Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

[TroutBum]

All my posts are real, unless whinylOne is involved. I wear my emotions on my shoulder; deal with it.

I don't understand what you disagree with about the underlined section. Please expound. Maybe I should have put "returned to... from dictator"?

Is this about my health care thread? Because that contains a very fundamental point which is being mostly overlooked out of political expediency. If anyone feels trolled by it then they should take a deep breath and transition from an emotional to an analytical state of mind.

**Edit** One more thing, I should probably invent 8 or 9 different screen names like a few do on here to troll, eh?

I disagree with you, that was my point. I think a lot of people do. Perhaps I'm way off base. And fwiw, it appears that I insulted you, and you're one of a few people that I try not to insult. Apologies, holmes.

Well, despite my fear that you'll lose respect for me more than you already have...

The first Gulf War was an easy call. The entire world was outraged by Iraq's attack and occupation of Kuwait. Some might argue that was the right time to remove Saddam, but Bush senior made the call to accept Saddam's surrender. The surrender was on the condition that he allow international inspectors in to verify that his chemical weapons were destroyed. He never fully cooperated with that condition of his surrender. Clinton removed inspectors in '98 in favor of tougher sanctions. If It was me in the White House the inspectors would have been accompanied by a military escort, and they would have continued their inspections one way or another. If the escort was met with force it would have started the 2nd round of the Gulf War 5 years sooner and would have had clear justification. Sanctions (which I consider worse than honest combat) would have been avoided, saving the lives of many women and children. That would have prevented sanctions to be used as PR against the U.S. creating resentment among Iraqis that has probably motivated at least a few of the IED planters and suicide bombers to attack our troops.

I'm sure as a Navy man, you have a hell of a lot better idea than I do. I just thought that the statement that all Iraqi citizens are happy that the U.S. is occupying their country, killing their sons, daughters, parents, etc. Perhaps the vast majority are happy about it, but that certainly doesn't mean they all are.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

And you just lost any point you were trying to make by losing your cool. You know what you know so who cares what others think. Relax man

Agreed..... I did loose my cool.
It won't happen again.
It's just hard for me to rational how people do not understand how this country was founded.
Hell.... I'm only 26, and I've read all the documents.

 

[LogGrad98]

Obviousl reading the documents can result in different opinions on what they mean or we wouldn't need a supreme court to interpret them for us and keep us consistent. It is naive to assume that your understanding of them is the only one or the only correct one.

 

[babe]

Obviousl reading the documents can result in different opinions on what they mean or we wouldn't need a supreme court to interpret them for us and keep us consistent. It is naive to assume that your understanding of them is the only one or the only correct one.

this is a common misunderstanding of the situation.

The documents are writtten in English and actually have distinct meanings in their carefully-worded language. We actually need a competent, concerned Congress that will exercise some instructive discipline on power-usurping Judges in general, and Supreme Court Justices in particular. If people read about the times of the the founders, and actually understood what the issues and intents were, they'd be voting for better representatives who would actually take the documents seriously.

We are today everything the founders tried to avert with their carefully negotiated documents. Precisely because the Supreme Court doesn't care about original intent or plain English when it is inconvenient. All three branches of our Federal government have been for over a hundred years engaging is successive unconstitutional power grabs for their own convenience.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's just it and what leaves so much open to interpretation, context. Very few people go to any great length to understand the context of our founding fathers and their documents. Also regardless of whether we share a common language, you and I and anyone else will rarely if ever have exactly the same understanding of anything like the constitution. We always bring our personal beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and attitude along for the ride and that combination is distinctly different for everyone. Just look at the "separation of church and state", which wording never even appears in the constitution. This differing interpretation actually has it's Genesis with one of the founding fathers, who expressed his understanding of that meaning in a letter. The finding fathers themselves had already started interpreting the documents before the ink was dry. Granted they likely had a much better grasp of the context, but the fact that there were discussions of this sort back then shows that from the start interpretation was an issue of sorts.

But I largely agree with your assessment of the current state of our nation in regard to the constitution, and how it came to be like that.

 

[babe]

That's just it and what leaves so much open to interpretation, context. Very few people go to any great length to understand the context of our founding fathers and their documents. Also regardless of whether we share a common language, you and I and anyone else will rarely if ever have exactly the same understanding of anything like the constitution. We always bring our personal beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and attitude along for the ride and that combination is distinctly different for everyone. Just look at the "separation of church and state", which wording never even appears in the constitution. This differing interpretation actually has it's Genesis with one of the founding fathers, who expressed his understanding of that meaning in a letter. The finding fathers themselves had already started interpreting the documents before the ink was dry. Granted they likely had a much better grasp of the context, but the fact that there were discussions of this sort back then shows that from the start interpretation was an issue of sorts.

But I largely agree with your assessment of the current state of our nation in regard to the constitution, and how it came to be like that.

There were hard-fought battles over the wording between different representatives of even the same state, not to mention various states. The British didn't believe the colonies could achieve anything remotely as significant as the Constitution is, and expected the fledgling nation to tear itself apart, and were looking for opportunities to re-establish rule. The States wanted to make sure they would continue in essentially the same way they pleased on most of their affairs. But they needed to have a Union strong enough to maintain independence from foreign powers, and to have some bargaining clout in trade relations abroad. The need that actually drove the Constitutional Congress was the need to have a unified tariff and eliminiate the contention being stirred up by foreign, chiefly British, trading interests seeking to secure advantages in the American markets.

The amendment about the federal government not having power to establish a national church was agreed to because there were different state-sanctioned churches in different states, and none would accept outsiders dictating change to them. But freedom of religion became wildly popular, and state sanctions for churches were discontinued one by one.

