On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:09:54 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

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.

Not all change is actually "progress". It's a matter of some
subjectivity depending on your perspective.


But those
religious influences are adorned all over our
government buildings and in our government
business.


So are other religious symbols besides Christianity.

Not many. Most are Christian. But even so, it illustrates the
influence of God, no matter what faith you choose to worship him with.


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.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was
founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed
down other people's throats" is held by those who have been
conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and
see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people
who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to.



_
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.

You still demonstrate not knowing the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Nothing in my statement is hypocritical.




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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.



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 wrong. Just look at the Supreme court building and
observe the sculpture of Moses holding the 10 commandments. And that
is but one example of many.


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.

If what you allege was the case, the whole "PC" movement would have
been expunged from the country by now. It's not so simple to overturn
a few decades of liberal indoctrination, But at least the mainstream
is now awake and aware of what had previously been a fairly low
profile covert operation. But now all the underhanded, erroneous,
immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are put up for all to
see and to judge accordingly.


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.

How? There is still a vote. In a vote,the majority rules. That's the
way any vote works. I suppose you'd rather apply a "filibuster-ike"
rule to challenge any majority vote. Maybe we should be filibustering
the last election, so that you PEST sufferers could leverage your
minority rule to place Kerry in office.

That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by the minority to
overturn the wishes of the majority. So tell me, how is THAT any more
fair, than having a straight up or down vote? And in typical
democratic hypocrisy, the same people who are screaming to save the
filibuster now, were on record as in favor of removing it, over ten
years back, when the democrats were in the majority in congress.


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.

Where is the proof? There is NOTHING in the constitution which calls
for the complete separation of church and state. All it does is
prevent the establishment of a state sponsored or endorsed religion,
and prevents the government from denying someone the right to observe
their religion of choice. Nowhere does the constitution claim or imply
that congress persons, the president, justices, or other people shall
not be people of faith. Nor does it ban the practices of referring to
God in an oath, or during any other proceeding of the government. Did
you know that every session of congress begins with a prayer, lead by
a staff preacher who is paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Did you know that there are Bible verses etched in stone all over the
federal buildings and monuments in D.C.? There are pictures of the 10
commandments inside the supreme court?

There has NEVER been a complete separation of church and state in this
government. The whole idea of any separation in the beginning was not
to protect government from religion, it was to protect religion from
government.

Now go do some research before you buy into left wing propaganda.


The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs.
**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.


The majority didn't vote, David.

The majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. As for the rest,
who's to say who they would have favored. Any speculation on your
part, is just that. Besides, those who don't play an active part in
their government, have no right to complain about it.


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".

Yes, MADE as in FOUNDED, as in "past tense". I know you have trouble
comprehending, but I didn't think I had to drop to this level to
explain it to you.


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 have provided for each and every legal, grammatical, historical
point that I have made. In every case that you've challenged me, I
have proven you wrong, from your ridiculous comments regarding the
term "forensic", to the usage of "empirical observation", to your
erroneous claim that the Commonwealth of Pa does not give at least a 5
MPH speed tolerance for speeders. When you can't weasel out of that,
you change the subject and invent a lie that I never said, and then
try to attribute it to me. Your inept comprehension of the
constitution, and your hopelessly biased sense of politics is more
than just a little apparent. Your understanding of how government
works is not much different than that of the naive protesters who
burned their draft cards on college lawns in the 60's. They were
clueless and impressionable, and so are you. Prime candidates for
indoctrination into the communist party then, or liberal propaganda
now.

So tell me again about education, fishing boat boy. You and Frank
should go into that lawn care business together. Both of you are
severe underachievers.



_
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.

What has changed in the last 100 years, in that regard, and why is it
no longer valid? Is it "dogma" to continue to believe in God? If you
truly believe that religion and faith are stagnant "dogma", then what
you are saying is that you no longer believe. So how can you be
concerned with taking God out of schools, when you call your own
"faith", "Christian dogma"?



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.

You deny that the left are engaged in a propaganda war for the hearts
and minds of easily mislead individuals? If I thought you would
understand, I would gladly engage you in a debate comparing the
relative merits of the ideology of the left versus the right. But I
fear it would be a total waste of my time.


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.

How is any of that a failure, when both are actions still in motion?
It can only be deemed a failure when we are defeated.

