On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:14:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


Unless your partner is infected.

Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.


snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. Or
are you going to argue that a bird with a flat bill and webbed feet
that flys, swims, quacks, and waddles when it walks isn't a duck
because the word "duck" isn't engraved anywhere on its body?


I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?


snip
The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, 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.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.


And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.


It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


We're talking about the seperation of church and state.


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry. And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).


snip
Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?


The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave? I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks. So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

You hate gays. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. You are not.
You are a bigot.


snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?
Idiot.


snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.


But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.


snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.


How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.


snip
I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.


I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
I simply don't have the time to play your game.

Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively......... If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.


So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?


Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.

And your point?


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats.

Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified
effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even
though most have been around since this country was founded.


Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.

Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio
network which is failing miserably.

snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state.

No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that
congress shall not establish an "official" religion, and may not
prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs.
Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that
there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of
the government.

Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand
it.



I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?

Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are
displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to
support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were
all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond
the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally
eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though
they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start.


What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, 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.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.

You've never participated in a jury trial have you?


And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.

I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that
I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about
it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.

No, I participate in the REAL world.


It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


We're talking about the seperation of church and state.


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either.

When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an
elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points.

I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates.

Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of
marriage.

You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married,
they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count
as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better
picture of the state of marriage as it is.


You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous
years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage.


And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the
population is divorced.


As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.

As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.

But your method is still drawing a false analogy.


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry.

Based on your own hypocritical bias.


And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).

Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them.


Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce.

Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous
because your premise is flawed.


The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.

Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the
false dilemma fallacy?


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?

The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing
liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which
the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years.

The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave?

Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself).


I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive.

And you call me a bigot?

But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks.

There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying
Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem
with it.

Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end
all of all rules and laws. The constitution does not address each and
every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago.


So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and
encourage further participation in it.

A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that
doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft.

You hate gays.

No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated.

So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not.

So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no
objection to pedophiles having the right to marry?

That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant.

No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a
personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little
tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless
assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that.


You are not.
You are a bigot.

No, I am someone who values traditional morality.

snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?


That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that
slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes
only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between
acceptance and rejection.

Idiot.

You are certainly acting like one.



snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".

But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be
readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so
everyone would see it.


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.

It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational
standards.




But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.

My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias
and manifested by your pompous arrogance.

snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.

Always an excuse......



How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.

More personal insults. You really are losing this debate.....



Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively.

Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........



........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.

I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in
high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about
the constitution. But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try.

The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on
a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks
while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks
or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it.

So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?

What new policy?



Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself.


inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.

I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize
me.

I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. What you are
embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not
expect from a existential atheist.

If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to
prevent change that would promote demoralization?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Yes, that it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove

all signs of religion from government

processes, even though most have been

around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines? You are one of the most vocal in this group to
redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide
doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree
with it.

What is wrong with correcting the law... instead of applying patches to a
worn out system? Write your congressman today!!!

Most of these ancient institutions and methods were created when people were
still afraid of electricity--thought it took a genius to use
radio--INDEED--the ignorant masses viewed radio as almost "Magic!"

Times have changed, kids run 10 watt Ghz transmitters on 2100 Mhz and tear
up business wireless networks for miles--important business and public
communications are affected--these kids need an outlet for their
energies....

The world has changed drastically--the laws still reflect stoneage beliefs
and structure...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Dave Hall)
Yes, that it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove

all signs of religion from government

processes, even though most have been

around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines? You are one of the most vocal in this group to
redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide
doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree
with it.

From: (John=A0Smith)
What is wrong with correcting the law...

instead of applying patches to a worn out

system? Write your congressman today!!!

Most of these ancient institutions and methods
were created when people were still afraid of

electricity--thought it took a genius to use

radio--INDEED--the ignorant masses viewed

radio as almost "Magic!"

Times have changed, kids run 10 watt Ghz

transmitters on 2100 Mhz and tear up

business wireless networks for

miles


Where did you hear this taking place? Have an example? The FCC data bank
has no information regarding this, so I assume you are speaking of an
isolated incident to which you have personal knowledge. Isolated
incidents such as this do not merit such measures. BPL presents a real
problem as opposed to a single incident with kids funning around.



--important business and public

communications are affected--these kids need
an outlet for their energies....


