have no legal weight behind them.)