Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

OK.
My point is made.

Yes, your point that you and kev can respond to Pariah's blanket statements with your own "equally, if not more" retarded blanket statements.

What a lovely "point."

I was just whining about the left whining about the right being whiners.
You don't have to whine about it.

Who is the whiner?
The polluter who believes he can dump his smurf on his neighbors lawn without repercussions or the neighbor who takes umbrage at having trash in their lawn?
The fanatic who has to inject their particular religious beliefs into every public event or the people who want an open, non-sectarian environment?
The man who thinks he should not have to pay for anything or the people who believe we should pay as we go?
Right wingers are perfectly fine until even just one little thing impinges on their thoughtless sense of entitlement. They do not know how to play well with others, like spoiled kids at a playground.

I know you are but what am I?

Hank Rearden wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

yes ... THEY

There is so little trolling towards liberals around here it doesn't even make the needle twitch.
You may have had a point,





3 years ago.

Come now.  At least I'm pretty much equal opportunity...

I knew Camp David.
Camp David was a friend of mine.
You sir....


aw hell, I can't go on with a straight face.

Farmerkev wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

There is so little trolling towards liberals around here it doesn't even make the needle twitch.
You may have had a point,





3 years ago.

Come now.  At least I'm pretty much equal opportunity...

I knew Camp David.
Camp David was a friend of mine.
You sir....


aw hell, I can't go on with a straight face.

res wrote:

"Oh dear, my daughter had to say 'under God' in school as part of the pledge, and even though she didn't care, I'm filing suit"

"Oh dear, during an extra-curricular sports activity, outside of school hours, a coach held a voluntary prayer meeting - whatever shall we do!"

Oh my!
The boyscouts won't let a gay man take a bunch of young adolescent boys out camping in the woods, oh the horror!

Oh, come on, res! I'll give you the tax statement, but NONE of the rest of that is whining.

Defending the First Amendment is an important issue. "Under God" in the Pledge is a blatant violation of that. The Supreme Court just used the parental excuse as a way to dodge ruling on it because they know damn well they'll have to rule against it.

A school coach, likewise, is a government representative.

It would be just peachy for the Boy Scouts to refuse to admit gays and atheists, but then they are disqualified to receive public funds and support because they are then violating the rules that everyone else has to follow.

The arguments in those points are not the histrionics you make them out to be.

StaticAge wrote:

user wrote:

Oh, come on, res! I'll give you the tax statement, but NONE of the rest of that is whining.

Defending the First Amendment is an important issue. "Under God" in the Pledge is a blatant violation of that. The Supreme Court just used the parental excuse as a way to dodge ruling on it because they know damn well they'll have to rule against it.

A school coach, likewise, is a government representative.

I think its whining. I used to refuse to even rise for the pledge and people daily tried to physically attack me over it. Making a big deal over words is zealotry whether youre an atheist or a theist, especially when you back it with the first amendment as grounds for intolerance.

Words are important. Otherwise there's no point in them being in the Pledge in the first place. The fact that you were attacked proves it. I do think the Pledge is bullsmurf and shouldn't be promoted even in it's original wording. The changing of the National Motto is even more significant and an even more blatant violation.

It's not zealotry to oppose the promotion of one religion by our government over others. I could point to the discussion of American Ideals in the torture ("bad apples") thread that you participated in, as well.

Last edited by user (2008-04-14 9:27 am)

Well, we are opposing people who are trying to subvert and degrade the US Constitution, which is the basic law of our country, so yes.

It's worth getting upset over.

What, you think we should be "polite" and not even try?

They were put in place around 1954, so for the age of our country, it's still very recent. Besides, it's still a subversion whether they realize that or not.

There are ongoing cases in the courts addressing those issues with the Pledge and Motto. But it's difficult when the courts do everything they can to sidestep the case and our legislators actually push for laws that intend to make it impossible to sue for 1st Amendment cases at all. It's not an appeal to authority, it's pointing out that laws have, in fact, been enacted in support of an establishment of religion.

If we don't point that out we might as well toss out the whole thing.

Tolerance only goes so far.

No matter what the issue - the group doing what the other group calls whining has justification for it.
That should be painfully obvious to you.

resedit wrote:

No matter what the issue - the group doing what the other group calls whining has justification for it.
That should be painfully obvious to you.

It's difficult to see how it's "obvious" to you, based upon your posting in this thread.  I'm not defending the "pussies" comment--it was uncalled for.

bratboy wrote:

...and I can't imagine a law firm wanting to talk on Gonzales at this point.  That would result in way too much bad press.

What about General Counsel for Haliburton, KBR, or Blackwater ?

Pure torture, huh, Shnick?

I'm not sure that a British libel system is what we need. Mugabe is under the impression that he's libeled by his political opponents each and every day of his sorry existence.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-04-14 2:21 pm)