Warning! Politics Ahead!

[Bubba Wheels]

An amazing new book is out written by a New York college professor named Thomas Woods. The book is called "A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." Anyone, left or right, that is tired of drinking the cool-aid set forth by our modernist approach to government might want to find out what our founders REALLY intended. In particular, Thomas Jefferson, who thought that the Supreme Court being the only and final authority on Constitutional matters was a really, really bad idea (and he's right, of course.) Those wanting a quick education in what your not being told by the powers and media that be should check it out. Read the reviews on Amazon.com.

[albionmoonlight]

It's Kool-aid.

[SirFozzie]

It's Kool-aid (TM).

Fixed that for you :D

[Klinglerware]

It's Kool-aid.

The drink or the book?

[rkmsuf]

Thomas Woods - Suuuuupper Genius. I like the sound of that.

[SirFozzie]

Just funnin around Bubba ;)

That and wondering if I can take a hacksaw to my $@_$&@& arm. Welcome to month 2 of pain :/

[Bubba Wheels]

Fixed that for you :D

Yeah, thanks. Its been a few years since I've seen the package with the word on it.

[CamEdwards]

of course, Thomas Woods has also been accused of being a neo-confederate secessionist. He's a founding member of the League of the South, a group which says

The League of the South asserts that Southern society is radically different from the society impressed upon it by an alien occupier. American society today is egalitarian and Marxist and is devoid of any grace or charm.

and

To be truly free and self- governing, the South must throw off the yoke of imperial oppression. Therefore, The League of the South advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.


(edit: forgot this gem):

The League seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the South because the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English have given Dixie its unique institutions and civilisation. Should the Christian, Anglo-Celtic core be displaced, then the South would cease to be recognisable to us and our progeny. We must maintain this all-important link to our European heritage from which we have drawn our inspiration. Anglo-Celtic Southerners and their European cousins have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed us. If we will not promote our own interests, no one will do it for us.

Now, it may be just me... but I'm going to take Professor Woods' book on American history with just a few grains of salt.

I've actually been reading "A Patriot's History of the United States" by Professor Larry Schweikart and Professor Michael Allen. It's a little dry (they actually wrote it as a teaching text), but it's pretty darn good.

[yabanci]

An amazing new book is out written by a New York college professor named Thomas Woods. The book is called "A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." Anyone, left or right, that is tired of drinking the cool-aid set forth by our modernist approach to government might want to find out what our founders REALLY intended. In particular, Thomas Jefferson, who thought that the Supreme Court being the only and final authority on Constitutional matters was a really, really bad idea (and he's right, of course.) Those wanting a quick education in what your not being told by the powers and media that be should check it out. Read the reviews on Amazon.com.

Have you actually read this book cover to cover or did you just hear about it on some whacky christian radio station or worldnetdaily.com?

By the way, what ever happened to the christian prophet you touted last year who warned that aliens were going to strike the western US in 2004 with the complicity of the vatican and various world governments? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22070

[SirFozzie]

and the thread has officially started rolling downhill...

[gstelmack]

The book sounds pretty gimmicky and the author appears to be a whack-job, but what's with the un-needed insult toward Christians?
He didn't insult Christians, he insulted "whacky" Christians.

[Schmidty]

Have you actually read this book cover to cover or did you just hear about it on some whacky christian radio station or worldnetdaily.com?

The book sounds pretty gimmicky and the author appears to be a whack-job, but what's with the un-needed insult toward Christians?

[Cuckoo]

and the thread has officially started rolling downhill...

I'm surprised it took that long.

[Warhammer]

In particular, Thomas Jefferson, who thought that the Supreme Court being the only and final authority on Constitutional matters was a really, really bad idea (and he's right, of course.)

But that is why the Legislative Branch has the authority to amend the Constitution. All the Supreme Court has the power to do is determine if a law is Constitutional or not. It cannot legislate law. Also, we do have the power to impeach judges. Although, that power is not widely used.

[QuikSand]

But that is why the Legislative Branch has the authority to amend the Constitution. All the Supreme Court has the power to do is determine if a law is Constitutional or not. It cannot legislate law. Also, we do have the power to impeach judges. Although, that power is not widely used.

It's like a gleaming beacon of truth, in a vast ocean of nonsense.


But I was warned, so I can't complain.

[HomerJSimpson]

of course, Thomas Woods has also been accused of being a neo-confederate secessionist. He's a founding member of the League of the South, a group which says

and


(edit: forgot this gem):

Now, it may be just me... but I'm going to take Professor Woods' book on American history with just a few grains of salt.

I've actually been reading "A Patriot's History of the United States" by Professor Larry Schweikart and Professor Michael Allen. It's a little dry (they actually wrote it as a teaching text), but it's pretty darn good.



I'm not a South-basher, but couldn't you just about see the crosses burning in the background as the author made those statements?

[yabanci]

The book sounds pretty gimmicky and the author appears to be a whack-job, but what's with the un-needed insult toward Christians?

I feel insulted by this characterization of my post. Let's all hold hands and feel insulted and persecuted together.

[Bubba Wheels]

Have you actually read this book cover to cover or did you just hear about it on some whacky christian radio station or worldnetdaily.com?

By the way, what ever happened to the christian prophet you touted last year who warned that aliens were going to strike the western US in 2004 with the complicity of the vatican and various world governments? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22070

I saw Professor Woods speak on C-Span over the weekend. You can take issue with his beliefs in general, but when he quotes those who wrote and signed the Constitution then its a little hard to say he's making it all up.

[Bubba Wheels]

But that is why the Legislative Branch has the authority to amend the Constitution. All the Supreme Court has the power to do is determine if a law is Constitutional or not. It cannot legislate law. Also, we do have the power to impeach judges. Although, that power is not widely used.

Jefferson advocated the doctrine of 'nullification." If the courts attempted to impose Federalist doctrine on the states against their will, then the states were fully justified in ignoring the federal courts alltogether. This is Thomas Jefferson, so consider the source.

[NoMyths]

Maybe the fact that you cannot differentiate between fact and speculation adds to your confusion.Based on your history here, Bubba, I'm not sure you're the one to be instructing anyone on how to differentiate between fact and speculation.

[NoMyths]

Well said, Quik. One might be more apt to point out John C. Calhoun's support for nullification, being as how it played a more important role than Jefferson's feelings...though I'm not sure that Bubba would be as interested in taking Calhoun's side of the fence.

[Bubba Wheels]

Have you actually read this book cover to cover or did you just hear about it on some whacky christian radio station or worldnetdaily.com?

By the way, what ever happened to the christian prophet you touted last year who warned that aliens were going to strike the western US in 2004 with the complicity of the vatican and various world governments? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22070

Coast to Coast stuff I find interesting, may even pass something along if its unusual (check out the stuff on the dead and dying microbiologists at the Universities world-wide.) But its not stuff that was written by the creators of the U.S. Constitution. Maybe the fact that you cannot differentiate between fact and speculation adds to your confusion.

[QuikSand]

Jefferson advocated the doctrine of 'nullification." If the courts attempted to impose Federalist doctrine on the states against their will, then the states were fully justified in ignoring the federal courts alltogether. This is Thomas Jefferson, so consider the source.

And where does this appear in the document that each and every state actually ratified?

It's fine to amuse yourself with what a minority view might have held at one poitn or another, but how does this actually become history (as suggested by the thread)? Huistory dutifully records what a variety of different people thought would be best as things were beindg debated and discussed, and then when it was all resolved, like it or not, a fairly federalist approach was ultimately adopted.

I have plenty of respect for Thomas Jefferson. But his failed argument on something isn't history. It's trivia.

[NoMyths]

And Jesus F-ing Christ, but this time stamp bug is ruining this board.

[rkmsuf]

The politics are dancing. The politics are ohh feeling good.

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm not a South-basher, but couldn't you just about see the crosses burning in the background as the author made those statements?

So Thomas Jefferson, among others, was a KKK cross-burning right wing nutjob? Interesting.

[SirFozzie]

Nice try, trying to put Thomas Woods's words into Thomas Jefferson's mouth. Do you deliberately try to misunderstand Bubba?

[NoMyths]

That may, indeed, be the final and lasting legacy of the U.S. Civil War (Federalism trumps State-rights over all). But it is still something worth exploring and discussing to weigh the consequences. Hardly trivia.The "final and lasting legacy"? You mean, besides the whole emancipation thing?

'sides, that debate was being resolved economically and technologically well before the Civil War kicked off the military part of the program.

[Bubba Wheels]

And where does this appear in the document that each and every state actually ratified?

It's fine to amuse yourself with what a minority view might have held at one poitn or another, but how does this actually become history (as suggested by the thread)? Huistory dutifully records what a variety of different people thought would be best as things were beindg debated and discussed, and then when it was all resolved, like it or not, a fairly federalist approach was ultimately adopted.

I have plenty of respect for Thomas Jefferson. But his failed argument on something isn't history. It's trivia.

That may, indeed, be the final and lasting legacy of the U.S. Civil War (Federalism trumps State-rights over all). But it is still something worth exploring and discussing to weigh the consequences. Hardly trivia.

[yabanci]

Coast to Coast stuff I find interesting, may even pass something along if its unusual (check out the stuff on the dead and dying microbiologists at the Universities world-wide.) But its not stuff that was written by the creators of the U.S. Constitution. Maybe the fact that you cannot differentiate between fact and speculation adds to your confusion.

Thus spoke the confused one.

[flere-imsaho]

Bubba Wheels is a boundless fount of UIC.

[Ksyrup]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The League of the South asserts that Southern society is radically different from the society impressed upon it by an alien occupier. American society today is egalitarian and Marxist and is devoid of any grace or charm.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Not to mention sweet tea. Barbarians!

[NoMyths]

I base my opinions on what has been quoted and stated. You just choose to name-call. That's the difference. ;)Hmm...you'll have to refresh my memory on the name-calling. As far as the difference between facts and speculation, though, I'm happy to continue my part in your education.

