Thoughts and Opinions - Silly O'Donnell...

Print Page | Close Window

Silly O'Donnell...

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=186955
Printed Date: 19 November 2025 at 12:10am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Silly O'Donnell...

Posted By: brihard
Subject: Silly O'Donnell...
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 6:41pm

This is just too damned sad and frightening for me to not start a political thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe

If you're going to be a prominent politician, you should probably familiarize yourself with the bill of rights...

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Replies:

Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 6:43pm

Is she wrong?

Where in the constitution is "separation of church and state"??? HMM?

-------------
Que pasa?

Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 6:44pm

You don't need a Bill of Rights, or laws, or crazy things like that, as long as you've got a Bible which you haven't read very well.

-------------
BU Engineering 2012

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 7:15pm

THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 7:22pm

Actually, there IS no part in the constitution that says "Seperation of church and state" and on top of that, IMO and many others as well, the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

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

A) Technically only applies to Congress (ehh, ehh?)
And
B ) only pertains to laws, and not to actions.

To argue differently, as many a judge has, is to fail at reading comprehension, or to succeed at pushing a loose interpretation as law.

Forcing everyone to pray before they go to bed would be bad. Having people walk by a replica of a stone tablet when they go to court? Not bad.

-------------

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 7:33pm

Linus wrote:

Actually, there IS no part in the constitution that says "Seperation of church and state" and on top of that, IMO and many others as well, the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

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

A) Technically only applies to Congress (ehh, ehh?)
And
B ) only pertains to laws, and not to actions.

To argue differently, as many a judge has, is to fail at reading comprehension, or to succeed at pushing a loose interpretation as law.

Forcing everyone to pray before they go to bed would be bad. Having people walk by a replica of a stone tablet when they go to court? Not bad.

Ah, so the entire body of American jurisprudence on the matter is wrong. Duly noted.

Laws are interpreted in part based on the underlying intent that went into writing them, and it's clear that part of the intent was that religion, while very much a part of social life in the early U.S., was to be kept separated from the functions of state. I'm gonna go with a couple centuries of legal decisions by very learned jurists on this one.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 7:53pm

And that's not the part that people think is funny, and I would suspect wasn't the reason the crowd gasped.

It was that part juuust after it. You should read it.

Forcing everyone to pray before they go to bed would be bad. Having people walk by a replica of a stone tablet when they go to court? Not bad.

Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property.

Sorry, that there is an endorsement.

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 7:53pm

As counter to modern Judicial interpretations as I think that is, it's important to note that no matter what you think the Constitution says, all that matters is that 5 Supreme Court justices agree with your interpretation (Dred Scott) and that the other branches actually follow their rulings (Jackson V. Cherokee Nation). Based on the fact that such a large percentage of the population believes in creationism, at least familiarizing them with the theory could be beneficial, although I think comparative religions would be a much more appropriate venue since it undermines science as a whole.

Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:11pm

agentwhale007 wrote:

Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property.

You don't want a period there.

You want a question mark.

Wink

-------------
BU Engineering 2012

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:29pm

agentwhale007 wrote:

Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property. Sorry, that there is an endorsement.

Sorry, but it seems as though the US Supreme Court disagrees with you there... on 2 of those points atleast.

People need to quit being so butt-hurt over a stone tablet being in a courthouse. It's not like you have to pray to it. You don't even have to look at the damn thing. You can flip it the bird every single day and praise the devil every time you pass it, and no one can do anything but look at you oddly.

I'd personally have no qualms with the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same idea being placed next to the 10 commandments... I guess that makes me more tolerant, doesn't it?

brihard wrote:

Ah, so the entire body of American jurisprudence on the matter is wrong. Duly noted.

Ah, so you think they did contrary to what I stated and did a STRICT interpretation of the wording?

And that's not a legit argument... there have been legal decisions on BOTH sides of the matter, one side I'm in line with, the other you're in line with. Both by 'very learned jurists'. Only difference? Countless counter-suits, followed by a looser interpretation. Doesn't make one side or the other 'more right'.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:30pm

ParielIsBack wrote:

agentwhale007 wrote:

Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property.

You don't want a period there.