_
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.

Bill Clinton, and other prominent democrats are on record as
disagreeing with you. At least before Bush was in office, and it was
their platform to make.

Perhaps you would tell the class why having direct control of your own
interest bearing retirement account is less desirable than having the
government administer it. Someone who claims to embrace less
government would be happy to have the government out of the SS
picture.

Personally I want ALL of my S.S. money to be diverted into my existing
401K. THAT is the solution that I would want. But Bush needs to move
gradually as there are a lot of people who paid into SS and are
expecting something out of it. But a gradual shift over to private
accounts over time, makes the most sense.



while offering nothing of their own to counter
it.


Lockbox.

Which means nothing. It's status quo with a fancy name attached to it.
Since SS is based on treasury bonds, it is affected by budgets and
debt, so it can never really be in a "lock box"

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.

The truth was always something which eludes you. Look it up if you
don't believe me. Clinton made SS a campaign issue.

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 have been no "failures" to accurately blame on Bush.


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.

And you are a tongue dragging, lock step liberal, the more you deny
your own party's failings. No one is more shrill than Al Gore, or
Howard Dean. No one is as clueless as Nancy Pelosi. No one twists the
facts like Barbara Boxer. No one is more hypocritical than Harry Reid.
Even Hillary Clinton realizes the hopelessness of her own party's
liberal ideology and has been engaged in the political equivalent of
"extreme makeover", by trying to re-invent herself as a much more
moderate than a liberal. Her latest stunt of teaming up with Newt
Gingrich is further evidence of that. All of this, of course, is to
make her an electable candidate in '08. But it's all a lie.


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.

Please provide a list of all "failures".

At least republicans are willing to do something. A democrat's
favorite word is "No".



And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined
and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him,

How did Bush manage to do that? I don't recall him ever standing up
and declaring that the "enemy" was not liberals (Although in some
respects, that's true)


many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into
failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have
distanced themselves.

You keep claiming that the party mission has "failed", yet there is
nothing that indicates anything of the sort. The economy is growing,
the war in Iraq is gradually going our way. There is a surge in a
desire for democracy in the middle east. While the price of oil is
high, there is not much that our government can do to affect it. We
have tried to present an energy policy, to hopefully mitigate some of
the energy concerns, but once again the democrats are trying to block
it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was
founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed
down other people's throats" is held by those who have been
conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and
see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people
who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to.



The problem is both sides. One person find offense with
something of a religious over tone in government, he then
finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious
zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion.



_
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.

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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.

I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket
for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't
say it doesn't happen.


Both of you are
severe underachievers.

I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that
you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum,
as such, this argument between you three will never end.



Dave
"Sandbagger"



Landshark


--
The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or
direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from
your computer, you are a fool.

Frank Gililland

On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:45:31 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was
founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed
down other people's throats" is held by those who have been
conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and
see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people
who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to.



The problem is both sides. One person find offense with
something of a religious over tone in government, he then
finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious
zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion.

You are exactly right. That is why this is reaching a head. Someone
finds something offensive, gets the muscle of a group such as the ACLU
to have it removed (Like lame Holiday party names instead of
Christians parties). It's not surprising that the people who support
these traditions will fight to retain them.

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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.

I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket
for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't
say it doesn't happen.

So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit?
That seem somewhat contradictory to me.


So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people
to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane?

You do understand the logic here right? If you are legally bound to
maintain the posted speed limit, then you cannot pass someone already
doing the legal limit, and the great majority of traffic would be
bound to remain in the right lane, except to pass those occasional
slow pokes. I'm sure I don't need to explain heavy traffic to a
California resident, but can you imagine if everyone tried to stay in
the right lane?


Both of you are
severe underachievers.

I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that
you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum,
as such, this argument between you three will never end.

I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not
even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do
believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a
guide to responsible social behavior. I am for preserving proven
tradition and do not believe that change is automatically a good
thing. I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend
to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and
accountability, a free market and a strong morality based system of
law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a
civilized society.


The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a
simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no
further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I
supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him
personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush
(and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective
opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has
been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot. But during the course
of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his
personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I
can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have
a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the
establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as
they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to
teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering,
working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law,
and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter
boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind
an anonymous pseudonym.