Again,,,,please cite these examples or the source you used for obtaining
such information. You are claiming multiple businesses are being
affected...somehow, I don't believe that to be the case.

The world has changed drastically--the laws

still reflect stoneage beliefs and structure...

Warmest regards,

John

Especially among a certain nocode faction who maintain the sky is
falling in regards to hammie radio and all related. It's not and never
was.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
Yes, that it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove

all signs of religion from government

processes, even though most have been

around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines?

Nothing, if that's indeed the case. But those religious influences are
adorned all over our government buildings and in our government
business. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it?

You are one of the most vocal in this group to
redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide
doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree
with it.

When it's not illegal, I agree with it.

The fact is that despite recent misinterpretations of the
establishment clause in the constitution by left wing zealots, we have
had religious influences in our government from the very beginning. I
would argue that it was those influences which made this country one
of strong moral and ethical principles. It's no coincidence that the
decline in governmental ethics and morality correspond with efforts to
eradicate religious influences from our lives.

There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little
thing called compromise.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove

all signs of religion from government

processes, even though most have been

around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines?

Nothing, if that's indeed the case.

You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself.


But those

religious influences are adorned all over our

government buildings and in our government

business. Why is it only now do certain people
find exception to it?

You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that
just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal
or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it.

When it's not illegal, I agree with it.

The fact is that despite recent

misinterpretations of the establishment clause

in the constitution by left wing zealots, we

have had religious influences in our

government from the very beginning.

That's rich..and wrong. Once again I ask you to explain how anything
these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding
this issue while the republicans control the house and senate.
Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank
neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly
indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and
state intact. Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on
many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon
others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and
admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold
them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you
believe.

I would argue that it was those influences

which made this country one of strong moral

and ethical principles.

In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this
country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on
the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and
ethical principle. You flip flop more than Bush. And please don't ask
for examples of Bush flip flopping, as you attempted this in the past,
were given a major list of examples, and began to spin excuses for WHY
he flip flopped, distancing yourself from your claim that he never did.

It's no coincidence that

the decline in governmental ethics and

morality



There you go again,,,flip...flop!

correspond with efforts to eradicate

religious influences from our lives.



I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do
believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a
serious mistake.

There was once a day when democrats and

republicans practiced a little thing called

compromise.

There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for
themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and
blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this
country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party. That is the
most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you
appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You
simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the
leader you selected. In other words, you seek to blame others when
responsibility for your leader's action must be taken. Blaming another
political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures
illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to
effectively discuss the political process.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove
all signs of religion from government
processes, even though most have been
around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines?

Nothing, if that's indeed the case.

You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself.

The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since
the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and
1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005.




But those
religious influences are adorned all over our
government buildings and in our government
business. Why is it only now do certain people
find exception to it?

You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that
just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal
or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it.

In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have
accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a
small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it.


When it's not illegal, I agree with it.
The fact is that despite recent
misinterpretations of the establishment clause
in the constitution by left wing zealots, we
have had religious influences in our
government from the very beginning.

That's rich..and wrong.

No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or hopelessly biased not
to see it.

Once again I ask you to explain how anything
these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding
this issue while the republicans control the house and senate.

In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist
democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a
controlling influence.


Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank
neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly
indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and
state intact.

It was never there in the first place. At least not to the degree that
the zealots are calling for now.

Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on
many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon
others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and
admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold
them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you
believe.

I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the
ones who reelected G.W. Bush.


I would argue that it was those influences
which made this country one of strong moral
and ethical principles.

In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this
country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on
the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and
ethical principle.

No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical
principles. You should learn to read for content, before making
another of your erroneous conclusions.


You flip flop more than Bush.

No, you misinterpret and assume such as a result of your
misinterpretations.


I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do
believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a
serious mistake.


Then you and I do share some agreement in this area. But the reason
why God was taken out of public schools was a direct result of
anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an extreme interpretation of
"separation of church and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate"
feat.



There was once a day when democrats and
republicans practiced a little thing called
compromise.


There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for
themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and
blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this
country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party.

Such as?

That is the
most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you
appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You
simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the
leader you selected.

What failures can be blamed on our leader?


In other words, you seek to blame others when
responsibility for your leader's action must be taken.

Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the failure of Social
Security, but the democrats will not even allow his plan to come to a
full vote, while offering nothing of their own to counter it. They'd
rather just pretend that there's no problem (Even though prominent
leaders of their own party were running around like chicken little
about SS failing when Clinton was in office).


Blaming another
political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures
illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to
effectively discuss the political process.

Your opinion notwithstanding, there is not one thing you can
definitively pin on Bush as a "failure". On the other hand, for the
last 4 years, the democratic party has become the party of hatred and
obstruction. If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a
republican, their first instinct is to oppose it.

Like I said before, before the extreme polarization of the political
parties in Washington, you could actually get things done with a
little compromise.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
it primarily the left who are


spearheading an intensified effort to remove

all signs of religion from government

processes, even though most have been

around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines?

Nothing, if that's indeed the case.

You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself.

The "law" has been defined in regard to

religious influences, since the inception of this

country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905,

and 1955, so it should not be a problem in

2005.

Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and
reject change and progress.

But those


religious influences are adorned all over our

government buildings and in our government

business.


So are other religious symbols besides Christianity.

Why is it only now do certain people find

exception to it?

You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying
to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats.
_
You are one of the most vocal in this group to
redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide
doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree
with it.

In the case of religious influences in this

country, the majority have accepted and

endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now

that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a

problem with it.



You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for
justifying it, valid to only yourself.

When it's not illegal, I agree with it.

Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions.
You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim
you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane,
paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law.
Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed
(regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite.


The fact is that despite recent


misinterpretations of the establishment clause

in the constitution by left wing zealots, we

have had religious influences in our

government from the very beginning.

That's rich..and wrong.
Once again I ask you to explain how anything these "left wingers" say or
do or interpret can matter at all regarding this issue while the
republicans control the house and senate.

No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or

hopelessly biased not to see it.


Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger
misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the
only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the
country.

In theory, it should mean nothing. But you

know those obstructionist democrats trying to

use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a
controlling influence.


That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore
is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the
republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one
party rule...theirs.
Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank
neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly
indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and
state intact.

It was never there in the first place.


Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned
ignorance.

At least not to the degree that the zealots are

calling for now.


The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs.
=A0=A0Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many
occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others
and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on
many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an
enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe.

I and many others who are currently in the

majority. You know, the ones who reelected

G.W. Bush.


The majority didn't vote, David. Someone with your caliber of education
should know better, but then again, youare also of the rabid pack who
continue to erroneously claim Bush had a mandate....if he did, it was
with Jeff Gannon.

I would argue that it was those influences

which made this country one of strong moral

and ethical principles.

In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this
country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on
the air.
Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical
principle.

No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on

strong moral and ethical principles.



No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber".

You should learn to read for content, before

making another of your erroneous

conclusions.

You flip flop more than Bush.

No, you misinterpret and assume such as a

result of your misinterpretations.

The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you
and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point,
until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments
regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics
and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge.
_
I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do
believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a
serious mistake.

Then you and I do share some agreement in

this area. But the reason why God was taken

out of public schools was a direct result of

anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an

extreme interpretation of "separation of church
and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate"

feat.


I disagree. One doesn't need be anti-religious in order to disagree with
Christian dogma being displayed in public areas. This is your own short
sightedness.


There was once a day when democrats and

republicans practiced a little thing called

compromise.

There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for
themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and
blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this
country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party.

Such as?

Your entire religious argument regarding the left.
That is the
most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you
appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You
simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the
leader you selected.

What failures can be blamed on our leader?


Lately? Dharfur. N Korea. Providing adequate armor to the troops that
would save lives. Balancing the budget...just for an immediate start.
_
In other words, you seek to blame others
when responsibility for your leader's action must be taken.

.Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the

failure of Social Security, but the democrats

will not even allow his plan to come to a full

vote,

There is no failure of SS, unless Bush is permitted to monkey with it.

while offering nothing of their own to counter

it.


Lockbox.

They'd rather just pretend that there's no

problem (Even though prominent leaders of

their own party were running around like

chicken little about SS failing when Clinton

was in office).

Blaming another
political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures
illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to
effectively discuss the political process.

Your opinion notwithstanding,


My "opinion" that blaming the left for Bush failures illustrates you
really have a great deal to learn is no opinion, but fact.

there is not one thing you can definitively pin

on Bush as a "failure".


See above.