[Bubba Wheels]

Based on your history here, Bubba, I'm not sure you're the one to be instructing anyone on how to differentiate between fact and speculation.

I base my opinions on what has been quoted and stated. You just choose to name-call. That's the difference. ;)

[NoMyths]

So, your saying that states-rights reside wholly and completely upon the foundation of slavery? I see.Not at all. In fact, I'm not really sure how anyone could reasonably infer that from my post. The roots of the Civil War were not primarily oriented around the issue of slavery.

[Bubba Wheels]

Thus spoke the confused one.

So you also, see no difference between something referenced from a late-night radio show for fun and something stated and/or written by a founding father? Interesting.

[Schmidty]

I feel insulted by this characterization of my post. Let's all hold hands and feel insulted and persecuted together.

I simply asked a question. I'm not into these political threads, as they mostly seem like MB masturbation, but I think it is insulting when people constantly lump all Christians into one "whacko" characterization. Would you catch heat if you had said "those whacko Jews", or whatever other religion?

Bah, I don't know why I come into these threads, I just end up getting annoyed. Have fun masturbating.

[tanglewood]

So Thomas Jefferson, among others, was a KKK cross-burning right wing nutjob? Interesting.

By today's standards, he certainly is.

[Bubba Wheels]

The "final and lasting legacy"? You mean, besides the whole emancipation thing?

'sides, that debate was being resolved economically and technologically well before the Civil War kicked off the military part of the program.

So, your saying that states-rights reside wholly and completely upon the foundation of slavery? I see.

[Warhammer]

So you also, see no difference between something referenced from a late-night radio show for fun and something stated and/or written by a founding father? Interesting.

Jefferson also believed that there would be a revolution every 20 years...

[vtbub]

Bubba Wheels is a boundless fount of UIC.


pix, plz

[yabanci]

So you also, see no difference between something referenced from a late-night radio show for fun and something stated and/or written by a founding father? Interesting.

At this point, I don't even know what you are blabbering about anymore. Keep going though. It's amusing.

[Bubba Wheels]

At this point, I don't even know what you are blabbering about anymore. Keep going though. It's amusing.

Well, when your arguments hit empty, you should withdrawl gracefully without so much name-calling.

[SirFozzie]

By today's standards, he certainly is.

Don't play into Bubba's bait and switch techniques, please ;)

[HomerJSimpson]

So Thomas Jefferson, among others, was a KKK cross-burning right wing nutjob? Interesting.


Bubba, the quotes I refered to was from the manifesto of the "League of the South" which was not written by Thomas Jefferson, or even necessarily Thomas Wood (though according to Cam he is a member of the organization). You really ought to try to read post to keep up.

[yabanci]

Well, when your arguments hit empty, you should withdrawl gracefully without so much name-calling.

Spoken by a man obviously unable to take his own advice.

[Bubba Wheels]

Spoken by a man obviously unable to take his own advice.

Is that an attempt at humor? Or are you advancing some form of argument?

[dawgfan]

I simply asked a question. I'm not into these political threads, as they mostly seem like MB masturbation, but I think it is insulting when people constantly lump all Christians into one "whacko" characterization. Would you catch heat if you had said "those whacko Jews", or whatever other religion?

You would appear to have some major defensiveness over anything Christian being associated with anything negative. Interesting how you interpret the statement "some whacky christian radio station" as lumping all Christians into one "whacko" characterization. Do you not accept the possibility that there are extremist Christian radio stations out there that could reasonably be termed whacko? Is it not possible, in fact probable, that yabanci wasn't declaring all Christian radio stations as whacko? Is it not a huge leap of logic to infer that a characterization of a whacko Christian radio station = all Christians are whackos?

Bah, I don't know why I come into these threads, I just end up getting annoyed. Have fun masturbating.

Perhaps it's best if you don't participate in these discussions if you are incapable of keeping any perspective on these matters. Have fun misinterpreting things when you do decide to read these threads.

[HomerJSimpson]

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.


Well, I didn't quote you or anything you said, so don't drag me down in the mud with you. I will say this: if the author is part of the "League of The South" I wouldn't trust him to quote anyone in context (much like certain board members).

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba, the quotes I refered to was from the manifesto of the "League of the South" which was not written by Thomas Jefferson, or even necessarily Thomas Wood (though according to Cam he is a member of the organization). You really ought to try to read post to keep up.

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.

[SirFozzie]

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.


That's making a mighty big assumption that your lead was intellectual discussion Bubba.... :D

(oh wait... is that a one sentence 'drive-by' cheap shot? My apologies)

[Crapshoot]

Look, Bubba's the same guy who's citing the Bible as scientific proof on issues- he aint exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

[miked]

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.

Most of your responses in this thread are 1-2 sentences that don't even address the issues raised. Consider this a drive by because in my time here, it just seems like you enjoy the "one against the world" label. You will probably consider it an attack, but it's just one man's observation. Nothing in this thread even asserts that you've read the book, simply that you are posting something you saw on late night TV and are trying to defend as doctrine.

[yabanci]

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.

I too didn't realize this was an "intellectual discussion." I thought you were just recommending a book that you haven't even read.

[Radii]

So who else is in this thread just because you saw a Bubba Wheels post with the word "Politics" in the title and knew it would become UIC gold in a matter of hours?

[dawgfan]

So who else is in this thread just because you saw a Bubba Wheels post with the word "Politics" in the title and knew it would become UIC gold in a matter of hours?

It's the only reason I read the thread - I figured the chances of it turning into an instant classic were very high.

[Crapshoot]

So, if someone believes in the Bible as a basis of truth, then they are of course 'not the sharpest tool in the shed.' You, sir, are a bigot.

The irony of that statement may be through the roof. However, I am referring to the idea of the Bible as any sort of scientific tool.

[Bubba Wheels]

Look, Bubba's the same guy who's citing the Bible as scientific proof on issues- he aint exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

So, if someone believes in the Bible as a basis of truth, then they are of course 'not the sharpest tool in the shed.' You, sir, are a bigot.

[Suicane75]

Don't play into Bubba's bait and switch techniques, please ;)


So you think the civil war wasn't about a black mans right to fish? I see.

[Bubba Wheels]

The irony of that statement may be through the roof. However, I am referring to the idea of the Bible as any sort of scientific tool.

Well, I don't recall stating anywhere that the Bible is in itself a 'scientific tool,' if you want to play semantics. I have stated that the Bible never contradicts real science, and the Bible can be trusted in what it says. But since you clearly imply that belief in the Bible automatically makes you 'less than intelligent' that makes you pretty clearly a bigot on the face of it.

[Suicane75]

Look, Bubba's the same guy who's citing the Bible as scientific proof on issues- he aint exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

You wanna spend the day playing Chutes & Ladders while i'm trying to explain to you the ins and outs of Candyland, so be it. And I don't see how you can think that Thomas Jeffersons writings in the New Testament arn't germane to my initial post about fishing. Some day you'll understand things Crap, some day.

[Suicane75]

Anyways, for all the Einsteins taking pot-shots at me and accusing me of not reading the book (I haven't, as I've stated I saw the guy speak for an hour on C-Span), I haven't seen one real address of the issue in question.

Suicane, C-Span is the one without the cartoons or the sitcoms on it. The boring one.

Hey bucko, at least i'm aware that books are for readin.

[Bubba Wheels]

Anyways, for all the Einsteins taking pot-shots at me and accusing me of not reading the book (I haven't, as I've stated I saw the guy speak for an hour on C-Span), I haven't seen one real address of the issue in question.

Suicane, C-Span is the one without the cartoons or the sitcoms on it. The boring one.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hey bucko, at least i'm aware that books are for readin.

Ever hear of an 'audio' book? New technology. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Ever hear of an 'audio' book? New technology. ;)

In the Blue States we read books. Without moving our lips, even.

[Blackadar]

Look Chief, its a little like one man playing chess against the multitude here. Doing the best I can (and better than most.) Laziest arguments have been the one sentence 'drive-bys' taking cheap shots, but I accept those as part of the turf for attempting an intellectual discussion here.

Look Chief, when you tout a book from a proven nut-job as "an amazing new book" who thinks he knows "what the founders REALLY intended" by using isolated quotes from selected founding fathers, I think you lose the moral high ground in the "intellectual discussion".

I am sure I could write a book using quotes from the founding fathers that would show that Hitler was right. It doesn't mean that the book would have any validity.

This is one of those cases that given the source and his public views, we can make a pretty decent assumption regarding the validity of the claims the author makes. I wouldn't waste my time reading it and I wouldn't waste my time giving the author my business and money to help him further his causes.

[Maple Leafs]

How to Bubba-post™:

Step 1: Use the standard opening: "So,"
Step 2: Use some form of "you believe" or "you are arguing"
Step 3: Describe an argument that is clearly inflammatory, and bears no resemblance at all to what the other person is actually saying.
Step 4: Finish with a pithy "I see", or "Intertesting"

Now go back through any thread and see how many Bubba-posts™ you can identify. When you've found five, you have Bubba Bingo and are the winner.

So you think the civil war wasn't about a black mans right to fish? I see.
See, Suicane gets a gold star!

[miked]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/images/smilies/trolls.gif

[KWhit]

How to Bubba-post™:

Step 1: Use the standard opening: "So,"
Step 2: Use some form of "you believe" or "you are arguing"
Step 3: Describe an argument that is clearly inflammatory, and bears no resemblance at all to what the other person is actually saying.
Step 4: Finish with a pithy "I see", or "Intertesting"

Now go back through any thread and see how many Bubba-posts™ you can identify. When you've found five, you have Bubba Bingo and are the winner.


See, Suicane gets a gold star!
So you are a communist who hates freedom and despises Jesus. Interesting.

[Crapshoot]

So you are a communist who hates freedom and despises Jesus. Interesting.