You want a question mark.

Wink

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:43pm

Linus wrote:

agentwhale007 wrote:

Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property. Sorry, that there is an endorsement.

Sorry, but it seems as though the US Supreme Court disagrees with you there... on 2 of those points atleast.

I'm confused as to which Supreme Court cases you think agree with you here?

Also, what is the difference between a stone statue and a school-sanctioned prayer exactly?

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:47pm

Linus wrote:

Actually, there IS no part in the constitution that says "Seperation of church and state" and on top of that, IMO and many others as well, the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

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

A) Technically only applies to Congress (ehh, ehh?)
And
B ) only pertains to laws, and not to actions.

To argue differently, as many a judge has, is to fail at reading comprehension, or to succeed at pushing a loose interpretation as law.

Forcing everyone to pray before they go to bed would be bad. Having people walk by a replica of a stone tablet when they go to court? Not bad.

Or those judges continued reading and read the 14th amendment that also applies that restrictions on states as well.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:48pm

Linus wrote:

the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

I see someone has abandoned the doctrine of original intent for a strict constructionist method of interpreting the constitution.

Is there a reason we should look only at the text for the first amendment, but look at original intent for the fourteenth amendment?

brihard wrote:

Ah, so the entire body of American jurisprudence on the matter is wrong. Duly noted.

It's happened before. I forget the specifics, but the SCOTUS made a ruling that had something to do with currency, and it was later deemed horribly incorrect, but the effect of the ruling had become such an engendered part of society that undoing it would be bad.

I won't comment on the validity of separating church and state on the legal level, since I don't yet have my J.D., but I'll trust the American jurisprudential system as a whole until I have reason not to.

Laws are interpreted in part based on the underlying intent that went into writing them

...which is generally regarded as a terrible method of interpretation. The legal document is the source of law, not the gentlemen who wrote it, and not their intent while writing it.

On O'Donnel....HOW DOES SHE HAVE A FOLLOWING?!? Politics can be so frustrating.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 11:52pm

Linus wrote:

I'd personally have no qualms with the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same idea being placed next to the 10 commandments...

I should also point out the flaw in this: The fact that neither Jewish, Islamic, nor any other religion is represented there, and thus, it is an endorsement of a single religion.

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:05am

It should be pointed out that Congress sets the budget, by law. If that budget is used for religious monuments, then congress has just made a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:21am

agentwhale007 wrote:

Linus wrote:

I'd personally have no qualms with the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same idea being placed next to the 10 commandments...

I should also point out the flaw in this: The fact that neither Jewish, Islamic, nor any other religion is represented there, and thus, it is an endorsement of a single religion.

Cool. Good for them. Maybe no Jews, Muslims or Hindus have attempted to do their own statue. There always has to be a first, so why is it so bad that a Christian one was first? So long as other religions aren't barred, there is nothing wrong.

agentwhale007 wrote:

I'm confused as to which Supreme Court cases you think agree with you here?

Van Orden v Perry

But alas, SCOTUS flip flops more than a 16 year old girl with boy troubles when it comes to 'separation'.

Gatyr wrote:

Linus wrote:

the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

I see someone has abandoned the doctrine of original intent for a strict
constructionist method of interpreting the constitution.

Nope, my view is now and always has been, a mixture. Yes, you need intent as otherwise there will be too many loopholes, OR a law will be so textual and vague that you wouldn't want it as a law anyhow.

On the same token, when a law is written in plain English, you need to put more weight on that as well.

And the law clearly states that congress can neither respect a religion nor prohibit religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:30am

Linus wrote:

Van Orden v Perry

If I recall, the basis of the decision was that the statue had historical value beyond its religious intentions.

And the law clearly states that congress can neither respect a religion nor prohibit religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess this is a good time to ask what you see the word "respect" to mean when used in the First Amendment?

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:42am

agentwhale007 wrote:

Linus wrote:

Van Orden v Perry

If I recall, the basis of the decision was that the statue had historical value beyond its religious intentions.

Ah, but it was both religious in nature AND on state grounds... yet not an endorsement as you claim.

