Dear Mr. President,
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=186969
Printed Date: 07 November 2025 at 4:01pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Dear Mr. President,
Posted By: agentwhale007
Subject: Dear Mr. President,
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 4:58pm
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101020/pl_yblog_upshot/white-house-cancels-obama-trip-to-sikh-temple-over-muslim-rumor-concerns - Grow a pair and stop pandering to morons. Signed, Gah!
|
Replies:
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:07pm
|
Eh, I dunno on this one. Perceived weakness in the eyes of your enemies (in this case, American conservatives) can be come real weakness.
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:22pm
|
The fact it's being perceived as a weakness is retarded. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:23pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
scotchyscotch wrote:Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:35pm
|
I don't disagree, but that doesn't change reality. People are stupid. It's an important fact. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:44pm
|
I know it doesn't change anything mate.I would have liked to see him go ahead with it then have him personally respond to the criticism. You know you're a jackass when the president of the USA is calling you one. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 5:56pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 6:11pm
|
I don't care what headgear he wears. It has no impact on my opinion of him. What would have an impact would be if he were to wake up and see that there are actually a lot of people who are not impressed with his leadership for various reasons as opposed to blaming everything on the opposition, racism, etc.* *No, I am not saying the President himself has necessarily made these claims. However, I do consider him responsible for what his staff/party put out. Is that fair. Heck yeah, he is supposed to be a leader. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 9:20pm
Here here. Especially the blaming of the opposition when you have a majority in the House and Senate, and you let the opposition control the dialogue with shouting falsehoods (DEATH PANELS! HEALTH CARE RATIONING! BOWING TO FOREIGNERS!). Point the blame to your own blue dogs that are pandering to southern conservatives. And most of all, grow a pair and start calling Republicans out on their crap. Of course, that's not going to happen in the current Democratic Party. It might make them seem mean.  |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 10:34pm
|
Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 10:36pm
lol -------------  |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 21 October 2010 at 10:43pm
WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 12:01am
|
DON'T QUOTE SPAM!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 2:19am
| An Indonesian spambot? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 2:24am
|
Separation of church and state! ------------- 
|
Posted By: pepprdog
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 7:37am
|
Where is that in the Constitution? -------------  NRA Certified;Range Safety officer NRA Certified Instructor: Basic Pistol-Home Firearm Safety-Ohio Concealed Carry "Refu |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 8:14am
|
Perhaps we should add a clause: "All presidents must have a backbone" ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 9:40am
Amendment 1, first line.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 10:22am
|
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Don't see the verbage 'seperation of church and state', within the 'first line', all I see is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which is defined in the language of the time as Congress can not establish a 'state' religion ala 'Church of England'. The part that is totally forgotten in the first line is;"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" where Congress as well as the Courts have created laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The current religion of the state is 'The religion of No Religion' where a mass belief system is in place where the State is the devine entity, and a forced belief system of 'No Religion' is enforced by law. Look up the definition of religion; ------------- 
|
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 10:32am
| Again, congress sets budgets via a law. those budgets pay for everything the government does and everything government employees do on the clock. If the government or its employees spend any time or other resource on religion, then congress has made a law respecting religion. This is why that even though it doesnt explicitly state "separation of church and state" in the constitution, that is exactly what is required in order to abide by the 1st amendment. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 10:45am
Which has been utilized as such. What are you seeing the words "establishment" and "respect" to mean?
So what is the difference between a state created religion and a state endorsed religion?
Where has the free exercise of expression of religion been prohibited?
How many current elected officials within the House and Senate are not admitted Christians?
Where is "No Religion" enforced by law in situations where a violation of the establishment clause is not in play? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 10:56am
|
Let's see a few malcontents and college types demanding that religious monuments though many 'historic' in nature be removed from 'public' property, and the courts supporting these acts. So as a counter suit filed in Fremont,NE an individual stated that his free exercise thereof is being violated in that going to the park, sitting on the bench and reading the 10 commandments on a 'historical' monument is now illegal and the monument must be 'removed'. What social 'harm' does these monumnets present?