Clearly you're a Mohammaed loving facist who hates white people - get out of America!

[Klinglerware]

Clearly you're a Mohammaed loving facist who hates white people - get out of America!

If I am hearing your argument correctly, you are saying that atheists should have UPC bar codes stamped on their pet trout? Hmm...

[Subby]

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=505529&postcount=56 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showpost.php?p=505529&postcount=56)

"So by your own logic, John Wayne Gacey was influential within the Democratic Party, because he was a contributor and had his picture taken with a smiling Rosalyn Carter? Just something else the Democrats should feel real good about."

[Maple Leafs]

How many Bubba Posts can you find on just the first page of this thread?

[Subby]

Your personal invitation to uic gold: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/search.php?do=finduser&userid=3337

[judicial clerk]

The game ain't checkers, its chess!"
-Skydog , to his newspaper delivery boy after he reveals to the boy that he stole his neighbor's paper but its OK because his neighbor does all kinds of stuff that violates the neighborhood association rules.

[Bubba Wheels]

In the Blue States we read books. Without moving our lips, even.

Point is Suicane, apparantly, believes that you cannot use an audio form of a book to learn anything about its content. He pretty well states that reading it is the only way to absorb it. If an author discusses his book audibly for over an hour, you should be able to get a pretty good 'feel' for what the book is about, unless you just lack certain 'capabilities."

[Bubba Wheels]

Your personal invitation to uic gold: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/search.php?do=finduser&userid=3337

Yes, put me over 1,000 posts! ;)

[Bubba Wheels]

BTW, certain Johnnie-come-latelies may not get a response to their own pet personal attacks, as they are just trying to curry favor with the rest of the hive but lack any original content in the posts themselves. Or they just may be Canadian.

[vtbub]

Point is Suicane, apparantly, believes that you cannot use an audio form of a book to learn anything about its content. He pretty well states that reading it is the only way to absorb it. If an author discusses his book audibly for over an hour, you should be able to get a pretty good 'feel' for what the book is about, unless you just lack certain 'capabilities."


So you are recommending this book based on an Art Bell interview and a conversation on C-Span, without having consumed the full contents of the book?

[Bubba Wheels]

So you are recommending this book based on an Art Bell interview and a conversation on C-Span, without having consumed the full contents of the book?

Don't recall anything to do with Art Bell, that was inserted by one of my detractors in an attempt to discredit the book itself. The discussion is an on going one, having to do with the complete loss of states-rights as defined by the U.S. Constitution as originally forseen by its framers. The central question (or one of them) is basically, do states themselves enjoy anything remotely related to individual soverignty, or have they just become 'Administrative Units" of the Federal Govt?

One good point the book talks about is how when money was needed by the Federal Govt in ealier days to build 'canals and roads" it was not able in itself to just 'take' the money. The thinking was that if you are not going to honor the content of the Constitution regarding states rights, then the Constitution is really just a worthless piece of paper. Many believe that is the case today.

[Bubba Wheels]

I suppose the word hypocrite should be thrown about somewhere for recommending a book you haven't read and then castigating others for not reading it.

Wha...? Where did you get that one? :rolleyes:

[Blackadar]

So you are recommending this book based on an Art Bell interview and a conversation on C-Span, without having consumed the full contents of the book?

I suppose the word hypocrite should be thrown about somewhere for recommending a book you haven't read and then castigating others for not reading it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Another good point made by the author during questions and answers regards Iraq. When did the U.S. decide it would become the world's 'policeman?" Woods goes back to WW1 and Woodrow Wilson, a war we had no business getting involved in, the aftermath of which led directly into WW2 (Europeans don't even put a clean break in between the 2 wars like we do here.)

Woods cites Ron Paul as courageously attempting to tell congress BEFORE Iraq that "we in congress have the power to declare war, not the President. Are we to give that power up?" Henry Hyde tells Paul that thinking is 'old stuff' and things are done 'differently' today. Apparantly that means the President was ceeded congresses powers to declare war just couched into different 'semantics.' Further erosion of the Constitution that was and many today think that is the way things should work. But it happened without debate.

[Klinglerware]

Don't recall anything to do with Art Bell, that was inserted by one of my detractors in an attempt to discredit the book itself. The discussion is an on going one, having to do with the complete loss of states-rights as defined by the U.S. Constitution as originally forseen by its framers. The central question (or one of them) is basically, do states themselves enjoy anything remotely related to individual soverignty, or have they just become 'Administrative Units" of the Federal Govt?

One good point the book talks about is how when money was needed by the Federal Govt in ealier days to build 'canals and roads" it was not able in itself to just 'take' the money. The thinking was that if you are not going to honor the content of the Constitution regarding states rights, then the Constitution is really just a worthless piece of paper. Many believe that is the case today.

Well, it all depends. The current administration isn't so keen on states rights when it comes to gay marriage and medicinal marijuana. So again, for the most part, one's interest in states rights is entirely issue/ideologically driven. And to blunt, that goes for both parties...

[NoMyths]

Apparantly that means the President was ceeded congresses powers to declare war just couched into different 'semantics.' Further erosion of the Constitution that was and many today think that is the way things should work. But it happened without debate.Same thing happened as far back as...the Civil War.

Er, I screwed up. I mean: So, you're arguing that because the Bush Administration has been behaving unconstitutionally even though the man in charge swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, that he is really working for the evil Liberals? Interesting.

[SirFozzie]

You know, these threads follow a certain traiditional path.

Bubba posts thread.

Someone mocks Bubba.

Thread starts rolling downhill quickly.

Bubba makes idiotic rant that has nothing to do with the insult.

5 FOFCers dogpile Bubba, beat him (metaphorically) around the head and shoulders with his own stupidity.

Bubba gets more incoherent, switching his point to try to sound less moronic, and fails miserably, due to the NEW point he makes is even stupider.

10 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba, trying to take a metaphorical sledgehammer and bash some common sense into his head.

Bubba rants again and again (he usually starts frothing at the mouth at this point)

15 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba.. hoping to take the trout of Sanity and ram it up his rectum, since his head is apparently already there...

Silence. All of FOFC watches the thread, hoping Bubba posts again, just for his next rant, all their best one-liners at the ready..

FOFCers slowly drift away from the thread, sadly figuring Bubba has left on a pilgrimage to Tibet in an attempt to find Knowledge.

Bubba thinks he can get the last word in the next day and rants again, thinking this makes him "TEH WINNAR!"

Most of FOFC drops a 2000 lb Bunker Buster Clue Bomb on him..

And back to step one we go.....

[NoMyths]

You know, these threads follow a certain traiditional path.

Bubba posts thread.

Someone mocks Bubba.

Thread starts rolling downhill quickly.

Bubba makes idiotic rant that has nothing to do with the insult.

5 FOFCers dogpile Bubba, beat him (metaphorically) around the head and shoulders with his own stupidity.

Bubba gets more incoherent, switching his point to try to sound less moronic, and fails miserably, due to the NEW point he makes is even stupider.

10 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba, trying to take a metaphorical sledgehammer and bash some common sense into his head.

Bubba rants again and again (he usually starts frothing at the mouth at this point)

15 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba.. hoping to take the trout of Sanity and ram it up his rectum, since his head is apparently already there...

Silence. All of FOFC watches the thread, hoping Bubba posts again, just for his next rant, all their best one-liners at the ready..

FOFCers slowly drift away from the thread, sadly figuring Bubba has left on a pilgrimage to Tibet in an attempt to find Knowledge.

Bubba thinks he can get the last word in the next day and rants again, thinking this makes him "TEH WINNAR!"

Most of FOFC drops a 2000 lb Bunker Buster Clue Bomb on him..

And back to step one we go.....Gold. :D

[Blackadar]

You know, these threads follow a certain traiditional path.

Bubba posts thread.

Someone mocks Bubba.

Thread starts rolling downhill quickly.

Bubba makes idiotic rant that has nothing to do with the insult.

5 FOFCers dogpile Bubba, beat him (metaphorically) around the head and shoulders with his own stupidity.

Bubba gets more incoherent, switching his point to try to sound less moronic, and fails miserably, due to the NEW point he makes is even stupider.

10 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba, trying to take a metaphorical sledgehammer and bash some common sense into his head.

Bubba rants again and again (he usually starts frothing at the mouth at this point)

15 FOFCers dogpile on Bubba.. hoping to take the trout of Sanity and ram it up his rectum, since his head is apparently already there...

Silence. All of FOFC watches the thread, hoping Bubba posts again, just for his next rant, all their best one-liners at the ready..

FOFCers slowly drift away from the thread, sadly figuring Bubba has left on a pilgrimage to Tibet in an attempt to find Knowledge.

Bubba thinks he can get the last word in the next day and rants again, thinking this makes him "TEH WINNAR!"

Most of FOFC drops a 2000 lb Bunker Buster Clue Bomb on him..

And back to step one we go.....

You forgot a step.

Someone calls Bubba an "ignorant redneck". Other Southerners step in to castigate the poster for posting stereotypes.

[SirFozzie]

I dunno..we also are missing someone calling Bubba or one of his idols "a religous wacko" or "a christian wacko". Someone then jumps in and attackes the poster, thinking he's calling all religous/Christians wackos.

[Crapshoot]

I dunno..we also are missing someone calling Bubba or one of his idols "a religous wacko" or "a christian wacko". Someone then jumps in and attackes the poster, thinking he's calling all religous/Christians wackos.

bubba's a religious nut job who thinks public schools are there to indocrinate his kids in the evil of "tolerance". Sad part is that its not even a joke.. :D

[SirFozzie]

The thing is.. while I vehemently disagree with their stance on what they're intolerant of.. you can kind of understand it.

For example, look at the recent "Furries scare me" thread I created. On the board where I got it, people quickly chimed in to the discussion of the thread with sites that were devoted to NAMBLA style discussions, or bestiality or furry sexuality. *shudder*

If tolerance of that kind of crap was taught in schools, I wouldn't be tolerant of it. In fact, I'd be right pissed about it.

