Forums: Religion: athiest and christian views in media

A false statement. And one you should really know better than to even make.

What I advocate is less legislation, minimal government, and local decision making - vs federalism, and monolithic bureaucracy.

Let the people who are directly affected, in any particular local, be the ones who decide.

I will admit that I have a particular "pet peeve" in this area, due to having grown up in Eastern Oregon.
It is a constant complaint that laws and policies are made affecting the rural portions of the state, by persons who really have no idea about life there, simply because the metropolitan areas have the greater population, and therefore political power.
(And the over 15 years I spent living in Portland did not really make my opinion of the "metropolitan" perspective any more favorable- rather the opposite.)



bullshit. i've advocated no point of view. all i've done in these threads regarding law and the constitution is present case law and you know it. MY POV???? ha. what is my position on abortion, bard? i don't think you'll find anywhere in these forums where i've sided with progressive liberals on the topic yet you've been shouting your POV on the topic through a f**king bullhorn. what has what people personally choose to do in their bedrooms to do with my POV? for that matter what has that to do with anything we've been discussing???

we've heard nothing but your particular point of view during every discussion on these forums even to the point of your misunderstanding stare dicisis and interpreting the constitution. have you ever seen me offer an opinion on what any part of the constitution means??? hell no, you haven't. why? because any interpretation of mine is worthless. all i've done is present case law that shows what has been interpreted and how it affects our lives. to paraphrase the chief justice, i understand what the law IS, you whine on and on about what the law SHOULD BE.

my particular pov my ass.



[Edited 1/4/2016 1:47:14 PM ]

12/26/2015 9:35:42 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	1. take both out 2. leave athiest views not christian if we are going to take out christian views out of media and schools then why not do the same with athiest and evolution view points as well.should we take both out or leave just athiest views? Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
12/26/2015 9:47:48 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Before I vote perhaps you can tell me what "christian views" have been taken out of what" media? And define "media" Define "atheist views? If you want "in depth" topics you need to clarify your questions better.
12/26/2015 9:52:47 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	well like noahs flood for one.and media being tv shows,science shows promoting things like we came from apes,darwins theory.
12/26/2015 10:04:51 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
aphrodisianus Leander, TX 66, joined Oct. 2013	Quote from jester0011: if we are going to take out christian views out of media and schools then why not do the same with athiest and evolution view points as well.should we take both out or leave just athiest views? Most on these forums, and I expect in your own personal life, know you're a moron. Religious views are cultural superstitions. That means not just Christian views but every other form of superstition are religious views. Everything from palm reading, astrology, reading tea leaves, entrails of chickens, with Christianity among them. None are views about reality. They are ignorant superstitions. That's been proven over and over with the help of morons. We thank you for that. We want you to keep broadcasting your views in the media so all of us know there are backward delusional morons existing in our society that are doing all they could to destroy it.
12/26/2015 10:23:13 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	and darwins theory u could say the same thing about.sence the time science says man first appeared on earth name one time we have seen any animal evolve into another one much less an animal evolve from the sea or a rock.
12/26/2015 10:48:40 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	How old were you when you graduated from kindergarten 38? I have an anvil with a higher I.Q. than you Hey nitwit when things are left out of "media" it's because the owners of the "media" decide it's not worth putting it their "media" The only reason christians have T.V. shows is because gullible people make it profitable for the Jim & Tammy Bakker's and Crefalo Dollar's etc.
12/26/2015 10:55:15 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	u see when the athiest cant come up with any scientific thought when that fails him he resorts to this.
12/26/2015 10:58:47 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	What is unscientific in my post? It is factual .
12/26/2015 11:10:44 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	ok where is your scientific data
12/26/2015 11:28:12 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Hey nitwit when things are left out of "media" it's because the owners of the "media" decide it's not worth putting it their "media" The only reason christians have T.V. shows is because gullible people make it profitable for the Jim & Tammy Bakker's and Crefalo Dollar's etc. Common knowledge I can't dumb it down any more than that. [Edited 12/26/2015 11:29:10 AM ]
12/26/2015 11:31:21 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	yep i believe it,,,u use a jitter bug cell phone
12/26/2015 12:57:15 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
scoobs78 Kansas City, MO 38, joined Jun. 2013	can you even afford a phone jester? one of your "sugar mommas" get ya one?
12/26/2015 4:22:32 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	get your butt to church
12/26/2015 6:58:06 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Jester is as smart as a pet rock
12/26/2015 7:05:12 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
rufftreasure Fairmont, MN 61, joined Jun. 2014
12/27/2015 7:53:41 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	ask the question,,,why is evolution being taught in schools and the bible history not
12/27/2015 8:15:15 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	. Quote from jester0011: ask the question,,,why is evolution being taught in schools and the bible history not Evolution is a science subject, and science is a required part of the school curriculum. The Bible could be studied in U.S. schools as a work of literature, or as a historical document of how Israelite religion evolved and subsequently produced an offshoot in Christianity, but the Bible cannot be taught in order to inculcate a particular religion, because the U.S. constitution forbids the establishment of a certain religion by the state, although people are allowed to practice whatever religion they prefer in private.
12/27/2015 8:32:40 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from jester0011: if we are going to take out christian views out of media and schools then why not do the same with athiest and evolution view points as well.should we take both out or leave just athiest views? jester, i'm having a difficult time imagining anybody other than you who could possibly drive more people from the christian faith.
12/27/2015 9:02:21 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	well fake ones u might be right about.but from this statment it sounds like u are breaking down in your belief system.its like u are grasping to desperation a bit.