Free exercise in that in many public schools prayer, silent or otherwise is not allowed, a moment of silence before the day begins is no social harm, except for the few forcing thier belief of 'no religion' on others, and many states do have laws concerning 'prayer' silent or otherwise on the books. (Yet in Lincoln, NE Muslims demanded and got prayer rooms and pre prayer bathing facilities for thier religious need in the public high schools, took a massive legal battle to get them removed) -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 10:58am
|
Those damn college types. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 11:02am
| Muzzy's need to pray 5 times a day. It is required by their religion that they do so and that they pray in the way that is set out for them. To not give them prayer rooms and bathing facilities would be "preventing the free excersise thereof" |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 11:09am
1) College types and malcontents don't interpret the law. Judges do. 2) You should probably look up the case of Van Orden v. Perry and see what the decision was, and what it says about maintaining the existence of "items of historical significance."
Incorrect. Prayer, silent or otherwise, is allowed in schools. Just not lead by a member of the faculty while in the capacity of being a teacher paid for by the state, or built into the school's (and thus state) daily activities. Prayer clubs are still allowed in schools. Prayer on your own time is completely allowed.
And where is a law where prayer is banned, other than situations where it is someone representing the government in a government position? Please link to one of these laws.
So do you support the school originally using the prayer rooms and bathing facilities or not? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 11:12am
|
Not a problem if they gave the same considerations to Christian religions, during the same period the 'Christian Club' of students were told they could not use school facilities of grounds for thier afterschool meetings. Afterschool meetings and activities have long been considered part of the school being a central meeting place. The Boy Scouts were forced out also under the same 'religious' grounds.
In the Fremont case it was a local college student for a 'project' that started the movement to remove the monument from the park. No mention was even made prior to this students interest in a 'grade'. The defender was a 80+ year old WW2 veteran who everyday sat on the bench in protest, in full uniform, the court made an order that he was to be removed as being 'disruptive' (he just sat there) but to thier credit the local Fremont Police would not remove him, and the State Police came in and also refused to remove him. The order was resinded based on public pressure. The monument was removed. (I hope he/she got an A) -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 11:19am
Incorrect. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1597 - Westside v. Mergens states that schools who open up to any non-curricular organization must open up to all of them, regardless of ideology, including religion.
Was this situation before or after the Van Orden case? |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 3:26pm
|
-.- Okay, I'm getting really tired of this. We are not a theocracy. We were never intended to be one. If you want to live in a theocracy, either go somewhere else, or start voting for politicians who are going to push our country in that direction. Until then, shut up. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 3:58pm
|
More and more this whole debate is a exercise in lack of tolerance. Religion has been the base of maodern law, the bible was the only real available textbook in 17th and 18th century frontier schools, so of course a interaction between government and religion ensued. The word God appears in many of our founding documents as well as our printed and minted money to this day.
The how can "I" influence society today mindset from both sides, from judges to Joe Average is getting old. We are not nor ever will be a theocracy as in the Islamic modern model, but the 'Christian' foundation of western society can not be denied. Today's polititians are afraid to 'offend' the Muslim world because of their more radical 'kill the infidel' approach to anyone who denies or mocks Islam or Allah/Mohammad. Yet it is open season on 'Christian, beliefs. Obama has no backbone if he is afraid to visit other societies in fear of upsetting Islam, that simple fact in the face of the worlds leading 'superpower' that Obama is afraid is in the Islamic mind a 'win' for their religion and ideas. The Qu'ran is very specific in the way Islam is to be spread, from the sword to the trembling of the leaders of the infidel, each is a victory when accomplished. JIHAD The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in the Quran http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/ - http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/ -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:03pm
Obviously then, Christians need to become more violent in order to effectively compete. -------------
|
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:22pm
Actually our laws came from England, not from frontier schools reading bibles.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:39pm
|
Let's try this again, the 'Laws' we know and understand even if from English Law originated from religious teachings as the Holy Roman Empire spread across the less civilized European societies. The 10 Commandments are just reworded into 'legal' text. BTW up until the 1800's English Law still stated that the King/Queen was ordained by God to rule England. Even the Magna Carta was forced on the King by the Barons, not the populace. Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form.