So can tolerance be "evil"? Depends on what they're teaching tolerance of.

And unfortunately, just like obscenity, everyone has their own idea.

Well, not unfortunately, I guess. I'd be a LOT more worried/saddened if everybody had to think the same way, in lock step.

[Crapshoot]

The thing is.. while I vehemently disagree with their stance on what they're intolerant of.. you can kind of understand it.

For example, look at the recent "Furries scare me" thread I created. On the board where I got it, people quickly chimed in to the discussion of the thread with sites that were devoted to NAMBLA style discussions, or bestiality or furry sexuality. *shudder*

If tolerance of that kind of crap was taught in schools, I wouldn't be tolerant of it. In fact, I'd be right pissed about it.

So can tolerance be "evil"? Depends on what they're teaching tolerance of.

And unfortunately, just like obscenity, everyone has their own idea.

Well, not unfortunately, I guess. I'd be a LOT more worried/saddened if everybody had to think the same way, in lock step.


Well, I'm talking more about what Bubba's stated evils are - like gay people, non-Christians, that kinda thing.

[Subby]

And you know what Gilber K. Chesterton says about tolerance!!!

Or is it Chester K. Gilberton?

Hmmm....

[digamma]

One good point the book talks about is how when money was needed by the Federal Govt in ealier days to build 'canals and roads" it was not able in itself to just 'take' the money. The thinking was that if you are not going to honor the content of the Constitution regarding states rights, then the Constitution is really just a worthless piece of paper. Many believe that is the case today.
One genius of the worthless piece of paper is that it included a mechanism for amendment that requires the approval of both the legislative branch and the states. There was an amendment, the 16th, if I'm not mistaken, which made an income tax constitutional.

Another good point made by the author during questions and answers regards Iraq. When did the U.S. decide it would become the world's 'policeman?" Woods goes back to WW1 and Woodrow Wilson, a war we had no business getting involved in, the aftermath of which led directly into WW2 (Europeans don't even put a clean break in between the 2 wars like we do here.)

Woods cites Ron Paul as courageously attempting to tell congress BEFORE Iraq that "we in congress have the power to declare war, not the President. Are we to give that power up?" Henry Hyde tells Paul that thinking is 'old stuff' and things are done 'differently' today. Apparantly that means the President was ceeded congresses powers to declare war just couched into different 'semantics.' Further erosion of the Constitution that was and many today think that is the way things should work. But it happened without debate.
It actually happened with plenty of debate (and a law even) and a judicial challenge. It was called the War Powers Act.

I think there is probably an argument that the executive branch's actions in Iraq skirt (and maybe even violate) the requirements of the War Powers Act, but that is a wholly separate question.

[Klinglerware]

For those of you who have not already seen it, may I humbly direct you all to the following article on proper internet discourse (somewhat NSFW):


hxxp://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2715

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, I think its pretty obvious that the handfull of usual suspects would rather attack me personally than have an opinion on the topic itself. For those couple who actually do talk about the subject, I appreciate it because unlike the know-it-alls I actually do learn new things. I think that this book is a great starting point for those who would actually like to contrast the original intent of the Constitution in the beginning with what it has been twisted into.

My main attackers seem to be those kind of folks happy with their group-think, pre-programmed indocrination of their present existance, kind of like the Henry Hyde of the example earlier..."Well, that's old stuff, this is how we do it now." If the Supreme Court were to issue an edict from on high to these folks that wearing zippers in the back of their pants is the only constitutionally accepted practice, their only response would be the question "can we pick the color of the pants?"

And Crap is a bigot, proven by his own words. The sad fact about that is many more are probably just like him in this thread, just not dumb enough to spell out their own bigotry for all to see. Believing in the Bible does not make you less intelligent, regardless of the example you think that I myself might set. You entitled to your own opinion, but when you stereotype like Crap your a bigot. Period.

[SirFozzie]

Silence. All of FOFC watches the thread, hoping Bubba posts again, just for his next rant, all their best one-liners at the ready..

FOFCers slowly drift away from the thread, sadly figuring Bubba has left on a pilgrimage to Tibet in an attempt to find Knowledge.

Bubba thinks he can get the last word in the next day and rants again, thinking this makes him "TEH WINNAR!"

Most of FOFC drops a 2000 lb Bunker Buster Clue Bomb on him..

And back to step one we go.....


WE HAVE A WINNER!

[sabotai]

Step 1: Read the book
Step 2: Decide if the book is worth suggesting to others
Step 3: If you do decide the book is worth suggesting, then proceed to suggest the book. If not, it may be worth mentioning that the book is not good.

Just in case anyone forgot the order.

[Bubba Wheels]

Tolerance is the grease for the New World Order. Those that would sell out their convictions for 'tolerance' are just awaiting for the dictator to arrive.

[Crapshoot]

Tolerance is the grease for the New World Order. Those that would sell out their convictions for 'tolerance' are just awaiting for the dictator to arrive.

Fair enough - my goal is to stop tolerating idiots- ergo, you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, I'm talking more about what Bubba's stated evils are - like gay people, non-Christians, that kinda thing.

Crap, I didn't plan to address you again since arguing with a bigot is pointless. But your stated lie here gives us both an opportunity. I have never ever stated that gays are evil, just that the lifestyle is not approved by God (and many also believe this.) So here's the deal, ball's in your court.

You put the exact quote with me calling gays 'evil' and I promise to disappear from these boards forever. One catch: Same goes for you. You either put the exact quote of me calling gay's 'evil', or you go away forever. That's it. That's the plan. If your not a liar, this should be very easy for you. So the next and only thing I want to see from you is that quote! Put up or shut up! Here's your chance!

[vtbub]

All this for not reading the book.

[Bubba Wheels]

All this for not reading the book.

Your not following: I would say less than 1% of this thread has been about that book. Seems to be all about me, from my detractors point of view.

[NoMyths]

You put the exact quote with me calling gays 'evil' and I promise to disappear from these boards forever. One catch: Same goes for you. You either put the exact quote of me calling gay's 'evil', or you go away forever. That's it. That's the plan. If your not a liar, this should be very easy for you. So the next and only thing I want to see from you is that quote! Put up or shut up! Here's your chance!Gays are evil.Do I win?

[Bubba Wheels]

Do I win?

Yes, the liar award. Now dissappear, since you couldn't come up with the quote, decided to make one up. YOu still took part in the bet. See ya!

[NoMyths]

Yes, the liar award. Now dissappear, since you couldn't come up with the quote, decided to make one up. YOu still took part in the bet. See ya!*snicker*

[Bubba Wheels]

*snicker*

Just proving my point. Thanks.

[NoMyths]

Just proving my point. Thanks.OH NOES!!!!111!!!!

So, you're arguing that the founding fathers' intent was that folks who disagreed with them politically should be forced to leave the country if they didn't read the materials they supported? Interesting.

[Bubba Wheels]

OH NOES!!!!111!!!!

So, you're arguing that the founding fathers' intent was that folks who disagreed with them politically should be forced to leave the country if they didn't read the materials they supported? Interesting.

Figures. For all the hot air blown my way, the substance behind it is pretty much for all to see.

[albionmoonlight]

Well, I'm going home for the day, but I thought that I'd throw some actual substance into the debate (I'm a little loopy after too too long at work).

The Constitution, which remember is nothing more or less than We The People, states in Article VI, Clause 2 that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This indicates to me, and to most lawyers and scholars, that states cannot pass laws or take actions in conflict with the Constitution or validly enacted federal laws. You may wish that this were not the case. But it is. And I find it difficult to argue in the face of the Constitution that a state has the right to do anything in violation of valid federal law. Even if it wants to and even if some of the Founding Fathers would have preferred a constitution in which there were no Supremecy Clause.

[digamma]

In follow-up to albionmoonight's post, you can call me a sheep, but I have a really hard time imagining how the nation would have existed without the Supremacy Clause or judicial review. I have to think that gridlock wouldn't begin to describe the royal mess we'd have.

Baaaaaaahhhh.

[dawgfan]

Well, I think its pretty obvious that the handfull of usual suspects would rather attack me personally than have an opinion on the topic itself. For those couple who actually do talk about the subject, I appreciate it because unlike the know-it-alls I actually do learn new things. I think that this book is a great starting point for those who would actually like to contrast the original intent of the Constitution in the beginning with what it has been twisted into.

Perhaps the lack of further discourse on the content of this book is because when someone does post an intelligent reply to the original point you're trying to make, you ignore it. To refreshe your memory:

And where does this appear in the document that each and every state actually ratified?

It's fine to amuse yourself with what a minority view might have held at one poitn or another, but how does this actually become history (as suggested by the thread)? Huistory dutifully records what a variety of different people thought would be best as things were beindg debated and discussed, and then when it was all resolved, like it or not, a fairly federalist approach was ultimately adopted.

I have plenty of respect for Thomas Jefferson. But his failed argument on something isn't history. It's trivia.

I can't put it any better than he did, and I suspect that holds true for most of us here. Do you have a response to this?

My main attackers seem to be those kind of folks happy with their group-think, pre-programmed indocrination of their present existance, kind of like the Henry Hyde of the example earlier..."Well, that's old stuff, this is how we do it now."

See Quik's comments above. If it makes you sleep easier to categorize those who don't hold the same opinion as you as being group-think pre-programmed folks, that's your right. I will submit that this is an incredibly ironic position for a fundamentalist Christian to take however.

If the Supreme Court were to issue an edict from on high to these folks that wearing zippers in the back of their pants is the only constitutionally accepted practice, their only response would be the question "can we pick the color of the pants?"

A ridiculous straw-man argument, but let's put aside the silliness of it and take it seriously. The fact of the matter is that the public quite often does not agree with interpretations made by the Supreme Court. For an example that is likely near and dear to your heart, Roe vs. Wade. Have the opponents of abortion rights gone quietly along with this ruling?