On the other hand, for the last 4 years, the

democratic party has become the party of

hatred and obstruction.


Demos have nothing to do with it. An attempt to cloud the topic that you
keep failing with by invoking the left when faced with Bush failures is
useless.

-
If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a

republican, their first instinct is to oppose it.

You continue to invoke demos for all the republican failures. Classic.

Like I said before, before the extreme

polarization of the political parties in

Washington, you could actually get things

done with a little compromise.

And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined
and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him,
many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into
failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have
distanced themselves.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:45:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.

And your point?


My point is that you are an idiot if you think AIDS is limited to
sinners.


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats.

Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified
effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even
though most have been around since this country was founded.


Like I said befo Better late than never. But if you want to know
why -now- instead of 20 or 100 years ago, just take a look at the
demographics of the Republican base. They have turned their party into
the "unofficial" party of the conservative Christians because it's an
easy crowd, and they are trying to make every election a vote about
religious convictions instead of government issues. The idea is
certainly creative, but it will eventually fail because people don't
want the government meddling with their religious freedoms.


Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.

Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio
network which is failing miserably.


True on both counts. But her statement was still accurate.


snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state.

No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that
congress shall not establish an "official" religion,


That's only part of the scope. Read it again: The Amendment prohibits
Congress from making laws that would -respect- any religion. More
specifically, they can't help create a religious institution, nor can
they prevent them from existing. If some people want to establish a
religion that worships Satan, or Baal, or even Thomas Edison, there's
nothing the government can do to about it one way or another. THAT'S
what it means. And that -includes- prohibiting Congress from making
the US an "unofficial" Christian state whether it be by tradition or
by majority. Seperation of church and state is the -only- way to
preserve the right of religious freedom for everyone, and the First
Amendment does exactly that.


and may not
prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs.


At least you got -that- part right.


Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that
there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of
the government.


Influence is not law, nor is it a majority vote (as exampled on a
regular basis by corporate lobbyists and SIGs).


Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand
it.



I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?

Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are
displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to
support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were
all religious people),


All of them? Careful, Dave.....


yet now advocate that we go above and beyond
the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally
eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though
they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start.


Despite the horrendous grammatical construction of your claim, what
part of the Constitution requires, or even -suggests-, that religious
influence should play any role in the government? There is ONLY ONE
reference that could even come -close- to what you claim, and that
would be in the final Article, where the date of its ratification is
written as "...the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our
Lord...". That's quite a stretch, Dave.


What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, 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.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.

You've never participated in a jury trial have you?


As a matter of fact I have. I have been sworn as a juror twice, a few
times as a witness, four times as a complaintant, and even a couple
times as a defendant. I also swore an oath when I enlisted. And every
time I took an oath it was an oath that was administered to atheists.
Usually, the phrase "so help me God" is replaced by something along
the lines of, "under penalty of perjury in the State of so-and-so", or
something along those lines. I have also heard Jews and Muslims take
oaths that are different than those taken by people calling themselves
Christians. And if -you- haven't heard these oaths then -you- haven't
spent much time in a -real- courtroom. So get your face out of the TV
and learn about the -real- world instead of accepting as fact anything
you see or hear on "CSI Fargo", "Jury Crossing" or whatever Hollywood
rendition of 'forensics' you waste your time watching.


And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.

I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that
I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about
it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute.


Unless you are an idiot and are handling your case pro-se, you will be
called by an attorney who will ask you, prior to the hearing, if you
have any problem with swearing an oath on the Bible. That's his/her
job. Even in small claims court where you don't have an attorney, the
court gives you an instruction pamphlet that tells you about different
oaths that are used depending on your religious beliefs; all you have
to do is mention it to the court clerk and they will give you the
appropriate oath. No "stink" required.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.

No, I participate in the REAL world.


That's why you don't know **** about what happens in a REAL courtroom,
huh?


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either.

When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an
elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points.

I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates.

Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of
marriage.

You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married,
they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count
as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better
picture of the state of marriage as it is.


You really -are- an idiot, aren't you? Heck, and I thought I was just
being snotty.....

I made the statement that "nearly half of all marriages end in
divorce". This is easily verified by any kid that watched two or more
episodes of Sesame Street: Compare the marriage rate to the divorce
rate. If you have 100 marriages and 50 of them end because of divorce,
it is obvious -- even to the most casual observer -- that half of
those marriages ended in divorce.