12/27/2015 9:55:18 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014
12/27/2015 10:58:48 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
sail_dancer Saint Petersburg, FL 68, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from olderthandirt20: It should be mandatory for all religions to have one of these in their places of worship ..... in full view and mounted in front of the lectern. It should also have an audible alarm that blasts "bullshit" when the needle gets in the red range. Peace
12/27/2015 4:28:08 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	what up chris kringle
12/27/2015 9:54:29 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
rufftreasure Fairmont, MN 61, joined Jun. 2014	Quote from olderthandirt20:
12/28/2015 8:08:23 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	well u people just go right on funning
12/28/2015 8:39:26 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	You're an easy target [Edited 12/28/2015 8:39:49 AM ]
12/31/2015 12:10:37 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Jester Media, and the schools are two different subjects/areas. The media is nothing more than private enterprise, whereas education is a community/public project/concern. I hesitate to support any censorship, but would say that control of what is publicly broadcast should be the province of the communities affected (the air belongs to us all, so what is put into it- even radio waves- may legitimately be considered a public concern). And decisions regarding schooling should be up to the community whose children are affected thereby. Clarence I have expounded previously regarding the Constitutional issue. To wit: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion" IMO The historical context of this statement makes is clear that the generally agreed upon, intent was for the federal government of the newly created U.S.A. to take no action/position, period. This is supported by the fact that the very next words were "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Also taking into account the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), with the fact that many of the states (and/or individual communities) did have theological aspects embedded in their respective laws. Now Thomas Jefferson did seem to have a more comprehensive concept of warranty against religious influence in civil government, (see Virginia Freedom of Religion Statute- authored by him), and the maxim "separation of church and state" actually derives from a personal letter penned by him- not any official government declaration. I have never seen anything in early American history that supports the idea that the members who agreed to the COTUS, on behalf of their constituents ever intended for the amendment to give the federal government any sort of control over local issues involving religion. Rather the exact opposite. And, for that matter, the same would apply to education (which, in early times, was actually provided mostly by the efforts of churches). It was not until some time after the creation of the USA that publicly funded and controlled education was established as the norm, and only really due to the control of the purse that the federal government has any say in the matter, today. (An issue which is still the subject of a great deal of controversy).
12/31/2015 11:47:53 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Science is taught in schools , because science has always been taught in schools , and it will always be taught in schools . Not because you disapprove , but because it makes children smart .
1/1/2016 7:19:45 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: I have expounded previously regarding the Constitutional issue. To wit: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion" IMO The historical context of this statement makes is clear that the generally agreed upon, intent was for the federal government of the newly created U.S.A. to take no action/position, period. This is supported by the fact that the very next words were "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Also taking into account the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), with the fact that many of the states (and/or individual communities) did have theological aspects embedded in their respective laws. Now Thomas Jefferson did seem to have a more comprehensive concept of warranty against religious influence in civil government, (see Virginia Freedom of Religion Statute- authored by him), and the maxim "separation of church and state" actually derives from a personal letter penned by him- not any official government declaration. I have never seen anything in early American history that supports the idea that the members who agreed to the COTUS, on behalf of their constituents ever intended for the amendment to give the federal government any sort of control over local issues involving religion. Rather the exact opposite. And, for that matter, the same would apply to education (which, in early times, was actually provided mostly by the efforts of churches). It was not until some time after the creation of the USA that publicly funded and controlled education was established as the norm, and only really due to the control of the purse that the federal government has any say in the matter, today. (An issue which is still the subject of a great deal of controversy). your great deal of controversy only exists among those who seem to have an aversion to the study of case law. state and local communities are indeed bound by the establishment clause and the 10th amendment does not protect them from doing that fact. in kitzmiller v dover board of education the court found that teaching intelligent design as a science alongside evolution theory violated the establishment clause. in his ruling judge jones stated that intelligent design is nothing more or less than creation disguised as science. in reaching his decision he pondered the arguments of both sides as to what is and is not a science and concluded that intelligent design cannot withstand the strict scrutiny of the scientific method and therefore not a study of science but a belief based on several religious texts. interestingly judge jones is a devout conservative christian appointed by bush who was able to put aside his faith and apply the law correctly. [Edited 1/1/2016 7:22:21 AM ]
1/1/2016 7:36:46 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
sail_dancer Saint Petersburg, FL 68, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from jrbogie1949: your great deal of controversy only exists among those who seem to have an aversion to the study of case law. state and local communities are indeed bound by the establishment clause and the 10th amendment does not protect them from doing that fact. in kitzmiller v dover board of education the court found that teaching intelligent design as a science alongside evolution theory violated the establishment clause. in his ruling judge jones stated that intelligent design is nothing more or less than creation disguised as science. in reaching his decision he pondered the arguments of both sides as to what is and is not a science and concluded that intelligent design cannot withstand the strict scrutiny of the scientific method and therefore not a study of science but a belief based on several religious texts. interestingly judge jones is a devout conservative christian appointed by bush who was able to put aside his faith and apply the law correctly. Peace