And the law clearly states that congress can neither respect a religion nor prohibit religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess this is a good time to ask what you see the word "respect" to mean when used in the First Amendment?

Me personally? I take the exact definition of 'respect' and apply it to here: To not give preferential treatment to one religion over another.

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:48am

Linus wrote:

Nope, my view is now and always has been, a mixture.

A mixture grounded in what?

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:49am

Linus wrote:

Ah, but it was both religious in nature AND on state grounds... yet not an endorsement as you claim.

Mayhap I'm wrong - and I very well could be because I've not read this case over in years - but I think I remember it being a point of interest within the opinion that it was not decided upon based on it being either an endorsement or not one, rather it being a "non-intrusive" item of historical significance.

Again, it's been a while.

I take the exact definition of 'respect' and apply it to here: To not give preferential treatment to one religion over another.

Whose exact definition is that?

Because it is not the dictionary definition, nor the established legal definition.

Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 1:00am

agentwhale007 wrote:

Because it is not the dictionary definition

Really?

Dictionary wrote:

deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges

And considering an antonym of "respect" is "disfavor"...

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 3:54am

-------------

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 5:42am

Hold up- there's a Jewish version of the Ten Commandments?

NOT IN MY 'MERICA!

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 7:18am

It's like a dumb girl in highschool grew up, without maturing or educating herself in the slightest, and then ran for office.

I hoped to see a smackdown on her, and they both provided it.

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 8:28am

I love how O'Donnel is the Sarah Palin of 2010...

No matter what, just keep bashing her. And weak minded people fall for it!

Even when interviewing Alvin Greene she is made fun of, Classic.

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 9:37am

Linus wrote:

agentwhale007 wrote:

Linus wrote:

I'd personally have no qualms with the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same idea being placed next to the 10 commandments...

I should also point out the flaw in this: The fact that neither Jewish, Islamic, nor any other religion is represented there, and thus, it is an endorsement of a single religion.

GroupB wrote:

It should be pointed out that Congress sets the budget, by law. If that budget is used for religious monuments, whether it be purchasing, maintaining, or housing them, then congress has just made a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 9:49am

Crazy fundamentalists in MY America?

It's more likely than you think.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 9:50am

FE, I'm not sure if you've noticed this but she says things that don't need to be taken out of context to make her look bad. The fact she didn't even know what the first amendment was scares the hell out of me. There is something seriously wrong with our electoral system if she makes it into the Senate.

-------------

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 10:34am

What has she said that makes her look bad? This particular case is one where the majority of Americans are actually ignorant of the constitution and the whole premise of "separation of church and state"...

something we have covered here in the past, and most of you now realize the way this has been manipulated... so much so that a room full of student lawyers, don't even realize how wrong they are...

Here it is, for fun.

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

This was written to the states, and federal government. Meaning the government can't take up a "certain" religion like Britian did.

The "Wall of Separation" phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The fact that this comment written in a personal letter was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. Then in 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case (which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Christian and private schools) the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish this anti-Christian precedent that has done so much damage to the morality of our country.

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 11:32am

Hey, look, PBS moderator mocked Palin for her 1773 comment!

Woot, another tax funded liberal mouthpiece bashing Palin for making the Dumb dumb comment that the tea party happened in 1773... When it actually happened in...

wait for it...

1773

BRILLIANT!

http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/10/20/how-embarrassing-leftist-media-mocks-palin-for-historical-accuracy/ - http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/10/20/how-embarrassing-leftist-media-mocks-palin-for-historical-accuracy/

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:19pm

^^^ Reported.

Why you might ask?

For self-bumping/spamming. The information in the second post could have easily been edited into the previous post but the poster chose not to do so. While I have no way of knowing the actual thinking that went into this decision, the appearance is of someone who wants to keep topics that only he/she is interested in at the top of the forum in an artificial manner. To me this seems to be the very essence of spamming.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 12:28pm

The Reaper wrote:

Again, it was the thing she said just after that:

Coons: "Government shall make no establishment of religion."

O'Donnell: "That's in the First Amendment...?"

so much so that a room full of student lawyers, don't even realize how wrong they are...