Let's not also forget that there are means to get around Supreme Court craziness - Amendments to the Constitution can be passed, and Justices can be impeached.

Believing in the Bible does not make you less intelligent, regardless of the example you think that I myself might set.

Belief in the Bible does not necessarily equal less intelligence. Belief in a literal translation of the Bible however does lead to a conclusion of less intelligence. When such people choose to trust in faith over the evidence of science, I cannot come to any other conclusion than lesser intelligence. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I'm fine with that characterization. Just make sure you get it right though - I'm not saying being a Christian means you're less intelligent. I'm saying that a belief that everything in the Bible is literally true, that some of it isn't allegory, indicates lesser intelligence.

Let the firestorm commence.

[Bubba Wheels]

1. The Federal Govt recieved its powers from the states, not the other way around. The sole purpose of the Federal Govt was for national defense and to regulate inter-state and inter-national commerce. Moreso the first since there was less of the second.

2. Anything not covered by the Constitution regarding the powers of the Federal Govt shall be the sole propriety of the Soverign States. Pretty self-explanitory. I paraphrased since I don't have may actual copy of the Constitution in front of me.

3. Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found a none-existant clause in the Constitution regarding privacy. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, most liberal member of the Supreme Court today states that this is bad law. Interesting sidenote: Roe who was used to bring this suite in the first place is today a strong anti-abortion Christian who actively campaigns to get this overturned.

Biggest myth concerning Roe v. Wade: Overturning this would make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the question back to where it duly belonged in the first place...with the states.

4. I have stated before, true science does not contradict the Bible, but part of the public school indocrination process is teaching that it does. Probably where you got your views.

And I didn't quite understand your last sentence. You mean if you believe that the Bible is literally true you display lesser intelligence, or that you must have lesser intelligence to be pre-disposed to the view that the Bible is fundamentally correct?

[dawgfan]

1. The Federal Govt recieved its powers from the states, not the other way around. The sole purpose of the Federal Govt was for national defense and to regulate inter-state and inter-national commerce. Moreso the first since there was less of the second.

2. Anything not covered by the Constitution regarding the powers of the Federal Govt shall be the sole propriety of the Soverign States. Pretty self-explanitory. I paraphrased since I don't have may actual copy of the Constitution in front of me.

Constitutional scholarship is a complex field open to many interpretations, as we can see by the variety of decisions on various subjects rendered by the Supreme Court throughout our history. Forgive me then if I have some skepticism as to your expertise in interpreting the Constitution and knowing the exact intent of all the founding fathers.

3. Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found a none-existant clause in the Constitution regarding privacy. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, most liberal member of the Supreme Court today states that this is bad law. Interesting sidenote: Roe who was used to bring this suite in the first place is today a strong anti-abortion Christian who actively campaigns to get this overturned.

Biggest myth concerning Roe v. Wade: Overturning this would make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the question back to where it duly belonged in the first place...with the states.

OK, this whole thing is a non-sequiter from what I was talking about. You were trying to make some point about people in this country just going along with whatever the Supreme Court decides by using a ridiculous made-up scenario. I countered your point by reminding you that, as in the case of the Roe vs. Wade decision, the American public is certainly capable and willing to contest decisions made by the Supreme Court.

4. I have stated before, true science does not contradict the Bible, but part of the public school indocrination process is teaching that it does. Probably where you got your views.

I don't know what you mean by "true" science, but here's a primary example for you - according to the Bible, the universe was created in 6 days by God. Adding up the subsequent years as recorded in the Bible, the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. Through scientific dating processes based on theories that can be reproduced consistently in tests, it appears the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. A bit of a contradiction there.

The bible also seems to infer that in the past, some individuals have had lifespans far exceeding anything we see today, most notably Methuselah who was said to have lived 969 years. Should we take this as literal truth, or wonder if perhaps the units of age measurement were confused over the many centuries of the bible being copied and translated, or if this age measurement was an exaggeration to be used for allegorical purposes?

And I didn't quite understand your last sentence. You mean if you believe that the Bible is literally true you display lesser intelligence, or that you must have lesser intelligence to be pre-disposed to the view that the Bible is fundamentally correct?

If you believe that the earth is really only 6,000 years old as a literal translation of the Bible seems to say, then I would find either statement applicable.

[Crapshoot]

1. The Federal Govt recieved its powers from the states, not the other way around. The sole purpose of the Federal Govt was for national defense and to regulate inter-state and inter-national commerce. Moreso the first since there was less of the second.

2. Anything not covered by the Constitution regarding the powers of the Federal Govt shall be the sole propriety of the Soverign States. Pretty self-explanitory. I paraphrased since I don't have may actual copy of the Constitution in front of me.

3. Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found a none-existant clause in the Constitution regarding privacy. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, most liberal member of the Supreme Court today states that this is bad law. Interesting sidenote: Roe who was used to bring this suite in the first place is today a strong anti-abortion Christian who actively campaigns to get this overturned.

Biggest myth concerning Roe v. Wade: Overturning this would make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the question back to where it duly belonged in the first place...with the states.

4. I have stated before, true science does not contradict the Bible, but part of the public school indocrination process is teaching that it does. Probably where you got your views.

And I didn't quite understand your last sentence. You mean if you believe that the Bible is literally true you display lesser intelligence, or that you must have lesser intelligence to be pre-disposed to the view that the Bible is fundamentally correct?


Hey Bubba, just fyi- my public school indocrination was in a catholic school - damn secular humanists :D

[KWhit]

Tolerance is the grease for the New World Order. Those that would sell out their convictions for 'tolerance' are just awaiting for the dictator to arrive.
Wow. It just keeps getting better and better.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hey Bubba, just fyi- my public school indocrination was in a catholic school - damn secular humanists :D

Didn't seem to keep you from becoming a liar and a bigot though.

[Bubba Wheels]

Constitutional scholarship is a complex field open to many interpretations, as we can see by the variety of decisions on various subjects rendered by the Supreme Court throughout our history. Forgive me then if I have some skepticism as to your expertise in interpreting the Constitution and knowing the exact intent of all the founding fathers.



OK, this whole thing is a non-sequiter from what I was talking about. You were trying to make some point about people in this country just going along with whatever the Supreme Court decides by using a ridiculous made-up scenario. I countered your point by reminding you that, as in the case of the Roe vs. Wade decision, the American public is certainly capable and willing to contest decisions made by the Supreme Court.



I don't know what you mean by "true" science, but here's a primary example for you - according to the Bible, the universe was created in 6 days by God. Adding up the subsequent years as recorded in the Bible, the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. Through scientific dating processes based on theories that can be reproduced consistently in tests, it appears the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. A bit of a contradiction there.

The bible also seems to infer that in the past, some individuals have had lifespans far exceeding anything we see today, most notably Methuselah who was said to have lived 969 years. Should we take this as literal truth, or wonder if perhaps the units of age measurement were confused over the many centuries of the bible being copied and translated, or if this age measurement was an exaggeration to be used for allegorical purposes?



If you believe that the earth is really only 6,000 years old as a literal translation of the Bible seems to say, then I would find either statement applicable.


Well, you start by citing the Supreme Court and its rulings as uber alles in dictating what is and is not acceptable in terms of Constitutionally acceptable (as many sheep today do.)

But then you seem to attempt and modify this by stating that, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, not everybody likes these rulings. Well, so what? They still follow them as dictates of the Supreme Court, who may not even have real authority according to some founding fathers to make these dictates in the first place. If that is the case, then they only make these dictates because they know that the sheep will follow them.

The thing about the Bible and creation I've touched on before. First line of Genisis in original text (no, I didn't translate but others have) means original creation. Second line on talks about some form of Re-creation, or renovation as if a calamity had happened after the original creation. Bible also says that 'one day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as one day unto God." Paraphrased but clear that not necessarily talking about 24 hour periods. No reason that the world could not be billions of years old and still be in perfect harmony with what the Bible teaches.

You never anwered the last point. Are folks who believe in the Bible less intelligent because they do, or are they less intelligent to begin with and thus predisposed to believe because of that?

[digamma]

Well, you start by citing the Supreme Court and its rulings as uber alles in dictating what is and is not acceptable in terms of Constitutionally acceptable (as many sheep today do.)

But then you seem to attempt and modify this by stating that, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, not everybody likes these rulings. Well, so what? They still follow them as dictates of the Supreme Court, who may not even have real authority according to some founding fathers to make these dictates in the first place. If that is the case, then they only make these dictates because they know that the sheep will follow them.


You seem to be melding two separate issues into one...

1. Whether judicial review, as a concept, is proper under the Constitution.

2. Whether some judicial decisions (employing judicial review) are correctly decided under the Constitution.

The fact that some individual decisions may have been decided on shaky constitutional grounds is not an argument that judicial review is, in itself, unconstitutional.

We've discussed this before, but there is a minority view, held even today, that judicial review is not appropriate under the Constitution. However, it is nothing more than a minority view--and the fact that Jefferson may have agreed with that view, as smart as he was, doesn't make it true and correct. Most scholars believe Marbury was correctly decided.

Baaaaah. Baaaaaaah.

[dawgfan]

Well, you start by citing the Supreme Court and its rulings as uber alles in dictating what is and is not acceptable in terms of Constitutionally acceptable (as many sheep today do.)

But then you seem to attempt and modify this by stating that, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, not everybody likes these rulings. Well, so what? They still follow them as dictates of the Supreme Court, who may not even have real authority according to some founding fathers to make these dictates in the first place. If that is the case, then they only make these dictates because they know that the sheep will follow them.

Since digamma has already addressed these points, I won't belabor the issue, except to say that you're not going to find a lot of support for the notion that the Supreme Court was not granted judicial review by the Constitution. to wit:

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power [defined in Section 1 as "vested in one supreme Court"] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That's straight from the Constitution BTW.