1/1/2016 12:42:55 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	@ JR The controversy that I referred to was that of federal vs local control over public education, in general. The most volatile current conflict is over the methods of implementation of (and even the validity of the authority of the "feds" to enforce) common core. All of this goes back to the original conflict of "Federalism" vs local authority. Since the "bill of rights" was not even part of the original COTUS, but were restrictions upon the newly created government, insisted upon by representatives of the various states, as a condition of agreeing to joining the "union"... It is only logical that any and all interpretation of those statements be aligned with that viewpoint, rather than applying any of them as empowerment to the central government, as recent adjudicators have done. Under the principle of "Letter and Intent", when there is question about application of the letter of the law, the original intent is to be the guideline. The fact that positions contradictory to the principle of local authority being superlative to central control have been established only nearly two centuries after the original agreement was entered into, simply highlights and validates the truth of the position I present. Yes, even at the origin of the empire, there were those who were staunchly "federalist". But this was not the majority opinion of the colonists who authorized creating the "United States of America". The "people" that this was supposed to be a government "of","by", and "for". The citizens of that era would never have agreed to give up that much of their autonomy. Unlike so many today, they were not willing to give up that much liberty, for (perceived) security. Granted, the "reconstruction" amendments were a concession, but the acknowledged intent was only to grant the freed slaves the same status and rights as other citizens, not to extend further federal authority over the sovereign states. I believe the historical context fully supports my contention that the 1st amendment meant simply that the federal government was prohibited from making any legislation respecting (regarding, or with any reference to) religion, period. Whether it be for, or against. This is a simple, consistent principle. BTW "case law", is only as good as the judges presiding at the time. And, as a point of fact, nearly all of the cases (if not every case) that you cite are over rulings of previous positions, thereby violating "stare decisis" (presenting an inherent contradiction, if you insist upon the credence of case law, vs originalism). When you can present a single example where a court decision contrary to a position I take, has been unanimous- where no judge has made any statements congruent with mine, then perhaps you may have grounds for justification for your obvious condescension. But, the statements you make, based upon your apparent perceived intellectual superiority, are sheer ad hominem, in respect to debate, in any case. [Edited 1/1/2016 12:43:29 PM ]
1/1/2016 2:27:40 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: @ JR The controversy that I referred to was that of federal vs local control over public education, in general. The most volatile current conflict is over the methods of implementation of (and even the validity of the authority of the "feds" to enforce) common core. All of this goes back to the original conflict of "Federalism" vs local authority. Since the "bill of rights" was not even part of the original COTUS, but were restrictions upon the newly created government, insisted upon by representatives of the various states, as a condition of agreeing to joining the "union"... It is only logical that any and all interpretation of those statements be aligned with that viewpoint, rather than applying any of them as empowerment to the central government, as recent adjudicators have done. how many times are you going to repeat yourself requiring the same from me. case law rules unless it is overturned. indeed, recent adjudicators have ruled in a manner thay you see as error. so what else is new? article three simply didn't empower you to render an opinion that carries the least bit of authority. case law, bard. case law. why??? because it's all that matters. Under the principle of "Letter and Intent", when there is question about application of the letter of the law, the original intent is to be the guideline. john roberts, who during his confirmation hearings was asked what weight he puts on original intent answered that when deciding a case he looks first to original intent. he went on to say that original intent is almost always impossible to establish that everyone agrees on. but even if he can conclude what the original intent was his job, and the job of every judge's, is to apply the constitution in a manner that represents society today that the founders could not have foreseen. part and parcel, that is one of the prime purposes for writing article three. others disagree of course. the textualist scalia being an example who says 'it is not a living constitution. it's dead, dead, dead.' we each have our opinion. The fact that positions contradictory to the principle of local authority being superlative to central control have been established only nearly two centuries after the original agreement was entered into, simply highlights and validates the truth of the position I present. okay i'll bite. which case/cases ESTABLISHED 'the fact that positions contradictory to the principle of local authority being superlative to central control'? Yes, even at the origin of the empire, there were those who were staunchly "federalist". But this was not the majority opinion of the colonists who authorized creating the "United States of America". The "people" that this was supposed to be a government "of","by", and "for". The citizens of that era would never have agreed to give up that much of their autonomy. Unlike so many today, they were not willing to give up that much liberty, for (perceived) security. Granted, the "reconstruction" amendments were a concession, but the acknowledged intent was only to grant the freed slaves the same status and rights as other citizens, not to extend further federal authority over the sovereign states. I believe the historical context fully supports my contention that the 1st amendment meant simply that the federal government was prohibited from making any legislation respecting (regarding, or with any reference to) religion, period. Whether it be for, or against. This is a simple, consistent principle. i cannot imagine the founders thinking that a KNOWLEDGE of history would be of much use to future judges two centuries down the road in applying the constitution in a vastly changed society. my guess is that like today none of them could completely agree on all aspects of history up to their time much less what might happen down whatever road their new nation might follow. the reconstruction amendments? ha. the founders had nothing whatsoever to do with them. who can know the intent of them? to even begin you'd have to research the intent of every house representative and senator that voted to send the amendment to the states for ratification. then researching the hundreds, maybe thousands, of state legislators that voted for ratification. hell, there were but fifty something delegates to the constitutional convention and even there most judges would agree that very few of them could agree on everything nor is their anyway of knowing. the federalist papers were penned buy only three people, one of whom, madison, was thought by many to be a note taking pest. BTW "case law", is only as good as the judges presiding at the time. of course but who's to say which are good judges and bad. again the point is moot as former justice johnson once quipped, "we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final." "And, as a point of fact, nearly all of the cases (if not every case) that you cite are over rulings of previous positions, thereby violating "stare decisis" (presenting an inherent contradiction, if you insist upon the credence of case law, vs originalism). the rulings in all the cases i cited were issued by appellate courts. some were over rulings of a lower court, some ruled that the lower court was correct. am i hearing you correctly??? that an appellate court judge would apply stare decisis in hearing an appeal of a lower court finding??? should he/she think, 'well, it's already been decided by a lower court so who am i to say otherwise??? i don't think you have a clue to understanding stare desisis. i can recall john roberts being asked if he would apply stare desisis in a case that might over rule roe v wade having a hard time not laughing at the honorable senator as he explained the concept. any case, roe v wade or any other, that might be granted cert would have a minimum of four justices who thought that new arguments should be heard on their merits. from the legal dictionary; "Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction." key words, from the same court or lower courts. now we can see why the chief justice almost laughed. STARE DESISIS DOESN'T APPLY IN THE U.S. APPELLATE SYSTEM for crying out loud. i've cited no decision that was not rendered by an appellate court. When you can present a single example where a court decision contrary to a position I take, has been unanimous- where no judge has made any statements congruent with mine, then perhaps you may have grounds for justification for your obvious condescension. . oh my, i do like these easy ones. in kitzmiller judge jones all by his little self rendered a unanimous decision. there were no judges in dissent that made any statemnts congruent with yours. ha. but roe was near unanimous. 7-2.