Mayhap the reason that the room full of student lawyers - and others - "don't realize how wrong they are," is because of the history of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress based on how the Establishment Clause is to operate?

Meaning the government can't take up a "certain" religion like Britian did.

That's your interpretation of it, yes. But that's largely not how the courts have seen it.

And, more-so, the discrepancy is within the use of "respect" and "establishment"

What this really states, is that we (the people) all have the right to do what we will, aka religious freedom.

I'm curious as to how you got this out of a clause that states Congress, the elected legislative body of the government, cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion? This clause deals with limitations on law creation.

I have presented tons of evidence that shows that liberals are silencing Christians as often as they can, limiting prayer, and any other example...

All of the "evidence" presented is based on your interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which is not the same interpretation that courts and Congress have taken, for one.

When clearly the constitution was giving us FREEDOM not restrictions. It was restricting government power.

The concepts of "freedom" and "restrictions" are not a zero-sum game. They are not mutually exclusive.

which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Christian and private schools

Yes. And, the part you are leaving out is that the decision was made because the money was not directly aiding any religion or religious institution. The money waivers were being made out to the parents of the children, not the schools.

As per your parts on Jefferson and his letter, the Everson v. Board decision talks about this very fact, that using Jefferson's letter is a way of seeing the intention of the Establishment Clause.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 1:46pm

The Reaper wrote:

something we have covered here in the past, and most of you now realize the way this has been manipulated... so much so that a room full of student lawyers, don't even realize how wrong they are...

Actually, you don't realize how wrong you are.

Here it is, for fun.

Here it is for fact:

The constitution is the law of the land. It lays down the basic framework for how we are governed. This includes spelling out certain rights and establishing the three branches of government. As every possible future case could not be predicted and pre-solved, the framers of the constitution wisely kept the language simple and ensured there were means to interpret the language (SCOTUS for example) in case of questions that arose in the future. Such questions arose and were interpreted by the courts. The courts are a legitimate established part of our system of government. By definition what they decide is the law. The fact that you or anyone else disagrees with them really has no bearing on whether they are right or not. There decisions/interpretations are by design of the same constitution you purport to be such an expert on, the explanation/definition of the law.

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

No argument there.

This was written to the states, and federal government. Meaning the government can't take up a "certain" religion like Britian did.

What this really states, is that we (the people) all have the right to do what we will, aka religious freedom. Which is certainly NOT where we are as a country today. I have presented tons of evidence that shows that liberals are silencing Christians as often as they can, limiting prayer, and any other example... When clearly the constitution was giving us FREEDOM not restrictions. It was restricting government power.

This is your opinion. The opinion/decisions of the constitutionally established court system differ. I won't argue moralities here because I don't necessarily agree with all the court's decisions and they are a moot point in the face of existing law. The fact is the entities that have the constitutional power have made the applicable decisions/interpretations based on their opinions and that makes those specific opinions the law of the land. I agree on the fact that it restricts government power for instance, but the courts have taken it a bit farther than that. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. One does not generally get to choose the laws they obey/ignore and one does not get to quote/utilize just the parts of the constitution that they happen to agree with.

Interesting, but it really has nothing to do with this discussion when you get right down to it and it is hypocritical to pretend it does. It really doesn't matter where it came from, what matters is that the courts have made certain interpretations. As the duly appointed courts their opinions take precedence over the opinions of individuals who think that they know how the country should be run in accordance to their personal beliefs.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, wrote in his dissent in 1985 ruling against silent school prayer, pointed out: "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson." He called Jefferson's "wall" "a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging."

The above is why it is hypocritical to whine about the "wall of separation" metaphor. Rehnquist has a dissenting opinion but, based on the design of the court in accordance with our laws/founding document, that dissenting opinion carries absolutely zero weight. It, as a non-decision, is as meaningless to U.S. law as anything else that is just someone's personal opinion and not a court decision. The irony of trying to pretend that it should be taken as the law of our land while at the same time disparaging the various similar places that the courts have drawn from for their decisions is quite amusing.

The U.S. does not run exactly how you want it to. You have a vote, use it. If that isn't enough to change things and you don't like it . . . well . . . that's democracy for you.