As for people following the decisions of the Supreme Court, are you advocating breaking the law? Your initial point on this matter (which you've travelled far, far away from) seemed to be that people in this country are sheep and will follow whatever ridiculous opinions the Supreme Court renders. I countered by pointing out that people don't just blindly follow whatever the court decides, as the constant protests over Roe vs. Wade have shown. Those protests by the anti-abortion activists have had an effect, as we've seen subsequent rulings regarding abortion chipping away at that decision.

The thing about the Bible and creation I've touched on before. First line of Genisis in original text (no, I didn't translate but others have) means original creation. Second line on talks about some form of Re-creation, or renovation as if a calamity had happened after the original creation. Bible also says that 'one day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as one day unto God." Paraphrased but clear that not necessarily talking about 24 hour periods. No reason that the world could not be billions of years old and still be in perfect harmony with what the Bible teaches.

You never anwered the last point. Are folks who believe in the Bible less intelligent because they do, or are they less intelligent to begin with and thus predisposed to believe because of that?

Let's be clear on this - I said that people who believe only in a literal translation of the Bible are less intelligent. Don't try to misquote me on this. People can be very intelligent and believe in the spirit of the Bible, but I believe that once you start believing that all of the Bible is literally true, then you evince lesser intelligence. Now, if you're saying that a literal belief is possible while acknowledging that common interpretations of the age of the earth being 6,000 years and Methuseleh living to be 969 years old are incorrect translations, then I'm much less bothered. It's the kind of things where common literal interpretations of the Bible differ in extreme ways from scientific observation that I have an issue in terms of the intelligence of the reader.

As to whether they are less intelligent because of that belief, or are predisposed to that belief due to lesser intelligence, that seems to be an issue of semantics really. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are mental illnesses caused by a physcial malfunction in the brain, or do mental illnesses create the malfunction in the brain (and no, I'm not comparing believing a literal translation of the bible to mental illness, so don't even think of misquoting me on this one).

Let's put it this way - belief that the world is 6,000 years old because of what the Bible says is evidence to me that someone is of lesser intelligence. Lesser intelligence is probably what caused that person to hold that belief.

[Crapshoot]

Well, you start by citing the Supreme Court and its rulings as uber alles in dictating what is and is not acceptable in terms of Constitutionally acceptable (as many sheep today do.)

But then you seem to attempt and modify this by stating that, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, not everybody likes these rulings. Well, so what? They still follow them as dictates of the Supreme Court, who may not even have real authority according to some founding fathers to make these dictates in the first place. If that is the case, then they only make these dictates because they know that the sheep will follow them.

The thing about the Bible and creation I've touched on before. First line of Genisis in original text (no, I didn't translate but others have) means original creation. Second line on talks about some form of Re-creation, or renovation as if a calamity had happened after the original creation. Bible also says that 'one day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as one day unto God." Paraphrased but clear that not necessarily talking about 24 hour periods. No reason that the world could not be billions of years old and still be in perfect harmony with what the Bible teaches.

You never anwered the last point. Are folks who believe in the Bible less intelligent because they do, or are they less intelligent to begin with and thus predisposed to believe because of that?

Edit - Dawgfan said it better than me - a literal translation is the problem.

[Bubba Wheels]

Since digamma has already addressed these points, I won't belabor the issue, except to say that you're not going to find a lot of support for the notion that the Supreme Court was not granted judicial review by the Constitution. to wit:



That's straight from the Constitution BTW.

As for people following the decisions of the Supreme Court, are you advocating breaking the law? Your initial point on this matter (which you've travelled far, far away from) seemed to be that people in this country are sheep and will follow whatever ridiculous opinions the Supreme Court renders. I countered by pointing out that people don't just blindly follow whatever the court decides, as the constant protests over Roe vs. Wade have shown. Those protests by the anti-abortion activists have had an effect, as we've seen subsequent rulings regarding abortion chipping away at that decision.



Let's be clear on this - I said that people who believe only in a literal translation of the Bible are less intelligent. Don't try to misquote me on this. People can be very intelligent and believe in the spirit of the Bible, but I believe that once you start believing that all of the Bible is literally true, then you evince lesser intelligence. Now, if you're saying that a literal belief is possible while acknowledging that common interpretations of the age of the earth being 6,000 years and Methuseleh living to be 969 years old are incorrect translations, then I'm much less bothered. It's the kind of things where common literal interpretations of the Bible differ in extreme ways from scientific observation that I have an issue in terms of the intelligence of the reader.

As to whether they are less intelligent because of that belief, or are predisposed to that belief due to lesser intelligence, that seems to be an issue of semantics really. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are mental illnesses caused by a physcial malfunction in the brain, or do mental illnesses create the malfunction in the brain (and no, I'm not comparing believing a literal translation of the bible to mental illness, so don't even think of misquoting me on this one).

Let's put it this way - belief that the world is 6,000 years old because of what the Bible says is evidence to me that someone is of lesser intelligence. Lesser intelligence is probably what caused that person to hold that belief.

Well, I just have to ask this last one. Is there some kind of pattern you see in those of 'lesser intelligence?" I mean, does it break down in terms of race, gender, geographical location? Or is it only identifiable by having a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of the other qualifers?

[dawgfan]

Well, I just have to ask this last one. Is there some kind of pattern you see in those of 'lesser intelligence?" I mean, does it break down in terms of race, gender, geographical location? Or is it only identifiable by having a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of the other qualifers?

Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting. I never said that all people of lesser intelligence believe a literal interpretation of the Bible - that's just one subset.

As for the rest, I'm not even going to touch that. You can find dumb people of all races, creeds, religions, locales, sexual orientations, gender, age, etc.

[albionmoonlight]

1. The Federal Govt recieved its powers from the states, not the other way around.

. . .

Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found a none-existant clause in the Constitution regarding privacy.
Two points, and then I will leave the last words in this thread to you (though I agree with diagamma and others that judicial review is Constitutional. Others hold your view that judicial review is improper, but they are a stark minority in the field of Constitutional scholarship. You agree with them; I don't, and the shades of the argument are probably tloo subtle for a football message board (I admit to not understanding them all.))

1.) The federal government did NOT get its powers from the states. Both the states and the fed got their powers from the PEOPLE. (We learn this three words into the Constitution).

2.) I actually agree with you about Roe v. Wade being wrong. I don't go as far as to say that there is not right to privacy under the Constitution, but for other more subtle reasons, I think that it is a bad case. So was Plessy; so was Lochner; so was Korematsu. That does not mean that the Court is an invalid institution.

But I am digressing. You claim that the Constitution does not expressly forbid the government from outlawing abortion, so the government can outlaw it. Please note, then, that the Constitution gives you no express right to raise your children. Or to have any control over your reproductive decisions at all. So, do you beleive that California would have the right to take everyone's children from birth and raise them under the Platonic model in "secluar humanist" camps? (i.e., your child is taken from the hospital bed and sent away for 18 years of "secular humanist education" instead of being raised by its parents.)

If you beleive that such actions by California would be Constitutional, then you are being consistant in your beliefs. If, however, you beleive that they would be unconstitutional, then isn't our disagreement simply one of degree? You acknowledge that there are some fundamental rights that people have that are not expressly stated in the Constitution, you just disagree with the scope of those rights.

[KWhit]

I think the Wheels have come off of this thread.

[Blackadar]

I think the Wheels have come off of this thread.

The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.
The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

[Bubba Wheels]

Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting. I never said that all people of lesser intelligence believe a literal interpretation of the Bible - that's just one subset.

As for the rest, I'm not even going to touch that. You can find dumb people of all races, creeds, religions, locales, sexual orientations, gender, age, etc.

Just trying to understand your last point here. So the world is divided in two sets of people according to your view, intelligent and less intelligent. But I'm still unclear (probably due to my lesser intelligence) to understand what differentiates the two. Is it what someone may choose to believe in (choice/enviroment) or is it genetic (superman/master race kind of stuff?)

[KWhit]

You are a master debater.

[QuikSand]

So the world is divided in two sets of people according to your view, intelligent and less intelligent.

While the separation may not be all that discrete, I think this is incontrovertably true.

But I'm still unclear (probably due to my lesser intelligence) to understand what differentiates the two.

Seems like you've offered a worthy potential answer to your own (mangled, but implied) question.

[dawgfan]

Just trying to understand your last point here. So the world is divided in two sets of people according to your view, intelligent and less intelligent. But I'm still unclear (probably due to my lesser intelligence) to understand what differentiates the two. Is it what someone may choose to believe in (choice/enviroment) or is it genetic (superman/master race kind of stuff?)

Quik has already addressed this, but let me add this:

For any trait wherein you can draw a spectrum of possible states (i.e. hair length - from very long to bald), you can place an arbitrary dividing point and say that the world is divided into 2 kinds of people - those on one side of your arbitrary dividing line of a particular trait, and those on the other. For example: the world is divided into 2 kinds of people: those equal to and taller than 5'9", and those shorter than 5'9".

There are very few things in this world that are either/or situations that can be described as binary (or to use another analogy, digital). For most things, there are wide spectrums of possibilities with an infinite number of grey tones between the black and the white (or to continue my analogy, analog). I don't believe there are some people at one higher level of intelligence and the rest at one lower level of intelligence.

For that matter, I don't really think there is one easy way to measure intelligence - there are any number of different ways to analyze someone's ability to learn, to retain knowledge, to reason, to apply knowledge, etc. People can be weak in one area and strong in another. How then do you accurately compare them with someone that is mediocre in both those areas?

My statement about those that believe in literal translations of the Bible such as a belief that the world is 6,000 years old being less intelligent boils down to this - I have a hard time respecting the intelligence of someone that rejects scientific thought in favor of a faith-based belief. In some measure I believe such people are of limited intelligence when compared to those that understand scientific process and why they should trust that, even if they can't replicate or completely understand the science behind a particular conclusion, that conclusion comes from a sound process subject to rigorous testing.