1/2/2016 3:51:22 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
sail_dancer Saint Petersburg, FL 68, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from jrbogie1949: but roe was near unanimous. 7-2. Bard just wants this country to be ruled by christianity's version of Shania law. Peace
1/2/2016 3:56:27 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	Apart from a vague feeling that something not quite right's being argued, I always find Bard's legalese posts baffling, like the small print at the foot of a hire purchase agreement, but Bogie's response was a good read. [Edited 1/2/2016 3:58:55 AM ]
1/2/2016 11:32:27 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	when u athiest get over all your divorces and drinking,,drugs,,supporting gays and such maybe u will get a brain .
1/2/2016 12:29:40 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	Quote from jester0011: when u athiest get over all your divorces and drinking,,drugs,,supporting gays and such maybe u will get a brain . Are you saying religious people don't get divorced, drink, take drugs or turn out gay? Are you personally religious? I've never seen much evidence in your semi-literate textspeak attacks on other people, both religious and non-religious. Can you tell us what religion means to you as a single sentence text speaking guy? Could you transcend the usual knuckle dragging attacks on others and wax lyrical about it? [Edited 1/2/2016 12:32:06 PM ]
1/2/2016 12:33:55 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
scoobs78 Kansas City, MO 38, joined Jun. 2013	one of your "female atms" needs to purchase u a full length mirror and a brain yourself!! its not race or religion doing this its people making bad life decisions as a way to "cope" with their personal problems just like you do when you harass total strangers online to avoid dealing with your sore abdomen and whatever other insecurity you possess that you are avoiding and trust me shane you have many.
1/2/2016 12:39:03 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
scoobs78 Kansas City, MO 38, joined Jun. 2013	Quote from clarence2: Are you saying religious people don't get divorced, drink, take drugs or turn out gay? Are you personally religious? I've never seen much evidence in your semi-literate textspeak attacks on other people, both religious and non-religious. Can you tell us what religion means to you as a single sentence text speaking guy? Could you transcend the usual knuckle dragging attacks on others and wax lyrical about it? uhahahahaha don't ask him to do something he is obviously not capable of doing! the dude cant form a complete sentence, he can't spell and he is not semi-literate he's very ill-iterate and will be till he's in his grave or in an urn.. he's an idiot and thinks he's cute n clever doing what he's doing. the dude cant even get laid so thank goodness he's not reproducing we have enuff stupid f**ks out there why add to it?
1/2/2016 12:46:34 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Since Clarence has complained about the "Legalese...Let me simply respond to JR thusly... Of course, I was not referring to an appellate court over ruling a district, or circuit court, but contradictory, or changed rulings on the same level. While I must grant the point, that any decision rendered by a single judge may be technically classified as "unanimous"- with no dissent, I would say it is obvious that the definition I was using for "unanimous" is the one congruent with this: "(Of two or more people) fully in agreement:" (Oxforddictionaries.com) I would not necessarily categorize 7-2 as "nearly unanimous", but my point still stands that the decision (like nearly every other) was not unanimous. Point is... that the attempts to characterize my arguments as simply unreasonable, or ignorant, is unjustified, since the same positions have often been presented by those with legal credentials, including certain supreme court justices. As previously mentioned, such comments are nothing more, or less, than ad hominem. quoteheader]Quote from sail_dancer:
1/2/2016 8:10:13 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
sail_dancer Saint Petersburg, FL 68, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from thebard58: A false statement. And one you should really know better than to even make.[/quote I stand by what I said. What I advocate is less legislation, minimal government, and local decision making - vs federalism, and monolithic bureaucracy. Let the people who are directly affected, in any particular local, be the ones who decide. That's nonsense! If you had your way ..... slavery would be alive and well in this country ..... and you know it. Peace
1/3/2016 7:24:44 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: Of course, I was not referring to an appellate court over ruling a district, or circuit court, but contradictory, or changed rulings on the same level. yes you were referring to an appellate court over rule. you said the the cases i presented were in violation of stare decisis when every case i've presented here was decided by an appellate court. you're free to point out any case that i referred to where stare decisis was bypassed. [ While I must grant the point, that any decision rendered by a single judge may be What I advocate is less legislation, minimal government, and local decision making - vs federalism, and monolithic bureaucracy. Let the people who are directly affected, in any particular local, be the ones who decide . interestingly you claim to want less legislation and minimal government but when the courts strike down numerous statutes that forbid what a woman can do to her body or who one can marry and can't you have no problem with government intervening in our lives to the maximum extent possible. the people in a particular local are free to decide so long as their decision remain within the precepts of the constitution. I will admit that I have a particular "pet peeve" in this area, due to having grown up in Eastern Oregon. It is a constant complaint that laws and policies are made affecting the rural portions of the state, by persons who really have no idea about life there, simply because the metropolitan areas have the greater population, and therefore political power. (And the over 15 years I spent living in Portland did not really make my opinion of the "metropolitan" perspective any more favorable- rather the opposite.) oregon has representatives elected by the various local districts to the house and two senators in the senate just like every state in the nation. the articles of confederation minimalized the federal government rendering it nearly impotent. the constitution was written to guarantee the people a republican government. if your representative or senators are not legislating an a manner the you and others in your local don't like then vote the suckers out. the federal government isn't a bunch of thugs organize to oppress the states. just the opposite; it is a government of the people by the people and for the people.