-------------

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 1:54pm

I really don't get why the religious would fight separation of church and state...whether in the Constitution or not, it's designed to protect religion from government interference.

I'll say it again-give the governmet the power to endorse a religion (Ten Commandments on the lawn, faculty leading prayer in school) and it will endorse ten others with it, and then mold all eleven into one religion that glorifies itself. It's been done throughout history...hell, read the book of Daniel, or the Book of Revelation. I think the Antichrist is supposed to have that system sewn up pretty tight...

And I don't see anyone restricting the rights to pray. Just the right for people on state / government payroll to endorse or lead in religious ceremony. You can pray openly anywhere you want, so long as the government isn't endorsing it.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:16pm

stratoaxe wrote:

And I don't see anyone restricting the rights to pray. Just the right for people on state / government payroll to endorse or lead in religious ceremony. You can pray openly anywhere you want, so long as the government isn't endorsing it.

http://www.academia.org/public-school-prayer-suspension/ - Not so . Just one example, I actually found quite a few. Now, in cases where school is disrupted, I have no problem with punishment. However, this does not seem to be the case here.

-------------

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:19pm

Mack, I would bet that those cases are the minority. I know here in Texas especially, you can usually see a group of kids praying around the flag on high school campuses, and there are always religious themed meetings happening here and there.

There are always going to be those in charge of institutions like that on a small level that are going to interpret the laws falsely, or even make up their own in order to appease or be politically correct. I'd bet those kids suspensions didn't last long, and if it made national news the issue would be dropped like a hot potato.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:20pm

Do a search with the terms "suspension," "school" and "prayer" or similar words.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:31pm

Mack, the majority of the examples you'll find are cases falling into the following:

The person is an employee of the state and was acting in their position of authority.
Someone was being disruptive and it was treated as a disciplinary action.
The school legitimately overstepped their bounds, and funny enough, the first group to step up and support the side of the student is the ACLU, the same group which at the very mention of their name, neo-conservatives will shudder and rock back and forth uncontrollably.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:38pm

^^^ <shudder> <shudder> <rock forward> <rock back>

On a serious note, it shouldn't happen at all. Like many other instances of rights violations I consider one to be too many.

Edit: I realized I should also post the original statement I was replying to.

stratoaxe wrote:

And I don't see anyone restricting the rights to pray.

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 2:51pm

Mack wrote:

Like many other instances of rights violations I consider one to be too many.

Agreed 100 percent.

Edit: I realized I should also post the original statement I was replying to..

No, I gotcha.

Bad decisions get made. Luckily that is why we have a court system in this country.

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 20 October 2010 at 9:14pm

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 1:19am

So, this thread motivated me to read the Monsterballs thread that FEaper infamously made. Oh how I now love Mack. I mean, I loved him before, but that was junior high stuff compared to the I-see-you-sportin'-that-sexy-intellect-from-thousands-of-miles-away sort of feeling I get now.

And serious question to FEaper: Will you ever concede your incorrectness about something on here?

-------------

Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 6:11am

Mack wrote:

^^^ <shudder> <shudder> <rock forward> <rock back>On a serious note, it shouldn't happen at all. Like many other instances of rights violations I consider one to be too many. Edit: I realized I should also post the original statement I was replying to.

stratoaxe wrote:

And I don't see anyone restricting the rights to pray.

Of course it happens. But, that has nothing to do with the actual rulings of the government. The government currently says you are allowed to pray all you want and anywhere you want in a private personal mannor. Which is exactly what prayer should be. If you are a teacher leading your class in prayer, that's differant, a specific religion is then being endorsed. If those same kids were to pray on their own, even while at school, they have the legal grounds to do so. The time I spent in public school certainly showed me that in my area of the country, in mine, and several of my friends experiences, teachers are much more likely to endorse Christianity "off the record" than bring any kind of ax down upon it.

But to your point, yes, people do overstep boundaries and there have been cases of private prayer being punished, which is wrong. However, once again that has more to do with a bad administration, than anything the government is enforcing.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl

Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 7:30am

Gatyr wrote:

So, this thread motivated me to read the Monsterballs thread that FEaper infamously made. Oh how I now love Mack. I mean, I loved him before, but that was junior high stuff compared to the I-see-you-sportin'-that-sexy-intellect-from-thousands-of-miles-away sort of feeling I get now.