What the marriage status data -can't- tell is the number of times a
person gets married in a given year, or the number of people who are
married and divorced within the same year. But I would really like to
see how you divined a 9.6% divorce rate from that data -- it should be
good for a laugh.


You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous
years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage.


If people married in previous years have a lower rate of divorce then
the divorce rate is -higher- among recent marriages. Or vice-versa.
The figures are still valid no matter how you slice it -- half of all
marriages end up in divorce. Period.


And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the
population is divorced.


Let's assume for a moment that your figure is accurate: Ok, then what
percentage of the population is still married? And how did you
calculate those numbers?


As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.

As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin.


I knew you couldn't address that statement directly, but I -didn't-
think you would toss it off with a comment so abstractly stupid as
"You're just on the other side of the coin". Shame on me.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.

But your method is still drawing a false analogy.


My method didn't "draw" -any- analogies. Or don't you even know the
definition of 'analogy'?


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry.

Based on your own hypocritical bias.


Based on the facts. The fact is that the Bible (God) not only allows
polygamy, but quite literally -encourages- taking of more than one
wife -as well as- ****ing any receptive concubines. That "tradition"
dates back to well before Abraham and continues to this day in many
cultures, including some factions of Christianity. That's a fact,
-not- the product of my "hypocritical bias".


And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).

Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them.


Nothing false about it. You wear the same feathers. You can take any
of your arguments, substitute the word "gay marriage" for "******",
and you sound just like a klansman without a pillow-case hiding his
face.


Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce.

Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous
because your premise is flawed.


Your statistics are flawed, and so is your argument: If all of those
alleged 9.6% divorcees were Christians (which they are not, but let's
assume for the moment that they are), then that's at least 9.6% of the
church that doesn't value marriage as much as you claim. OTOH, if all
those 9.6% are -not- Christians then that's a significant chunk of the
-rest- of the population that doesn't share your concerns. Either way,
if 9.6% of the population were rapists or arsonists, you can bet that
there would be a HUGE ruckus from the other 90.4%. But I don't hear a
huge ruckus, Dave -- only a few very loud, obnoxious, holier-than-thou
zealots trying to force -their- interpretation of 'morality' on the
majority.


The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.

Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the
false dilemma fallacy?


Keep reaching for the stars, Dave -- maybe some day you'll catch one.


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?

The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing
liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which
the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years.


Which words are those, Dave?


The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave?

Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself).


I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive.

And you call me a bigot?


I do. You are.


But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks.

There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying
Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem
with it.


I'm pretty sure they would since I think beastiality is illegal in
every state (except Texas, and maybe Montana).


Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end
all of all rules and laws.


It is the "Law of the Land", like it or not.


The constitution does not address each and
every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago.


That's why it has a provision for amendment. That's why it's
considered to be a "living document". And I can't believe you slept
through -that- in school -- did you sit in the back of the class? Have
a learning disorder? Home-schooled by ignorant parents? I mean, come
on Dave -- this is **** that immigrants are required to learn before
they can become citizens. Or do you still have your green card?


So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and
encourage further participation in it.


"It's one thing to allow inter-racial marriage. It's totally another
to condone and encourage further participation in it." See?


A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that
doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft.


Does gay marriage deprive you of your car? Come to think of it, you
are still avoiding the big question: how does gay marriage deprive you
of your rights, Dave?


You hate gays.

No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated.


You basically want to 'exterminate' any legal homosexual marriage. So
you hate legal homosexual marriage. But the only difference between
homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is the sexual preference
of the partners. Therefore, the source of your hatred can -only- be
attributed to homosexuality. You hate gays. You are a bigot, Dave.


So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not.

So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no
objection to pedophiles having the right to marry?


Pedophiles have rights, too. If they can live their lives without
violating the law or infringing on the rights of others, great, I
couldn't care less what they do.

So how does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?


That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant.

No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a
personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little
tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless
assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that.


But you -are- a bigot. Other people live their lives in a way that is
none of your business. Yet you feel that some of their choices are
intolerable and that they should be prohibited from exercising the
same rights and freedoms you enjoy simply because they don't comply
with your definition of 'tradition'. In a nutshell, they are different
and you want them to stop being different because you don't like it.
If that doesn't fall within the definition of 'bigotry' then I don't
know what does.