1/4/2016 12:06:25 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from sail_dancer: If you had your way ..... slavery would be alive and well in this country ..... and you know it. Stipulating that by "your way", you mean the retention of local authority vs central (federal) control- Your statement presents the logical fallacy- hypothesis contrary to fact. However, with the understanding of your perspective... you do realize that a great many historians opine that the issue of slavery was never really what the civil war was about, but was rather simply a means of the union gaining support to defeat the confederacy, thereby ensuring the dominance of federalism, and the "manifest destiny" concept? I have seen some pretty convincing analysis leading to that conclusion. But my hypothesis is this- if slavery had been abolished by the evolution of social convention (the sort of "grass roots", "from the heart" change that many are still working towards - ) rather than through the imposition of military might, that the process (though much slower- and, admittedly, thereby allowing more misery for "colored" persons) would have had a much better result. Much like the difference between the philosophy/methods of the Reverend Martin Luther King vs the Black Panthers. The path taken (re: government intervention in race relations) has not eliminated racism or racial tension (as some might have hoped), and, in fact, the imposition of forced integration, IMO, has been (reasonably, IMO) likened to simply putting a lid on a pressure cooker.
1/4/2016 12:14:27 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
sail_dancer Saint Petersburg, FL 68, joined Apr. 2010	Bullshit Bard! As I said before ..... "If you had your way ..... slavery would be alive and well in this country ..... and you know it." Peace
1/4/2016 12:44:31 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	JR At this point, the federal government is anything but impotent, wouldn't you say? If nothing else, the percentage of reliance upon it economically (I'm not exactly sure what recent statistics would be, regarding how many depend upon the government for employment, but at one time some sources listed as high as 3 out of 5 persons- and that's not counting those "on the dole"), ensures it's dominance. And as far as representation goes... Well, isn't that the point behind arguments about "redistricting" and "gerrymandering"? In my native state (and Washington, where I now reside), the conflict has been going on for years, about how the concentration of population in the the Western parts of the states (the Willamette Valley or I-5 corridor) gives political control over the Eastern sections, even though the geographic area "on this side of the Cascades" is far greater, and the people in the "big city" really have no personal experience or knowledge of the conditions, to judge the reasonableness of policies affecting the rural region. The issue invokes such anger, that someone recently suggested that the Eastern counties of Oregon and Washington should request to become part of the state of Idaho. And I do not believe that I have voice support for government intervention in the issues you mention. I do not advocate abortion, or any sexual acts between consenting adults being criminal. On the other hand, I oppose the idea that anyone should be required (by law) to support such personal choices, economically, or socially. Apparently, you (as with so many "progressive liberals") simply refuse to acknowledge is that you are advocating the government enforcing your particular POV, just as much as the "conservative fundamentalists". What I oppose is the trend towards totalitarianism.
1/4/2016 1:44:01 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: JR At this point, the federal government is anything but impotent, wouldn't you say? If nothing else, the percentage of reliance upon it economically (I'm not exactly sure what recent statistics would be, regarding how many depend upon the government for employment, but at one time some sources listed as high as 3 out of 5 persons- and that's not counting those "on the dole"), ensures it's dominance. And as far as representation goes... Well, isn't that the point behind arguments about "redistricting" and "gerrymandering"? In my native state (and Washington, where I now reside), the conflict has been going on for years, about how the concentration of population in the the Western parts of the states (the Willamette Valley or I-5 corridor) gives political control over the Eastern sections, even though the geographic area "on this side of the Cascades" is far greater, and the people in the "big city" really have no personal experience or knowledge of the conditions, to judge the reasonableness of policies affecting the rural region. The issue invokes such anger, that someone recently suggested that the Eastern counties of Oregon and Washington should request to become part of the state of Idaho. And I do not believe that I have voice support for government intervention in the issues you mention. I do not advocate abortion, or any sexual acts between consenting adults being criminal. On the other hand, I oppose the idea that anyone should be required (by law) to support such personal choices, economically, or socially. Apparently, you (as with so many "progressive liberals") simply refuse to acknowledge is that you are advocating the government enforcing your particular POV, just as much as the "conservative fundamentalists". What I oppose is the trend towards totalitarianism.
1/4/2016 10:44:00 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
jester0011 Lake Waccamaw, NC 48, joined Jun. 2014	the athiest view amazes me
1/5/2016 1:02:30 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
dr_know Atlanta, GA 43, joined Aug. 2014	Just take out atheist ideas.
1/5/2016 9:33:51 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Yeah , just abandon all paleontology , archeology , and focus on idiotology . Our children deserve better . They don't deserve to scrape from a barrel we've pissed in .
1/5/2016 11:13:15 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from sail_dancer: Bullshit Bard! As I said before ..... "If you had your way ..... slavery would be alive and well in this country ..... and you know it." Peace As I said before, your statement contains the logical fallacy "Hypothesis contrary to fact". No one, including you or I, can really say, with certainty, what the present would be, if the past had been different. Any deduction we make is strictly an hypothesis that it is impossible to prove. And, as a point of fact, my way would be for no one to ever use to force to make another comply with their wishes. (The one I most agreed with, in principles, was the poster who went by naprinciple). Where those of you such as JR misunderstand is in interpreting that when I argue against such things as the implementation of SSM, by judicial decree, that I am advocating the promotion of the opposite position. In that particular issue, in fact, I have explained to those of fundamental conservative bent, that no matter how much the ruling offended their personal sense of morality, the Windsor ruling (which was, of course, anathema to such people) was correct, in being an affirmation of the limits placed upon the federal government by the COTUS. Perhaps the best illustration of the difference in POV/perspective: JR seems to feel that my statements indicate I am in favor or government intervention regarding a woman's choices. But, I have not voiced support for any law restricting what choices a woman can make regarding her person. What I have objected to, is other citizens being required to support the choice to prevent, or terminate a pregnancy. (Such as being forced, by law, to provide insurance that pays for the methods). Though I do not necessarily object to certain socialistic reforms, our government was never intended to be a "nanny state", or to dictate the morals of the citizens. It was intended to be a tool of "the people", not to dictate to them. That was the essential originality of the creation. The difference between it, and previous incarnations of government.