And serious question to FEaper: Will you ever concede your incorrectness about something on here?

No, and if you bring it up again he will accuse you of having a mancrush on him. I think FE is from Jersey.

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 7:47am

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

The monsterball thread was epic, assumptions are still alive and well on this site...

Back to O'Donnell... Looks like the AP and wapo are manipulating the "coverage" as well... To bad people pay attention now...

(see how they use their exact words against them... learn from this)

http://patterico.com/2010/10/20/wapoap-caught-revising-the-o%E2%80%99donnell-story-without-issuing-a-correction/ - http://patterico.com/2010/10/20/wapoap-caught-revising-the-o%E2%80%99donnell-story-without-issuing-a-correction/

good old media bias... Live and in color.

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 8:08am

I for one am outraged, outraged let me tell you, that the AP revised a later file of a story like they almost always do.

So much outrage.

<- Look at all that outrage.

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 8:10am

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1 - http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 8:31am

FEaper, I love it.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 1:41pm

agentwhale007 wrote:

I for one am outraged, outraged let me tell you, that the AP revised a later file of a story like they almost always do.

So much outrage.

<- Look at all that outrage.

Yeah, cause the media is never biased... Naa, never. They are impartial all the time, never letting their internal biases manipulate their reporting.

Finally TODAY we get ONE media outlet that covered the amazing part of the debate, that the media ignored as they were so desperate to paint O'Donnell in a negative light...

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdSU4zSUeu - http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdSU4zSUeu

And the media is always for freedom of speech. Especially TAX funded NPR... Unless you are on fox, then they fire you for being honest... Because NPR lets George Soros pay for their employee's and fund left stream media to advance the progressive agenda...

Do you agree with Soros funding 100 NPR salaries so they report on stuff HE wants focused on, whale?

Were those comments worthy of being FIRED from NPR, Whale?...

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 2:00pm

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1 - http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1

Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 2:55pm

NPR is a waste of tax payer money. Juan Williams had a bad tendancy, to say what he feels honestly, now we can not have that on 'public' radio now can we.
And how many here sitting on an airplane would feel just a tad uncomfortable if 2 hajib wearing muslim women accompanied by 2 distinctly arab dressed males entered the cabin with no carry on luggage, sit down behind you, clutching a Qu'ran and start praying.

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:04pm

Perhaps they are afraid of flying?

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:05pm

The Reaper wrote:

Do you agree with Soros funding 100 NPR salaries so they report on stuff HE wants focused on, whale?

1) That's a hilarious question, considering your previous user name. Why do you hate free enterprise?

2) Do you agree with Rupert funding Fox News payroll?

Were those comments worthy of being FIRED from NPR, Whale?...

I don't believe so, do. I don't agree with NPR's decision there. I also disagreed with NPR's decision to ban reporters from going to the Daily Show / Colbert rallies on their off-time too.

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:11pm

What is ridiculous is the way they allow bashing on tea party members, and Christians... But, muslims... off limits, firing offense.

Let us look at a few NPR statements/reports that are OK...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047

And we all remember the Bush = Hitler NPR viewpoint...

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/11/why_bush_hitler.html - http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/11/why_bush_hitler.html

How about McVeigh who NPR reporter Michel Martin said was a "Catholic Christian"

http://politifi.com/news/NPRs-Michel-Martin-Links-Timothy-McVeigh-to-Catholicism-Christianity-Did-Anybody-Move-a-Catholic-Church-1056264.html - http://politifi.com/news/NPRs-Michel-Martin-Links-Timothy-McVeigh-to-Catholicism-Christianity-Did-Anybody-Move-a-Catholic-Church-1056264.html

Or how about NPR producer (also JournOlist member) who said she would love to watch Rush Limbaugh die...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/ - http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/

Would NPR have fired Obama since he stated virtually the exact same thing as Juan?...