It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am
beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am
actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods
to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement
would turn into several years worth of trash talking.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.

I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket
for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't
say it doesn't happen.

So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit?
That seem somewhat contradictory to me.


So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people
to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane?


Nope, it's called impeding the flow of traffic. If the basic
traffic flow is going 65 to 70mph and you get three cars
all going 65mph. The back up behind is more of a hazard
than the people breaking the basic speed law.

(Big snip)




Dave
"Sandbagger"

Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
(I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for
impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it
doesn't happen. )

So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed

the posted limit?



You have no choice in the matter.It is not you that is permitted to
enforce the trafficl laws, despite your need for assumed status over
others.

That seem somewhat contradictory to me.

Only because you are ignorant of the law and express difficulty
understanding it.
Cruising in the left lane is illegal...period, Your feelings and
objections are irrelevant.


So basically, the way the law is written, it

pretty much forces people to break the speed

limit in order to "justify" using the left lane?




Not at all. You are not to be in the left lane AT ALL unless you are
passing. If the person in front of you in the right lane is doing the
speed limit, you have no business in the left or passing lane. Now you
are expressing difficulties comprehending your lawbreaking ways that
illustrate your hypocrisy.

You do understand the logic here right?


The logic is that you lived ot be as old as you are but still are a
hypocrite and can;t comprehend you are breaking the law and any "logic"
you feel is related to your behavior is justification for you to break
the law.

If you are legally bound to maintain the posted
speed limit, then you cannot pass someone

already doing the legal limit, and the great

majority of traffic would be bound to remain in

the right lane, except to pass those occasional

slow pokes.



That is the law...very good, David. SSince you disagree with it so
vehemently, it is suggested you take your own advice .."You are bound to
adhere to the law. If you don't agree with it, lobby to have it changed.
Breaking the law is no excuse."

I'm sure I don't need to explain heavy traffic to

a California resident, but can you imagine if

everyone tried to stay in the right lane?


The only thing imagined here is you believing you are not a hypocrite
for your law breaking ways. According your own words, you're a criminal,
also.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:30:19 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not
even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do
believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a
guide to responsible social behavior.


Another excellent book you should read: "The Golden Bough" by James
George Frazer. I think it should be required reading for any sociology
class.


I am for preserving proven
tradition


It's not the responsibility of the government to "preserve tradition"
no matter how much you would like the government to shoulder that
repsponsibility for you.


and do not believe that change is automatically a good
thing.


Neither do I. But change, good or bad, -is- inevitable (or haven't you
looked up the word yet?).


I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend
to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and
accountability, a free market


I agree 100%.


and a strong morality based system of
law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a
civilized society.


The only problem I have with that is your source of "morality". The
First Amendment prohibits any law that favors any specific religion,
therefore religion cannot be the source of morality. Thus, society
must define the lines of morality. If the majority of society derive
their moral values from religion that's fine -- but remember that the
framers of this country were mostly Christians, yet felt it was a
moral imperative to protect the freedom of everyone to practice their
own religious faith, -and- to protect the government from imposing
religion by law. Now if you had a sociological foundation for your
argument against gay marriage I might even agree, but you don't. And
since society is constantly changing (as it inevitably does), morality
will change, and so will the laws based on morality.

But what you -still- don't seem to accept is that -you- are not forced
to change your religion based upon changes in society -- that's your
Constitutional right. You may not like those changes, but as you have
stated many times before, the government can't make everyone happy.


The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a
simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no
further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I
supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him
personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush
(and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective
opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has
been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot.


You have that a little mixed up, Dave. You -are- an idiot, but that's
beside the point; I don't care if you support Bush or not -- but your
reasons for supporting him are based on ignorance, propaganda, and
flat-out lies, many of which you perpetrate yourself just because you
don't like being proved wrong. And I don't care if you are Republican
or Democrat since both parties are just about equally corrupt, as I
have stated on more than one occasion (and you evidently -still- can't
(or won't) understand). So if you are going to tell the story then
tell the -correct- story, not just your biased version of it.


But during the course
of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his
personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I
can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have
a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the
establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as
they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to
teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering,
working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law,
and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter
boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind
an anonymous pseudonym.