And for the record, I have great tolerance for just about everything;
even Bush, and even stupidity. But I have little or no tolerance for
ignorance.


You are not.
You are a bigot.

No, I am someone who values traditional morality.


I'm sure the same has been said by many klansman in defense of their
racism.


snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?


That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that
slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes
only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between
acceptance and rejection.


That line is drawn by society. It is not drawn by me, by you, or by a
few poorly-educated homophobes that would probably draw a bead on some
other 'deviant' behavior if they were to win this battle. The problem
is that if they are allowed to get their way, nobody knows what group
will be next or where they will stop. And if you think that "ethnic
cleansing" or some other form of genocide is ridiculous, go to the
library and study up on pre-WWII Germany, or Eastern Europe after the
fall of the USSR -- or read about Africa in the news of today.

You propose to allow a few fanatic groups the ability to dictate
religion, morality, or even tradition -- now THAT'S a slippery slope!


Idiot.

You are certainly acting like one.


You are acting like a third grader that's losing an argument in the
schoolyard -- complete with witty comebacks that I haven't heard since
the day I watched that Pee-Wee Herman movie.




snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".

But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be
readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so
everyone would see it.


Wouldn't it be much easier to include a copy with my resume?

And wouldn't it be much easier to admit that you are wrong instead of
trying to come up with ridiculous scenarios in an attempt to win an
argument?


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.

It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational
standards.


Speaking of which, what's the name of that tech school you claim to
have attended, Dave?


But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.

My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias
and manifested by your pompous arrogance.


Big words only work if you know how to use them correctly.


snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.

Always an excuse......


The only excuses tendered on this topic have been yours; I claimed
that 4 years of education is better than 2 years, and you have tried
every excuse in the book to refute it. So far none of them have
worked, not even the "always an excuse" excuse. Got any new excuses?
Maybe something from "Pee-Wee Herman's Big Book of Excuses"?

Heck, if you can't even read the Constitution, what reason is there to
think that you can understand children's literature.....


How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.

More personal insults. You really are losing this debate.....


Just bored. It would be much more interesting if you could stay on
topic and present facts and logical arguments. Maybe then I wouldn't
be so inclined to comment on your lack of emotional stability.



Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively.

Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........


Actually, I was thinking about starting up a yard-care biz. Pays
pretty well, lots of exercise (which would make my doctor happy), and
a heck of a lot more fun than changing kegs, carding teenies and
86'ing obnoxious drunks. I might give it a go as soon as I can figure
out why my weed-whacker keeps overheating. Maybe it's vapor-lock.....


........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.

I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in
high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about
the constitution.


HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right. That's why I had to quote Article VI to show
you where it prohibits a religious test. Sure, Dave -- you know
-everything- there is to know about the Constitution, I'm sure. So
what part says that the US is a Christian state? Where does the
Constitution require or suggest that religious influence should play
-any- role in the government?


But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try.


And how does gay marriage infringe on your rights?


The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on
a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks
while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks
or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it.


That's funny because I'm a heavy smoker. But I don't think anyone is
smelling my breath when I type on the computer. Not unless there is
some technology in my computer that I don't know about -- cyber-smell
or something like that. Is that why they have T1 and T3 lines? Or is
it just so you can download the porno pics faster? Heck, I'd get a T1
line for -that-!


So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?

What new policy?


Dave,..... oh, forget it. You wouldn't understand it anyway.


Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself.


inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.

I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize
me.

I challenge the notion that change is inevitable.


Then your challenge is a lost cause from the get-go. Should you
succeed in preventing anything from changing, that in and of itself is
a change because the norm is change. Therefore you have defeated your
own objective by 'changing the rate of change'. And even if you
dismiss that as nothing more than a temporal card-trick, the fact
remains that events happen beyond the control of humans, that cannot
be prevented. Volcanos, hurricanes, asteroids, earthquakes..... change
is inevitable. It's a fact.


What you are
embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not
expect from a existential atheist.


Existentialism is not fatalism. If you are going to dive into that end
of the philosophical pool you should at least grab DesCartes for a
floatation device or you -will- sink.


If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to
prevent change that would promote demoralization?


That's a neat idea, but Bush already tried that angle -- he failed
because there were no WMDs. And if that flew over your head like
everything else so far, go find someone that can explain it to you.
Isn't there an Amish settlement in your area?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----