1/5/2016 11:58:14 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	it's great to see that like myself you think the court got it right in roe, bard. i was of the understanding that you felt otherwise for whatever reason i cannot imagine but that you now say that you, "have not voiced support for any law restricting what choices a woman can make regarding her person," shows that i indeed did misunderstand you pov on the topic. having said that i do find an inconsistency in your saying, "What I have objected to, is other citizens being required to support the choice to prevent, or terminate a pregnancy. (Such as being forced, by law, to provide insurance that pays for the methods)." we have an insurance base health care system in this country that by law requires employers and other organizations to provide health insurance that provide certain coverage for pre existing and other conditions. you seem to think that the law SHOULD BE that the every man should be protected by law for whatever medical procedure he might choose to have on his body but not every woman should be protected by that same law. sound familiar? "deja vu all over again" as yogi berra might quip about roe v wade? once again you do not support a particular law simply because of your's and other citizen's pov. that's your right, of course. nobody is expected to support what the law IS. all that is required of you or any other citizen that doesn't care for a particular law is to obey it. [Edited 1/5/2016 12:01:00 PM ]
1/5/2016 8:29:44 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	The concept of socialized medicine (which the laws you refer to are a form of) presents a quandry, in and of itself, as to whether or not such a system is in violation of the original principles. (And, as I'm sure you know, certain provisions of the AFCA are currently being challanged). But this statement by you.... you seem to think that the law SHOULD BE that the every man should be protected by law for whatever medical procedure he might choose to have on his body but not every woman should be protected by that same law. sound familiar? ... indicates to me that...if you are not merely practicing ad hominem (attempting to "discredit the witness"), you still have not understood my actual positions, or the principles upon which I base them. The concept of socialized medicine (which the laws you refer to are a form of, or bridge to) presents a quandry, in and of itself, as to whether or not the institution of such a system is a violation of the original principles. (That can be a very involved discussion, all by itself. And, as I'm sure you know, certain provisions of the AFCA are currently being challenged). I am rather certain that the original founders of this country would consider any such comprehensive socialistic action anathema to their vision. (That controversy goes back at least as far as FDR and the "new deal"). But...provided that the provision of publicly funded medical care (or requirement for private coverage to the same effect) is legitimately emplaced, (I am actually empathetic to guaranteed care for any life threatening condition) my objection is to requiring the inclusion of elective procedures (irregardless of age, race, sex, etc.), especially those that certain citizens feel are so immoral that they do not even wish to allow them, let alone provide financial support. ERGO my perspective on the controversy regarding contraceptive procedures (whether it be tubal ligation, or vasectomy), abortion, gender changes, etc. is really rather simple. To make these procedures criminal, would be an imposition of the moral boundaries of the most conservative elements, and a violation of basic principles such as the right to privacy and self determination, and the patient/physician relationship. On the other hand, requiring everyone to assist in paying for someone to have them is also a violation of the basic principle of no one being compelled to take action that violates their conscience, or religious convictions. Basically, in every position I try to weigh the principles of the right to self determination vs the necessity of a degree of restriction, and/or participation, for society to be functional. But, in every instance, I advocate the power, authority, and pervasiveness of government being restricted to the absolute minimum necessary. (Of course, the definition of "necessary" is where one can get into very involved, and often quite volatile controversy). Or, at the least, only that with is agreed upon by general consensus (meaning a super majority, since unanimous would be virtually impossible in our country- if not anywhere) [Edited 1/5/2016 8:31:12 PM ]
1/6/2016 6:58:29 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	more repetition and again you contradict yourself. while you do not support laws that restrict what a woman chooses to do on her person, like every law that roe struck down, you want a law that does not protect women and men equally when it comes to health care. it's not about your's and other's moral thinking now any more than it was about your moral think as regards roe. it's about equal protection and due process of any law that is on the books. that there is litigation that might change that law is moot. until such litigation is decided one way or another it IS the law and not what your moral outlook suggests to you the law SHOULD BE. you go on and on about stare dicises and this issue has been decided. your thinking on stare dicisis in this case, as opposed to your incorrect thinking in other cases which i've referred to, is right on track. stare dicisis will be an impediment to any petition that argues that a woman's right to equal protection under obama care be violated. it's already been decided in roe. i'm no fan of obama care and i'd never predict what the court might do but this is the perfect example of the concept of stare dicisis. [Edited 1/6/2016 7:01:37 AM ]
1/6/2016 8:29:40 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	. Quote from thebard58: ERGO my perspective on the controversy regarding contraceptive procedures (whether it be tubal ligation, or vasectomy), abortion, gender changes, etc. is really rather simple. To make these procedures criminal, would be an imposition of the moral boundaries of the most conservative elements, and a violation of basic principles such as the right to privacy and self determination, and the patient/physician relationship. On the other hand, requiring everyone to assist in paying for someone to have them is also a violation of the basic principle of no one being compelled to take action that violates their conscience, or religious convictions. Maybe if it would be good if people like yourself who wish for a complex system of personal taxation based on your approval or otherwise of the the sexual, reproductive and gender oriented aspects of your fellow citizens lives should get together and form your own separate spin-off state and enact the kinds of laws you want. Maybe the complex laws of your hypothetical state could be engineered to also allow you to withhold funding used for pursuing foreign wars, or funding armed police who shoot too many of your fellow citizens (SOMETIMES DUE TO RACISM), as seems to be the case in America with all this recent film footage of slayings by cops that are emerging. The scope for withholding of tax contributions on grounds of conscience must be vast, and not limited to disapproved of sexual, gender and reproductive choice related topics, which, after all, must be fairly trivial in the larger moral universe, and arguably not serious moral concerns at all to most people. Maybe Texas would be a good venue for this experiment. They've just introduced open carry laws. Perhaps you could decide the most hotly debated moral disputes with shoot outs. The rest of the U.S. could maybe emulate the U.K. where safe abortion, birth control and gender reassignment surgery is uncontroversial and freely available to all citizens on the National Health Service. Just my opinion.. [Edited 1/6/2016 8:32:35 AM ]