What is most interesting is that this follows Soros giving millions to NPR to "defeat" fox news... NPR already forced Juan to not use his job their at NPR on kyrons (on screen graphics)

What hypocrisy.

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:17pm

GroupB wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1 - http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185919&KW=eville&PN=1

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:18pm

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

From the aforementioned http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=178115&PN=1 - Monsterball thread . (FEaper post in black with reply/refutation in red):

Mack wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

. . . it doesn't break consistantly. Which increases the impact exponentially.

No, it does not increase the impact "exponentially." It doesn't increase the impact at all. Kinetic energy (impact energy) is based on the equation E=1/2mv^2 (Where E=Energy, m=mass and v=velocity). The only way to "increase the impact" would be if MB's somehow sped up or suddenly became heavier when they didn't break; both are physical impossibilities.

The second example isn't going to be a direct quote for space saving reasons. However, anyone who wants to look at the original can simply refer to the second page of this thread. The assertion was made by FEaper that he understood the first amendment in regards to freedom of religion better than the Supreme Court or law students or most of us. As a reminder here is the pertinent part:

1st Amendment wrote:

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

The gist of FEaper's assertion is that the first part is given precedence at the expense of the second part. That is, that in an effort to ensure that the government is not supporting religion the right to free exercise of religion is sometimes trampled and this was not what was intended by the framer's of the constitution. I happen to agree. However, that does not mean we are right or the constitution is being ignored. The decisions that led to this interpretation were made by the duly appointed courts in accordance with the directives from that very same constitution. Those decisions, not the personal beliefs of individuals, are what the constitution means. By definition, the constitution says what the courts say it says. Disagree or not, to maintain any other position is factually and logically incorrect.

What I have provided are two examples, one from one of FEaper's earliest posts and one from one of his latest posts, where he is wrong.

I now expect him to handle this in his usual manner. I.e. it will be ignored and the point will be dropped as if it was never made or refuted, it will be argued with either little or no supporting logic or facts (or possibly with facts that are not relevant), or FEaper will switch paths with claims of either being misunderstood or having meant to lead us off-topic with a clever trap that has now been sprung as part of his ingenious master plan.

Edited addition: I failed to acknowledge the possibility that FEaper might assert that I have misinterpreted him on every point. I will leave any judgment of such assertions up to the forum and just point out that if someone means something one way and the majority take it differently the communications problem is most likely to lie with the sender's transmission as opposed to the receivers' reception and decoding.

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:27pm

You also failed to acknowledge the chance he might report you for personal attacks.

-------------

Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 3:41pm

Mack wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

From the aforementioned http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=178115&PN=1 - Monsterball thread . (FEaper post in black with reply/refutation in red):

Mack wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

. . . it doesn't break consistantly. Which increases the impact exponentially.

1st Amendment wrote:

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

reported...

Seriously. I still am convinced that monster balls hurt worse than regular paintballs. As they don't break on impact. And regardless of your formula. If you get hit by a paintball that breaks, vs a paintball that doesn't The paintball that doesn't break hurts a ton more than the paintball that does break.

So, according to your formula, that is impossible... And yet... I do actually play paintball quite a bit, and the guys that play with wal-mart paint (which has a very tough shell) sure seems to hurt a lot more...

And the second arguement was about the constitution... Not judges INTERPRETATIONS of the constitution. Or the students INTERPRETATIONS of the 1st amendment.

Because as we all see interpretations aren't "right" or "wrong" they are opinions. Of course activist judges have a major impact... But it doesn't make their activism correct.

My statement was about the constitution, which I still stand by... Of course the current law is based on the bastardization of the constitution by liberal activist judges...

Your strawman fails.

-------------

Try being informed instead of just opinionated. How long before you admit that Obama was a mistake?

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 4:08pm

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede.

Your entire operational definition of what 'Liberal' is. You remember the thread, no need to quote it.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 4:26pm

The Reaper wrote:

reported...

So, according to your formula, that is impossible... And yet...

The science is wrong. Clearly.

I don't care about formulations of the Earth being round and all that science mumbo jumbo.

When I go to the beach and look out, it's flat as can be.

Anecdote > crazy silly formulas.