Yeah, be careful what you write in personal letters. If a Supreme Court Justice finds it useful to justify some decision, it'll become famous and a whole nation will be told by public educators that what you wrote is in the Constitution.

 

[Scat]

Hell.... I'm only 26 and petulant.

Fixed.

 

[franklin]

I disagree with you, that was my point. I think a lot of people do. Perhaps I'm way off base. And fwiw, it appears that I insulted you, and you're one of a few people that I try not to insult. Apologies, holmes.

...I just thought that the statement that all Iraqi citizens are happy that the U.S. is occupying their country, killing their sons, daughters, parents, etc. Perhaps the vast majority are happy about it, but that certainly doesn't mean they all are.

"I don't get offended so you can take your apology and shove it up your ***!" Guess who that's a quote from?

If I'm in left field then show me why. I guarantee you if we were to liberate Iran there would be a ton of Persians who'd be more than thankful. North Korea would be similar, although it would probably take a few years for them to realize there is a world outside the cellar they've been forced to live inside.

 

[franklin]

And **** you again, because you have no clue which this country was founded upon you neo-conservative moron.

Definitely not a neo-con, but I do believe every single country will eventually fall the the US Constitution. At the exact point our greatest export has been adopted by all and we become a unified world living under sovereign democratic republics, the anti-Christ Timothy Tebow will spring from doing a Tebow to himself and try to usurp power. The allegorical great battle will ensue as we all fight with our television sets watching Thee New Hampshire primary debate rage on. Symbolic blood will be shed as words cut deeper than the sword, but in the end the Good Lord will exit triumphant to reign over us in His peaceful world under His One World Government.

No sarcasm either. Except Tebow. Maybe. Yahoo Answers confirms he's a perfect candidate and Sean Hannity is the whore riding his back.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, be careful what you write in personal letters. If a Supreme Court Justice finds it useful to justify some decision, it'll become famous and a whole nation will be told by public educators that what you wrote is in the Constitution.

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

 

[One Brow]

Hell.... I'm only 26, and I've read all the documents.

You've read the Federalist papers?

 

[franklin]

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

Can we dump the Danbury letter then and allow states to put up crosses at HighPo death sites again?

 

[One Brow]

Can we dump the Danbury letter then and allow states to put up crosses at HighPo death sites again?

As long as you allow Muslim symbols to stand right next to the crosses, sure.

 

[Stoked]

As long as you allow Muslim symbols to stand right next to the crosses, sure.

Having them both is stupid. If the guy was Christian have a cross, if he was Muslim have a Crescent, Jewish a Star...something that relates to the deceased individual in question.

Placing a damn burial marker is not forcing religion on anyone.

 

[babe]

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

If you actually believe what you're told by authorities about our courts, you might go on being this naive for a long time. Personally, I think you are intellectually on the same level as some backwoods villagers who are buying snake oil.

I didn't get my attitude about Judges until I had to try to get some to read the laws and live by them. You'll never get me to believe they give a ratzazz about law again. Maybe they read tea leaves, or know who's who around town, but the Constitution is given no actual respect. They will read rulings from foreign courts and if they think it's a forward step they'll incorporate that in their rulings, and they do believe in "Administrative Law" concepts generally which mean they get to solve mankind's problems like a sovereign sitting on a throne would, capriciously sending one man to the gallows and another chuckling off to the bank with legal heist, probably for the price of being well-connected or providing some discernible form of back scratching in return.

 

[One Brow]

Having them both is stupid. If the guy was Christian have a cross, if he was Muslim have a Crescent, Jewish a Star...something that relates to the deceased individual in question.

Placing a damn burial marker is not forcing religion on anyone.

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

 

[One Brow]

If you actually believe what you're told by authorities about our courts, you might go on being this naive for a long time. Personally, I think you are intellectually on the same level as some backwoods villagers who are buying snake oil.

I've actually read a couple of judges decisions on matters like this. So far, not one has mentioned a personal letter written over a decade after the fact as indicacting a valid interpretation of a point of law. Can you point to such a passage in decision?

 

[Stoked]

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

I was referencing the case in this link.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695227390/Attorneys-argue-Utah-Highway-Patrol-cross-case.

 

[franklin]

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

SALT LAKE CITY — Three state agencies have sent letters to the Utah Highway Patrol Association requesting that all memorial crosses on public land be removed.

The action by the Utah Highway Patrol and the state departments of transportation and administrative services follow an Oct. 31 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not hear Utah's appeal of a lower court decision banning the roadside memorials.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...way-Patrol-Association-to-remove-crosses.html


There's argument that the Danburry letter is the reason the Constitution was interpreted as "Separation of Church and State" as opposed to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the difference being a emphasis on both state and federal as opposed to just federal.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...way-Patrol-Association-to-remove-crosses.html

If the religious preference of each officer is being sought and reflected, this process would be Constitutional. However, teh claim was made instead that the crosses are not religious, so it would be fine if an atheist officer, or a muslim officer, had a cross erected in their memory. Why would it be so bad to put up other markers for non-Christians, and why do Christian whine so loudly when they don't get to exclusively promote their religion?

There's argument that the Danburry letter is the reason the Constitution was interpreted as "Separation of Church and State" as opposed to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the difference being a emphasis on both state and federal as opposed to just federal.

Sure, there argument, just not sensible or meaningful argument. The notion that the federal government was prohibited by the First Amendment from promoting religion was part and parcel of the debates around the First Amendment in the first Congress. Narrower variations that specified not favoring onedenomination over another were rejected in favor of the the broader language.

Your use of "as opposed to" assumes a falsity: that there is some difference between "Separation of Church and State" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; they are the same thing.