During the Colonial and early Post Revolution era of America, the only readily and mass produced book was the 'Bible'. And out on the frontiers was usually the only book available in which to teach reading and writting skills. So unfortuanately or fortunately a mindset developed where religious teachings became the dominant legal and governmental influance is these areas. The 'Bible Belt' is so named because? History is a hard thing to 'revise' when it is the truth. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:45pm
|
And Mack, so far appeasement has accomplished little in the wake of the 'murders' of those who mocked Islam in western press, or the fear still evident by Obama's actions. Ask the Isreali's how well tolerance and appeasement has worked in thier negotiatians witth Islamic factions.
Not advocating another 'Crusade' but something has to be done in the face of rising level of violence and fear of violence coming from the expansion of Islam. -------------
|
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:49pm
|
Either, just because our country was founded with religious values in mind, that does not mean it was meant to be founded as a nation for a specific religion. In any case, I have not seen you refute my argument about the budget from page 1. What are your thoughts there?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:50pm
There are only two, three if you really squint, of the 10 Commandments that are part of U.S. law, or even societal legal understandings. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:53pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 4:55pm
Philosophy, not religion.
Not the Constitution, funny enough.
Methinks you didn't read the link to the story in this thread. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 5:01pm
|
Do we not agree that the 'Church' all through the Medevil as well as Rennisance(sp) was the 'legal' foundation of European society. Only after our revolution was true legal reform instituded in Europe as well as in America. Many colonial era communities used ther 'Church' even after the founding as the legal authority due to the lack of or availability of a true legal proffesion on the frontiers more than not.
American society really did not consider drastic religious reform till mid 19th Century as the writting of Marx and Engels saw religion as an evil componant of society. The 60's is where the real 'revolution' in religion began to effect American society, seeing religion as a deterrant to social reform even though several court decisions were in place many communities and areas of the US continue to resist the concept. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 5:04pm
|
Where did 'Philosophy' originate, a group of Monks (The Learnered Men of the Time)discussing and debating the effects of 'religion' and its concepts on society as a whole. Even the early Greek Philosphers were considered 'Prophets' or 'Holy Men' in thier societies.
MBRO The 10 Commandments were a foundation of European Law, "Thou shall not steal" for one is a simplistic start to more modern revisions as the society matured. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 5:19pm
Ehh not so much. Aristotle and Plato were trying to influence democratic society. They are largely seen as the fathers of modern western philosophy.
European law advanced because of the works of philosophers who understood concepts of societal contribution and agreement. Stealing is bad for the group. Yes, it had foundations in religion. But those foundations tended to have stuff like, you know, divorce being illegal. Current western law is pretty much void of religious foundation, and is built from concepts of societal agreement. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 5:28pm
|
The Cleric vs Philosophers arguement still exsists, which more dominated societal norms. Any Jesuit College will go will Cleric, any Public College will go with Philosopher.
Even in Europe, case in point Spain, where the Cleric up until the early 20th Century influenced Law far more than the Philosopher. The Inquisition was just a small chapter in Spains violent legal reforms. -------------
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 22 October 2010 at 11:39pm
|
Why is history appropriate in guiding the lawmakers of today? If anything discarding religion is progress. Religion is no longer the ruling force it once was. Why is this a bad thing? In my own countries history I can see religion as a detrimental factor. The catholic church basically allowed the slaughter of millions all around Europe for political gains. Why is this religious history less important than the achievements of a few men? As long as religion has been the be all and end all in running a country it has been manipulated beyond recognition. To the point where you must concede that to prevent the perversion of your religion it must be kept separate from the lawmakers and government. |