Twisty and I have common ground now only because I was forced to admit
that he was right regarding Bush. Beyond that, we still have strong
ideological differences. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the
differences between Twisty and myself are greater than the differences
between you and me. If you can just get past your presumptive nature
and think for yourself instead of taking the temporally lazy route by
relying on those that prey on emotional weaknesses then we probably
wouldn't have any arguments at all. One of these days you may realize
that the mental effort you use to defend your ignorance is far greater
than if you spent your time and energy digging for subjective facts
and forming your own -independent- opinions. Or maybe not.


It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am
beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am
actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods
to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement
would turn into several years worth of trash talking.


You can't help yourself. You hate to be proved wrong because it
shatters your self-image as a morally-motivated person (it's that
"perception-window" thing I mentioned earlier -- and the offer for
-that- book still stands, too). When faced with the truth that your
motivations are generally selfish (and frequently prejudicial), it
creates emotional conflict with what you have chosen as your "core
beliefs". Therefore, you seek validation for your lame justifications
on Usenet. You can't give up arguing these issues or your brain would
explode into a mushroom-cloud of hypocrisy. Besides, you have claimed
to be tired of this bickering many, many times. You have also
threatened to give it up many, many times. Each time you come right
back here defending the same bogus arguments because you can't control
yourself. And this time is no different.

But feel free to take a long sabbatical. Then come back and answer
some of the pending questions that you have been avoiding for several
months -- maybe a fresh mind will let you fabricate some new lies and
excuses. I hope so because your constant repitition of the old ones
are getting to be monotonous.





----== 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 =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:09:54 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
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.

Not all change is actually "progress".



Sure it is. What you are trying to convey is progress isn't always a
good thing. But change is inevitable, and you are always playing
cath-up. Hell, you are years behind in the knowledge of radio law and
government law.

It's a matter of some subjectivity depending on
your perspective.


But those

religious influences are adorned all over our

government buildings and in our government

business.

So are other religious symbols besides Christianity.

Not many.



Haha,,talk about subjective terms.

Most are Christian.


You have never been west of the Mississippi, obviously. Have you ever
been west of Pa?

But even so, it illustrates the influence of God,

no matter what faith you choose to worship

him with.



So you worship Allah.,,,the same God you worship, but with a different
name.

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.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture

since this country was founded.


But they were never FORCED until now.

The perception that religion is "suddenly"

being "Crammed down other people's throats"

is held by those who have been conspicuously

absent from any religious influences in their

lives and see any display of religion as

excessive.


What a hypocrite you continue to be,,,you talk morebull**** than a
fertilizer farm. One simple christian thing here, DAve.."Thou shall not
judge".

Yet it is those same people who are the ones

at odds with our society, as history will testify

to.



Your beliefs are not in any way representative of society and society is
very diversified, despite your zero toerance for those expressing
different religious or lifestyles from your own.

_
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.


How was it endorsed? "Congress shall make no law........"..it was never
endorsed, you just chose to misapply another term when you found
yourself talking ahead of your brain.


It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY
that has a problem with it.


Which you continue to blame for the Bush failures.
_
You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the
reason you set forth for justifying it, valid to only yourself.

You still demonstrate not knowing the

meaning of the word hypocrisy. Nothing in my

statement is hypocritical.

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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as

you are either passing or maintaining the

posted speed limit.


Wrong,,,it is not permitted to "cruise" in the right lane in Pa.


Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the
right lane once they've hit the posted limit?

That's ludicrous. Especially considering the

volume of traffic in this area.


Your personal dislikes and opinions of the law are irrelevant to your
hypocrisy of offering excuses why you break the law. Your words were
"There is NO excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. The
hows and whys are irrelevant. You break the law, you're a criminal. :
And my favorite "If you don;t like the law, you are bound to obey them
or lobby to have them legally changed". So go ahead David, instead of
bitching about it and doing a siren's dance around your hypocrisy and
crying about how the law is written and whining about traffic, take your
own advice and change the law you break, you criminal, you.


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 wrong. Just look at the Supreme

court building and observe the sculpture of

Moses holding the 10 commandments. And

that is but one example of many.


You snipped my post and to what you replied "no it's not"....you lost
this point. Next subject.

_
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.

If what you allege was the case,



Allege? Are not the repubs in charge? Yet, you continue ot blame those
whoare not in charge. Classic abdication of those responsible...your
practicied behavior that is almost secod-nature to you.

the whole "PC" movement would have been

expunged from the country by now. It's not so

simple to overturn a few decades of liberal

indoctrination,



Liberals founded this country. Your hatred towards such founding
principles and favoring socialistic government is well documented.