1/6/2016 9:14:47 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Quote from clarence2: . Quote from thebard58: ERGO my perspective on the controversy regarding contraceptive procedures (whether it be tubal ligation, or vasectomy), abortion, gender changes, etc. is really rather simple. To make these procedures criminal, would be an imposition of the moral boundaries of the most conservative elements, and a violation of basic principles such as the right to privacy and self determination, and the patient/physician relationship. On the other hand, requiring everyone to assist in paying for someone to have them is also a violation of the basic principle of no one being compelled to take action that violates their conscience, or religious convictions. Maybe if it would be good if people like yourself who wish for a complex system of personal taxation based on your approval or otherwise of the the sexual, reproductive and gender oriented aspects of your fellow citizens lives should get together and form your own separate spin-off state and enact the kinds of laws you want. Maybe the complex laws of your hypothetical state could be engineered to also allow you to withhold funding used for pursuing foreign wars, or funding armed police who shoot too many of your fellow citizens (SOMETIMES DUE TO RACISM), as seems to be the case in America with all this recent film footage of slayings by cops that are emerging. The scope for withholding of tax contributions on grounds of conscience must be vast, and not limited to disapproved of sexual, gender and reproductive choice related topics, which, after all, must be fairly trivial in the larger moral universe, and arguably not serious moral concerns at all to most people. Maybe Texas would be a good venue for this experiment. They've just introduced open carry laws. Perhaps you could decide the most hotly debated moral disputes with shoot outs. The rest of the U.S. could maybe emulate the U.K. where safe abortion, birth control and gender reassignment surgery is uncontroversial and freely available to all citizens on the National Health Service. Just my opinion.. Ironically , I cant ignore , that a government so vehemently opposed , would end up worse , than where they started . [Edited 1/6/2016 9:17:25 AM ]
1/6/2016 10:48:50 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from nonstandard: Ironically , I cant ignore , that a government so vehemently opposed , would end up worse , than where they started . Yep. Seems rather a failure to live up to the original ideal/dream/concept, doesn't it? And the beginnings of that can be traced at least as far back as the 16th amendment (which some claim was never properly ratified, to begin with). Another aspect is the "Federal Reserve" system. It is rumored that Jefferson's response to the passing of this act was something like "you have sold America". Clarence The founders of this country left England because they had serious disagreements with the management then. Why would we now choose to emulate it now? The "mother country" thought it was superior then, and apparently some (such as you self) still retain this attitude. And persons such as myself still think, as the colonists did then, that you have no real cause for entitlement to it. I guess us stupid rebels will just never learn. We should have just accepted the better judgement of the King, huh? JR It would seem that we have a difference of perspective regarding what injunction of "equal protection", and "due process" means. I see it as meaning protection against prosecution, from the "state", or in "torts". Not "protection" as in the government providing some sort of benefit. At the time of the penning of the "reconstruction" amendments, the type of socialistic programs (government benefits) that we have now did not even exist. And I deem it rather questionable whether they are actually constitutional to begin with. Just the change in taxation system required an amendment that was in direct contradiction to the original agreement. I have no doubt that the founders would consider many current policies and procedures antithetical to their vision of a free (based upon being self-disciplined and self sufficient) society.
1/7/2016 9:07:56 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: Yep. Seems rather a failure to live up to the original ideal/dream/concept, doesn't it? And the beginnings of that can be traced at least as far back as the 16th amendment (which some claim was never properly ratified, to begin with). Another aspect is the "Federal Reserve" system. It is rumored that Jefferson's response to the passing of this act was something like "you have sold America". Clarence The founders of this country left England because they had serious disagreements with the management then. Why would we now choose to emulate it now? The "mother country" thought it was superior then, and apparently some (such as you self) still retain this attitude. And persons such as myself still think, as the colonists did then, that you have no real cause for entitlement to it. I guess us stupid rebels will just never learn. We should have just accepted the better judgement of the King, huh? thinkin' both of you are stuck in the past. america is probably emulated more than any other nation on earth and not because of her founding history but because of what she has grown to become today. JR It would seem that we have a difference of perspective regarding what injunction of "equal protection", and "due process" means. I see it as meaning protection against prosecution, from the "state", or in "torts". Not "protection" as in the government providing some sort of benefit. we don't have a difference of perspective regarding equal protection, bard. i've never stated my perspective on the topic. i've stated no perspective other than that of the various courts citing case law. how many times will i say that's all that really matters before you get it? At the time of the penning of the "reconstruction" amendments, the type of socialistic programs (government benefits) that we have now did not even exist. And I deem it rather questionable whether they are actually constitutional to begin with. Just the change in taxation system required an amendment that was in direct contradiction to the original agreement. you've rambled on and on about what YOU deem constitutional for years here. how's that been working for you in convincing me or anybody else here that any point you try to make carries any validity? original agreement??? the original agreement promoted slavery and now you question the constitutionality of the reconstruction amendments??? by all means. using your understanding of the constitution, do explain how three amendments to the constitution can possibly be unconstitutional. maybe you should start at giving us your idea of what it means to amend the constitution. this should be interesting. we might start with a topic near and dear to your heart. suppose you were able to align all the god fearing folks in america and successful affect the ratification of a 28th amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. would laws such as were recently struck down that ban gay marriage still be unconstitutional? the eighteen amendment had such an effect did it not? a bunch of religious zealots deciding to shove their so called moral approach to living down the rest of the country's throats? no, it didn't take but for about a decade laws banning the sale of alcohol were constitution. so if the 13th amendment banned slavery and you question it's constitutionality would not any amendment be unconstitutional? if the eighteenth amendment made laws banning the sale of jack daniels constitutional does that mean that the 21st amendment is unconstitutional? by all means, let's discuss. I have no doubt that the founders would consider many current policies and procedures antithetical to their vision of a free (based upon being self-disciplined and self sufficient) society. we all know well that YOU have no doubt what the founders would have considered. you cannot know any more than i or anybody else on the planet knows but still you've gone on and on that you have no doubt. perhaps you may want to persue another line of reasoning as this one continues to fail miserably in swaying anybody here toward your pov.