For those that reject science and trust the Bible, I wonder what they think of modern society which is so dominated by things that are a product of humanity's collective scientific knowledge? Do they think that we've just gotten extraordinarily lucky with our inventions? Or do they accept the science that has led to things like cars, airplanes, stereos, telephones, computers, etc. but reject only the branch of science dealing with geology and dating of geologic material?

[Klinglerware]

Just a seeker of knowledge, but one that understands that there is a spiritual side to things that many reject out of hand because it cannot be 'scientifically' proven. Sidenote to that: A large and growing number of scientists believe in a spiritual higher being, one that is responsible for 'creation', regardless of how that word is construed.

Well, I think that the number of scientists who believe in a higher being is actually quite high. They just keep their spiritual lives seperate from their professional lives.

[Bubba Wheels]

You are a master debater.

Just a seeker of knowledge, but one that understands that there is a spiritual side to things that many reject out of hand because it cannot be 'scientifically' proven. Sidenote to that: A large and growing number of scientists believe in a spiritual higher being, one that is responsible for 'creation', regardless of how that word is construed.

[Bubba Wheels]

While the separation may not be all that discrete, I think this is incontrovertably true.



Seems like you've offered a worthy potential answer to your own (mangled, but implied) question.

Don't really get your position from what you've stated: People are more or less intelligent thru enviroment or genetics? Please clarify. If genetic, what is the qualifying factor to that? Race, gender, ect..., please help to enlighten my limited outlook. Thanks.

[Subby]

The amount of raw PWNAGE in this thread is startling.

[Blackadar]

The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.
The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

[SirFozzie]

The amount of raw PWNAGE in this thread is startling.

bah. and here I thought I had provide maximum PWNED-age with the distilling a typical Bubba thread into one post.

[dawgfan]

Don't really get your position from what you've stated: People are more or less intelligent thru enviroment or genetics? Please clarify. If genetic, what is the qualifying factor to that? Race, gender, ect..., please help to enlighten my limited outlook. Thanks.

Both genetics and environment play a role (nature vs. nurture). As to qualifying factors, I'm not going to touch the genetic side of things, other than to say I don't think there's any compelling scientific evidence of a genetic intelligence potential between different races or the two genders.

As for environmental factors, I think that by far the biggest one is socio-economic status. That's not to say that poor kids can't be smart and rich kids can't be dumb, just that economic factors can play a large role in how well a child reaches their intelligence potential.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, I really am trying to understand this position. Both dawgfan and Quicksand have stated that there are people less intelligent than others. Many may agree with this. What is of interest to me, though, is weather they think this is a result of enviroment or genetics.

For instance, Hitler (not trying to inflame, just making a point) had a 'race scale' that he truly believed was accurate. Went something like this:

1. Anglo-Saxon
2. Celtic
3. Slavic
4. Black
5. Jewish

Now I myself would fall between 2 and 3, so obviously I am not part of the 'master race,' but if someone can make a statement regarding intelligence I don't think that its unreasonable for them to disclose what they believe the source for this difference may be.

[Bubba Wheels]

Both genetics and environment play a role (nature vs. nurture). As to qualifying factors, I'm not going to touch the genetic side of things, other than to say I don't think there's any compelling scientific evidence of a genetic intelligence potential between different races or the two genders.

As for environmental factors, I think that by far the biggest one is socio-economic status. That's not to say that poor kids can't be smart and rich kids can't be dumb, just that economic factors can play a large role in how well a child reaches their intelligence potential.

Alright, that's a fair explanation. Thankyou.

[Bubba Wheels]

bah. and here I thought I had provide maximum PWNED-age with the distilling a typical Bubba thread into one post.

Foz, truth be told, I've never once seen you make an intelligent statement anywheres. For all your self-believed witty verbage, you really strike me as kind of...slow.

[SirFozzie]

Well, thank you Bubba sir, that is the greatest compliment you could ever pay me.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, thank you Bubba sir, that is the greatest compliment you could ever pay me.

Your welcome. Now quit following me. I don't follow you around in your threads. ;)

[Subby]

Foz, truth be told, I've never once seen you make an intelligent statement anywheres. For all your self-believed witty verbage, you really strike me as kind of...slow.
Yeah! If therez anyone anywheres that knowz slow, it's that cuddly 'ol Bubba...

[Bubba Wheels]

Yeah! If therez anyone anywheres that knowz slow, it's that cuddly 'ol Bubba...

Riding to your bud's defense! That's really...Sweet! :D

[Dutch]

For instance, Hitler (not trying to inflame, just making a point) had a 'race scale' that he truly believed was accurate. Went something like this:

1. Anglo-Saxon
2. Celtic
3. Slavic
4. Black
5. Jewish

He missed some. Oh, and does Rod Carew fall under the Black or Jewish race? Technicalities like that are the true cause of the 3rd Reich fall. There was simply no answer to satisfy Herr Hitler so he said, "Fuck all these motherfuckers!" and invaded Russia. The dumbass.

[miked]

Just a seeker of knowledge, but one that understands that there is a spiritual side to things that many reject out of hand because it cannot be 'scientifically' proven. Sidenote to that: A large and growing number of scientists believe in a spiritual higher being, one that is responsible for 'creation', regardless of how that word is construed.

Just as an aside but have you heard of the Miller/Urey experiment? I'm not trying to start anything here, I'm just interested in hearing what you think about it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Just as an aside but have you heard of the Miller/Urey experiment? I'm not trying to start anything here, I'm just interested in hearing what you think about it.

No, but sounds intriguing and I'm always ready to learn something new!

[SirFozzie]

Sorry Bubba (almost called you Bub, which would be an insult to Ron Juckett).. I go where I please. The funny thing is, that I at one point was the closest thing you had to a supporter in this thread, till you spouted the "Tolerance is the tool that the New World Order will use to take over" idiocy.

You got quite rightfully called out on your bait and switch tactics where you would take somebody's statement, twist it and make a totally different point then what you were previously talking about.

[Bubba Wheels]

He missed some. Oh, and does Rod Carew fall under the Black or Jewish race? Technicalities like that are the true cause of the 3rd Reich fall. There was simply no answer to satisfy Herr Hitler so he said, "Fuck all these motherfuckers!" and invaded Russia. The dumbass.

I actually learned of this scale thru a very liberal college professor. Hitler sought to make the Slavic folks into slaves of the 3rd Reich after he invaded Poland and Russia.

The world Slav, as I understand, is the root word for "Slave."

[Bubba Wheels]

Sorry Bubba (almost called you Bub, which would be an insult to Ron Juckett).. I go where I please. The funny thing is, that I at one point was the closest thing you had to a supporter in this thread, till you spouted the "Tolerance is the tool that the New World Order will use to take over" idiocy.

You got quite rightfully called out on your bait and switch tactics where you would take somebody's statement, twist it and make a totally different point then what you were previously talking about.

Well, I stand by that statement. Tolerance is the sledgehammer being used by the secular progressives to knock-down and eliminate any vestige of tradition Judeo-Christian ethics, values or heritage. You could even say, as Christ is to the Christian, 'Tolerance' is to the Progressive left. But tolerance to the extreme in promoting things hostile to Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs.

And I would add that this word 'tolerance' is actually a misnomer in itself, as this supposed tolerance is always Intolerant to anything in disagreement with its proponents.

[SirFozzie]

Well, I stand by that statement. Tolerance is the sledgehammer being used by the secular progressives to knock-down and eliminate any vestige of tradition Judeo-Christian ethics, values or heritage. You could even say, as Christ is to the Christian, 'Tolerance' is to the Progressive left. But tolerance to the extreme in promoting things hostile to Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs.

And I would add that this word 'tolerance' is actually a misnomer in itself, as this supposed tolerance is always Intolerant to anything in disagreement with its proponents.


You do know what an utter whack job you sound like when you post such rediculous tripe, right?

[Bubba Wheels]

You do know what an utter whack job you sound like when you post such rediculous tripe, right?

Well, just follow the actions of the ACLU for clear and numerous examples of my statement. Pretty soon displaying anything of religious significance outside your own home will be considered 'hate speech' and intolerant to the tolerant crowd.

[Suicane75]

Well, just follow the actions of the ACLU for clear and numerous examples of my statement. Pretty soon displaying anything of religious significance outside your own home will be considered 'hate speech' and intolerant to the tolerant crowd.

What world, pray tell, do you live in?

[Blackadar]

I was going to reply, but just realized it wouldn't make a difference. Bubba is, and always will be, afraid of any beliefs other than his.

So...

The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.
\

[Bubba Wheels]

What world, pray tell, do you live in?

Well, lets see. Last Christmas public schools in New York City were not allowed to display anything of a Christian nature, but any other religion or belief was allowed. Think they got sued, didn't hear how it turned out. But that's documented.

ACLU forced the City of L.A. to remove a cross (place there for historical, not religious significance) from the City's seal. City caved and did it without taking it to court.

In Canada, last I have heard, reading certain passages from the Bible in a public setting could constitute 'hate speech' and would be considered a criminal act. Think at least one case possibly in the west was being heard.

Public schools everywhere have no problem promoting graphic displays of birth control methods including the distributionof condoms and of gay/lesbian
themed promotions but take anti-Christian policies to such an extreme that many as we sit here are being sued for denying students their right of free speech (One case in Ann Arbor Pioneer High School last year had the judge fine and scold the school authorities for outright discrimination vs. Christian advocates while promoting everything and anything else. Judge went so far as to compare school authorities with using tactics straight out of NAZI Germany. Know this is an overused example, but a Federal Judge making this point is noteworthy.)

Just a few examples of the 'country that I live in."

[SirFozzie]

:rolleyes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

pretty important sentence, don't you think Bubba?

you say that the nation is moving away from "judeo-christian" values as if this nation was founded to be strictly a judeo-christian nation.