But at least the mainstream is now awake and

aware of what had previously been a fairly low

profile covert operation.


Agree,..which is why the Bush approval rating in Iraq is nearing an all
time low again.

But now all the underhanded, erroneous,

immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are

put up for all to see and to judge accordingly.





Yet, the left's behavior has you so preoccupied when the repubs are in
charge. It kills you.



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.

How? There is still a vote.


Except ythe repubs seek to cancel the demos.

In a vote,the majority rules. That's the way

any vote works. I suppose you'd rather apply a
"filibuster-ike" rule to challenge any majority

vote.


(sig) Frank taught you the origins of the filibuster. You continue to
have hatred for more American designed security designed to protect us
from such fascism.

Maybe we should be filibustering the last

election, so that you PEST sufferers could

leverage your minority rule to place Kerry in

office.


See what a poor retainment value you employ.....your hatred is so rabid,
you erreoneously referred to myself and Frank as demos and Kerry
supporters. That downslide is really messing you up.

That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by

the minority to overturn the wishes of the

majority.



That is only your misinterpretation of another definition. In fact, what
makes this so shocking, is you were given the exact origination of the
fillibuster in addition to its proper definition, but you are dogged
determined to wallow in your own ignorance.

So tell me, how is THAT any more fair, than

having a straight up or down vote? And in

typical democratic hypocrisy, the same people

who are screaming to save the filibuster now,

were on record as in favor of removing it, over

ten years back, when the democrats were in


the majority in congress.

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.

Where is the proof?


Your mistake (almost everytime you post this week) is in believing their
is some type law doing just what the clause prohibits.


There is NOTHING in the

constitution which calls for the complete

separation of church and state. All it does is

prevent the establishment of a state

sponsored or endorsed religion,



Wait a second,,a few paragraphs above you said it WAS endorsed,,in
fact,, that's the exact
word you used,,let's see it again..


In the case of religious influences in this

country, the majority have accepted and

endorsed it since the beginning.



HAhahhaa,,what a card you have become, largely opposing yourself and
self-contradictions galore.

and prevents the government from denying

someone the right to observe their religion of

choice. Nowhere does the constitution claim

or imply that congress persons, the president,

justices, or other people shall not be people of

faith.




No one said otherwise. Your deficit has you confused and focusing on
topic only you invoke and conjure.
But while you're at it, it also says nothing of your claim that such was
"endorsed".

Nor does it ban the practices of referring to

God in an oath, or during any other

proceeding of the government.


See above concerning your conjured ramblings taken from outter space.


Did you know that every session of congress

begins with a prayer, lead by a staff preacher

who is paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Did you know that there are Bible verses

etched in stone all over the federal buildings

and monuments in D.C.? There are pictures of

the 10 commandments inside the supreme

court?


And E Pluribus Unum is on the buck.

There has NEVER been a complete


separation of church and state in this

government.



Yes, there has. Your misinterpretation has you believing that a faith or
belief is equal to an established or endorsed religion or church.

The whole idea of any separation in the

beginning was not to protect government from

religion, it was to protect religion from

government.


And you arrived at such a conclusion exactly how....?

Now go do some research before you buy into

left wing propaganda.



And that would be another erroneous claim that I am a demo or Kerry
supporter,,,hmmm,,,,,it really bugs you when the repubs are made to
answer for their incompetence, especially yours.
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.

The majority of those who voted, voted for

Bush.


That's a far, far, cry from claiming a majority or a mandate. The ony
mandate Bush had was with Jeff Gannon..

As for the rest, who's to say who they would

have favored. Any speculation on your part, is

just that.


As yours. At least I'm not going around illustrating to the world I
believe Bush had a mandate.

Besides, those who don't play an active part

in their government, have no right to complain

about it.


Such as you and your issues relating to radio of which your life has
become largely reactive as opposed to proactivity. You eally sould take
your own advice, but hypocrites rarely do.


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".

Yes, MADE as in FOUNDED, as in "past

tense". I know you have trouble

comprehending, but I didn't think I had to drop

to this level to explain it to you.



Only because you are the only one that understands yourself.
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.