1/7/2016 1:09:04 PM	Athiest and christian views in media
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from jrbogie1949: thinkin' both of you are stuck in the past. america is probably emulated more than any other nation on earth and not because of her founding history but because of what she has grown to become today. Since your quote, included nonstandard, Clarence, and myself, I can not be certain exactly what you were referring to. The remark to Clarence was intended as the sort of humorous tete a tete that we have been exchanging since before you entered the forums (to the best of my knowledge), in re:England vs America, and the different perspective on the American revolution. But, as to the assertion in the last comment you quoted... The contrary argument would be that America rose to preeminence due to closer adherence to the original concept, and that the actual result of changes effected by "progressive liberals" (who have had the most political effect, over the past 50 years) has been to lower our status as a global power/leader. BTW Where did I say that any amendment to the COTUS was unconstitutional? (Though there is controversy over whether the 16th was actually legitimately ratified). What I referred to was "social programs" (government benefits). You make many statements about "the law", and "case law". If you are referring to "law" as a study, then it is appropriate. When I use "The Law", I am using the definition of what is written down, and agreed to become "law", through legislative process. "Stare Decisis" is a doctrine, not "law". And legal precedents are decisions that may (or may not) be considered supporting facts in any particular case. Not "law". As justice Roberts illuminated, the responsibility, and authority of judges (any judge- not just the supreme court) is to decide upon how the law applies in the cases brought before them (in the case of the supreme court, the reference being the COTUS). Not to make law. In the case I referenced, justice Roberts analysis (which I happen to agree with) is that the decision of the prevailing judges, was based upon their opinion of what the law should be, rather than what it actually is. And as far as expression of opinions...Well that is exactly what any of us are doing here, isn't it? What I object to is the ad hominem represented when you imply that I have no comprehension regarding the subject. Even when an acknowledged expert in the field, such as justice Roberts, makes statements congruent with positions I have presented.
1/8/2016 8:29:58 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: BTW Where did I say that any amendment to the COTUS was unconstitutional? right here; "At the time of the penning of the "reconstruction" amendments, the type of socialistic programs (government benefits) that we have now did not even exist. And I deem it rather questionable whether they are actually constitutional to begin with." You make many statements about "the law", and "case law". If you are referring to "law" as a study, then it is appropriate. When I use "The Law", I am using the definition of what is written down, and agreed to become "law", through legislative process. my statements about the law and case law are two entirely different animals and i don't deem which is appropriate but rather rely on accepted definitions of each. anyway, is there a question here somewhere? "Stare Decisis" is a doctrine, not "law". And legal precedents are decisions that may (or may not) be considered supporting facts in any particular case. Not "law". very good. this is the first i've seen you relent that stare dicisis is nothing but doctrine. hopefully now we can move on without out any more nonsense about violations of stare decisis. As justice Roberts illuminated, the responsibility, and authority of judges (any judge- not just the supreme court) is to decide upon how the law applies in the cases brought before them (in the case of the supreme court, the reference being the COTUS). Not to make law. In the case I referenced, justice Roberts analysis (which I happen to agree with) is that the decision of the prevailing judges, was based upon their opinion of what the law should be, rather than what it actually is. how many times will you repeat yourself? you don't see it by i see with his statement he tromped all over his own penis. what happened first? roberts' statement or the decision? the decision obviously or he'd have nothing to whine about. so now the law IS as the ruling says it IS. that he now opines that the majority decided based on what the law should be is meaningless. the decision IS NOW law so by making his statement he puts himself in the 'what the law should be' camp and outside the 'what the law IS' camp where i think he really belongs regardless of his misplaced statement. now let's be done here, for crying out loud. we don't agree. i get it. And as far as expression of opinions...Well that is exactly what any of us are doing here, isn't it? What I object to is the ad hominem represented when you imply that I have no comprehension regarding the subject. Even when an acknowledged expert in the field, such as justice Roberts, makes statements congruent with positions I have presented. did you hear somebody say 'ad hominem' sometime in the past and think, 'cool. wonder what it means?' and then google it just for these forums? i find you pretentious and pompous, bard. always have and tried for quite a while to let it go but your mightier than thou attitude finally wore too thin. that you opine that an expert in the field makes statements congruent with your's doesn't make his statements congruent with your's. as you say, here you simply express your opinion. but the point is moot. there are no experts here. i texted the chief justice to see if he'd chime in with us here but damned if he ain't yet got back to me. it's just you and me and clerance and sail, et. al. not a law, science or religious scholar among us. no 'legalese' for clerance to wade through, yours or mine. outside of trying to slog through your foreign tongue most posts here are in plain, simple regular folk talk. i can't even detect an accent here. can't tell that clarence is a limey or that nonstandard is a yankee. everybody writes just like me, the texan/californian. if standing out is what you're after then that you have. but not in terms of credibility any more than the rest of us.
1/8/2016 8:44:54 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	now let's be done here, for crying out loud. we don't agree. i get it. After how many pages has this gone on? You & bard disagree, I have known this for a long time. JK
1/8/2016 8:59:05 AM	Athiest and christian views in media
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Humanity just isn't what its cracked up to be , because its errant . Being intelligent doesn't make us a different species , it makes us a more challenging species , Its survival of the fittest , we're the animals , we think are beneath us , because we think we're above it .

Forums: Religion: Athiest and christian views in media