And the second arguement was about the constitution... Not judges INTERPRETATIONS of the constitution.

Someone needs to brush the dust off the old pocket Constitution and read Article III, Section 2.

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 4:32pm

oldsoldier wrote:

NPR is a waste of tax payer money. Juan Williams had a bad tendancy, to say what he feels honestly, now we can not have that on 'public' radio now can we.
And how many here sitting on an airplane would feel just a tad uncomfortable if 2 hajib wearing muslim women accompanied by 2 distinctly arab dressed males entered the cabin with no carry on luggage, sit down behind you, clutching a Qu'ran and start praying.

I'm going to assume terrorists are smart enough not dress like a stereotypical muslim so I wouldn't be worried at all.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 4:44pm

mbro wrote:

I'm going to assume terrorists are smart enough not dress like a stereotypical muslim so I wouldn't be worried at all.

Sounds a lot like my flight on Cathay Pacific from Dubai to Hong Kong.

So many people in Dubai Airport who were obviously Muslims. It was scary. Cry

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 6:08pm

The Reaper wrote:

Mack wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

Sure, show me an example of being incorrect, and I will concede. But, you have to actually quote ME not your assumptions of what I think...

From the aforementioned forum_posts.asp?TID=178115&PN=1 - Monsterball thread . (FEaper post in black with reply/refutation in red):

Mack wrote:

The Reaper wrote:

. . . it doesn't break consistantly. Which increases the impact exponentially.

1st Amendment wrote:

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

reported...

Seriously. I still am convinced that monster balls hurt worse than regular paintballs.

That is quite possible.

As they don't break on impact. And regardless of your formula. If you get hit by a paintball that breaks, vs a paintball that doesn't The paintball that doesn't break hurts a ton more than the paintball that does break.

Very true. It has to do with the way the impact is dissipated. When they break, the impact is spread over a wider area with some of the energy not even being transferred to the target. (The splat pattern is actually a fairly decent representation of where the energy goes when they break.) However, this is all irrelevant. You specifically requested that we quote you to show where you were wrong and I complied. You specifically stated that the impact increased "exponentially" and I showed how that was incorrect. In this instance, in a typically FEaperish act you are trying to redefine both the parameters of the challenge and the meaning of what you said in order to avoid having to make an admission of being incorrect.

I never argued that they didn't feel like they hurt more in this thread. You merely misinterpreted what I was saying in a manner that made it easier for you to refute the point. You made an assumption that turned out to be incorrect and the argument that resulted from it have no bearing at all on this discussion. The fact is that I made a quote of a statement you made (as requested) that proves you are WRONG and that is the truth. Unfortunately, you can't handle the truth.

And the second arguement was about the constitution... Not judges INTERPRETATIONS of the constitution. Or the students INTERPRETATIONS of the 1st amendment.

Silly FEaper, it sounds as if you're saying that the constitution, in its original written form, is the only thing that should be considered. If that was the case there would be no way for the law to stay abreast of technological and social changes. (As an example, the constitution never mentions privacy from electronic eavesdropping, so obviously it must be okay to do so.)

Because as we all see interpretations aren't "right" or "wrong" they are opinions.

They are opinions from (1) duly appointed judges which are, in accordance with Article III, Section 2 (2) legally empowered to make such decisions and which, under the laws of this nation (3) determine constitutional interpretation when differences of opinion arise. As far as I know you do not fit any of the three numbered criteria I listed so I really can't consider your opinion to have even close to the same level of legal validity that theirs has.

Of course activist judges have a major impact... But it doesn't make their activism correct.
Never said that it did. (At least not morally/ethically.) However, it does make it the LAW.

My statement was about the constitution, which I still stand by... Of course the current law is based on the bastardization of the constitution by liberal activist judges...

And at this point FEaper withdraws to the basic "I'm right because I say so" stance to avoid having to admit error.

Your strawman fails.

1) It wasn't a strawman. Scientific fact is scientific fact and the law is the law. All the whining in the world will not change the laws of nature or the legal framework of this nation. It does however provide amusement for some of us.
2) If it had been a strawman, your hot air would still have been insufficient to the task of taking it down.

-------------