I agree, things can be taken too far, for example, the lawsuits about trying to ban the words "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the calls to ban Christmas trees and creche scenes at Christmas time. There is such thing as swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

But the US is not, has not, and hopefully will never be a Judeo-Christian nation solely. Seems to me they were being pretty TOLERANT about letting all religions under the tent, so to speak up there in that sentence I quoted, now, aren't they?

Yes, you have the right to bray your insanities about how the Zionists are attempting to take over the US and the World by promoting that God made all mankind equal under His benevolent view.

We also have a right to point, laugh, and explain the inconsistensies and the inanites in your feeble argument.

This topic came about because an author, who you agree with, wrote things that you agree with (at least, wrote things you've heard about the book.. it's still not clear if you read it). Until the thread degenerated (and even now, some people are trying to engage you in rational discussion, most of which you discard, take one or two sentence, twist it in a way the speaker never intended, and use it to cast aspersions on the person disagreeing with you), people mentioned things that cast doubt on the authors message (quite frankly, to me he's doing the same thing you're doing, taking the words of someone else and twisting them to support your viewpoint).

For example, do you find it quite odd that the author is one of the creators of a society that stated that the nation has too many people of a non Anglo-Europe-centric viewpoint? I could make several jokes, or compare it to certain people of the past.. I won't though. I will say that his (to me) twisted viewpoint makes anything else he utters automatically suspect.

[AENeuman]

"I don't have a problem with Christ, I have a problem with Christians." The Edge.

Until language is accepted as a more emotional/spiritual (ie symbolic) medium rather than empirical/rational then silly arguments like this will continue. This tolerance argument is like debating if all produce is organic.

[miked]

Got lost along the way, but here is one site with some Miller-Urey info. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html (From Duke's website, so I assume it's safe to link).

Well, I stand by that statement. Tolerance is the sledgehammer being used by the secular progressives to knock-down and eliminate any vestige of tradition Judeo-Christian ethics, values or heritage.

You seem to be forgetting about a significant number of people in your statement. Would you be for me teaching your child about the Hindu version of creation in science class? Or perhaps the Navajo version? If you can't see that it's not the school's position to be teaching "unscientific theories" (I'm not saying they are or are not true, just not investigated on a scientific basis) then maybe you should shield your children from the tolerance-imposing public schools.

[KWhit]

Well, Bubba, you have succeeded with me.

I am generally a very tolerant person. I believe that tolerance is extremely important in society today. However, there is no way in Hell thatI can tolerate your ignorant tripe any more.

No wonder you're so religious. Jesus is probably the only person you can talk to any more.

[Bubba Wheels]

:rolleyes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

pretty important sentence, don't you think Bubba?

you say that the nation is moving away from "judeo-christian" values as if this nation was founded to be strictly a judeo-christian nation.

I agree, things can be taken too far, for example, the lawsuits about trying to ban the words "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the calls to ban Christmas trees and creche scenes at Christmas time. There is such thing as swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

But the US is not, has not, and hopefully will never be a Judeo-Christian nation solely. Seems to me they were being pretty TOLERANT about letting all religions under the tent, so to speak up there in that sentence I quoted, now, aren't they?

Yes, you have the right to bray your insanities about how the Zionists are attempting to take over the US and the World by promoting that God made all mankind equal under His benevolent view.

We also have a right to point, laugh, and explain the inconsistensies and the inanites in your feeble argument.

This topic came about because an author, who you agree with, wrote things that you agree with (at least, wrote things you've heard about the book.. it's still not clear if you read it). Until the thread degenerated (and even now, some people are trying to engage you in rational discussion, most of which you discard, take one or two sentence, twist it in a way the speaker never intended, and use it to cast aspersions on the person disagreeing with you), people mentioned things that cast doubt on the authors message (quite frankly, to me he's doing the same thing you're doing, taking the words of someone else and twisting them to support your viewpoint).

For example, do you find it quite odd that the author is one of the creators of a society that stated that the nation has too many people of a non Anglo-Europe-centric viewpoint? I could make several jokes, or compare it to certain people of the past.. I won't though. I will say that his (to me) twisted viewpoint makes anything else he utters automatically suspect.

I think that I already stated I saw the guy speak for about an hour on C-Span, did not read his book. If I do agree with the man's outlook on limited government and some of his original founding father's visions of the future shape of the U.S. under the Constitution I'm further accused of being in lock-step with the guy's supposed anti-Zionist agenda.

Point about the schools is basic and consistent. With a growing fracture of our culture into different ways of living altogether, we no longer enjoy the mostly homogenious outlook of what our country is all about and its future. Which most historians would say crystalized for the most part after ww2 when the country became an industrial giant concentrated in urban rather than agricultural areas.

Given that, does it really make sense to keep funneling our kids into state-sponsered one-size-fits-all education camps that even Bill Gates (a big liberal) is now stating is obsolete? Let the market forces take over, create vouchers and allow parents the choice to send their kids to get the kind of education that they, not you or the state, deems appropriate. And that means an end to large, centralized schools. And also alot of conflicts regarding the practice of beliefs or lifestyle.

[Bubba Wheels]

Got lost along the way, but here is one site with some Miller-Urey info. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html (From Duke's website, so I assume it's safe to link).



You seem to be forgetting about a significant number of people in your statement. Would you be for me teaching your child about the Hindu version of creation in science class? Or perhaps the Navajo version? If you can't see that it's not the school's position to be teaching "unscientific theories" (I'm not saying they are or are not true, just not investigated on a scientific basis) then maybe you should shield your children from the tolerance-imposing public schools.

Tried your link, didn't work. Your argument misses one very important fact: The history and heritage of this country was and is based on the tennets, ethics and values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Not those of any other, including (though that is changing today) those of secular humanism. Therefore Judeo-Christian philosophical ideals if not religious intent should always be highlight in our past and continued to be taught to all kids today.

Again, I'm talking about the heritage upon which our laws and beliefs in such things as equality and fairness are based upon, not religious instruction (put that in when I got the mental picture of smoke coming out of SirFozzie's ears.) :D

[miked]

Tried your link, didn't work. Your argument misses one very important fact: The history and heritage of this country was and is based on the tennents, ethics and values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Not those of any other, including (though that is changing today) those of secular humanism. Therefore Judeo-Christian philosophical ideals if not religious intent should always be highlight in our past and continued to be taught to all kids today.

Again, I'm talking about the heritage upon which our laws and beliefs in such things as equality and fairness are based upon, not religious instruction (put that in when I got the mental picture of smoke coming out of SirFozzie's ears.) :D

Science isn't really based on the tennents, ethics and values of our country's heritage. In fact, a lot of the important science has been done by foreigners. There are many people that believe we should be teaching Judeo-Christian creationism (probably most are Christian) in science class. In what context should it be taught...US history? Where should it be taught in public schools. My point is, as long as there are Native Americans, Hindus, non-Judeo Christians paying taxes for these schools, all have to have their stories represented equally.

Anyway, link works ok for me...

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[SirFozzie]

I think that I already stated I saw the guy speak for about an hour on C-Span, did not read his book. If I do agree with the man's outlook on limited government and some of his original founding father's visions of the future shape of the U.S. under the Constitution I'm further accused of being in lock-step with the guy's supposed anti-Zionist agenda.

Point about the schools is basic and consistent. With a growing fracture of our culture into different ways of living altogether, we no longer enjoy the mostly homogenious outlook of what our country is all about and its future. Which most historians would say crystalized for the most part after ww2 when the country became an industrial giant concentrated in urban rather than agricultural areas.

Given that, does it really make sense to keep funneling our kids into state-sponsered one-size-fits-all education camps that even Bill Gates (a big liberal) is now stating is obsolete? Let the market forces take over, create vouchers and allow parents the choice to send their kids to get the kind of education that they, not you or the state, deems appropriate. And that means an end to large, centralized schools. And also alot of conflicts regarding the practice of beliefs or lifestyle.

You know Bubba, that's the most coherent thing I've heard you say. I'm not sure if I agree, but at least you put your best argument forward.

[Bubba Wheels]

You know Bubba, that's the most coherent thing I've heard you say. I'm not sure if I agree, but at least you put your best argument forward.

Thanks! Check my new one out! :)

[QuikSand]

Just informational, not critical...

The word you want to be using here is tenets.


Best of luck.

[Franklinnoble]

Just food for thought...

Those of you giving Bubba such a hard time might want to make sure you're right. I'm not necessarily saying that everything Bubba is saying is right, or even sound doctrine. But a lot of you are taking a shotgun approach to your arguments, and you're offending more people than just him here with some of your statements.

Regardless of your opinion of Bubba, some of you are talking some pretty scary smack about the Almighty, and while you might be totally comfortable discounting everything written in the Bible, if you're mistaken, the penalties aren't pleasant.

I'm not personally offended either way - I'm the sort of born-again neanderthal that you all poke fun of for having a literal view of the Bible and creationism. I won't argue with you, because it's not my job to change your mind about these things, and, generally, it's a waste of breath. I used to be just like you. I'm not stupid. I have an education. The Holy Spirit changed me. I'm still a work in progress. I'm still a dirtbag most of the time. But I'm working on it, and I fear the Lord. Which is the beginning of wisdom, according to Him.

To Bubba... your heart is in the right place, and I applaud your zeal. I am not trying to discourage you.

[Sharpieman]

Just a seeker of knowledge, but one that understands that there is a spiritual side to things that many reject out of hand because it cannot be 'scientifically' proven. Sidenote to that: A large and growing number of scientists believe in a spiritual higher being, one that is responsible for 'creation', regardless of how that word is construed.
That is just utter nonesense. Show me the facts, show me this large and growing number of scientists. And don't show me some nut-job scientist who got his degree from ABC colleges. The validity of creationism as a means of explaining origins is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream science. Creationism science, which trys to help explain the unexplainable, is fundamentally flawed. Since it cannot stand up to rigorious scientific testing.


Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.