NationStates Jolt Archive

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.

So you don't like Ted Rall very much, then?

Obviously you don't understand the strength of America is in dissent, not conformity.

So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor.

maybe because there isn't a
Soviet Russia anymore

maybe because there isn't a
Soviet Russia anymore

That's why he said time machine. :D

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Here, have a cookie.
*tosses a cookie towards Commando2*

That's why he said time machine. :D

Like thats realistic...hey lets all build a time machine and go back to Imperial Rome...

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.

Sounds like you're the one who needs to go to the USSR because there they don't have such silly and unnecessary notions as "free speech" and "right to protest".

It would probably strengthen your case if you could provide links to these offensive cartoons. I am not suggesting of course that you might take things a little out of context or anything...

Like thats realistic...hey lets all build a time machine and go back to Imperial Rome...

Damn right, it's realistic!

*gets in rocket car and drives off into the sunset*

Check out Ted Ralls. He is on the edge:

http://www.rall.com/

Sounds like you're the one who needs to go to the USSR because there they don't have such silly and unnecessary notions as "free speech" and "right to protest".

OWNED!

Check out Ted Ralls. He is on the edge:

http://www.rall.com/

I'm confused. I only scanned through his site (okay, I just scanned through the first couple of paragraphs of his column) and he didn't seem that over the top. Some of his comments were a bit disagreeable but it was nothing to get really annoyed over. Maybe I missed something...

Yeah, lets send him away. It's not like we have right to free speech in this country or anything.

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.
ok, he can turn himself in for treason and tkae your ass with him you anti-constitution nazi.

ok, he can turn himself in for treason and tkae your ass with him you anti-constitution nazi.

Come on, Chess Squares. Just because his post was angry and insulting, it doesn't mean you have to call him a nazi. Rise above it, you're just confirming his views about liberals.

Come on, Chess Squares. Just because his post was angry and insulting, it doesn't mean you have to call him a nazi. Rise above it, you're just confirming his views about liberals.
im not a liberal, im part of the stupid-people-suck party

Like we're going to change anyone's views over an online forum.

arrest him for treason? i can see why you might disagree with him, he has some fairly strong opinions... but every time people don't agree, we don't arrest them for treason. awhile back i read a book about a girl who grew up in communist china in the 1960's and who was shocked to come to america and find out that people could freely disagree with the government and the president without being arrested. it seems with the conservatives in charge, that might change. which is really too bad, because the constitution gives us the right of freedom of speech.

hes not pissed with rall because he has strong opinions, he pissed at him because rall is right. read his stuff, hes exactly right

im not a liberal, im part of the stupid-people-suck party

It's more fun to subtly mock stupid people than to insult them.

I think Ted Rall and Ann Coulter should be arrested on forced to share the same dingy cell. If they haven't killed each other after a week or two with no outside interference, maybe we should put 'em both in a big gunny sack and shake 'em 'till we get something constructive.

:fluffle:

Now there would be some messed up kids.

I suggest you use a time machine to go back to 1984, if you want.

Obviously you don't understand the strength of America is in dissent, not conformity.
But we also have free speech to comment on dissent.

I honestly think Ted Rall is an SOB, but it's not the government's place to silence a sick bastard like him

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.

Sorry, according to the Constitution, treason is aiding and abetting America's enemies. According to what you have said, it doesn't qualify. He's just very vocal in his hate for the policies of the current Administration. That's completely protected by the First Amendment, even if it is stupid.

But we also have free speech to comment on dissent.

I honestly think Ted Rall is an SOB, but it's not the government's place to silence a sick bastard like him

He has his right to express his opinion, no doubt, but he's suggesting arresting someone for free speech, thus it can chastised. ;)

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.

You must have some issues with baby eating hippies, don't you, asshole?

Because all marxists, socialists or anyone that isn't a nice lil clone of president dumbass should GO back to live in the USSR.

You know, I almost wish everyone with half a brain cell would. Then we'd rule the world and you'd be having some nice fun in a gulag.


Free speech is a right, not a sin or a crime. Even if the guy is an asshat, you two should get together, you've got more in common than you'd like to admit.

To paraphrase:

"Why can't these people who insist on holding different opinions than me not understand that they live in the greatest nation in the universe, the home of the brave and the land of the free... and show that they love that freedom by shutting the hell up!"

:rolleyes:

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.

Playboy and the ACLU are hardly evil. Pornography has already been defined as free speech and the ACLU has the right to voice their opinions.

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.
Wow, the US left now has a response to Ann Coulter?

Who'd have thunk it???

I've never heard of the guy, but yeah, he sounds like an idiot/nutcase.

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.

And perhaps they didn't want to listen to fanatics like you either.

Pornography is very evil. It promotes adultury, lust, and immorality. The ACLU is just another hate group, and so is evil.

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.

In which case wouldn't they have said "you can say what you want (free speech) unless we say you're not allowed to say anything?" (not free speech)

Please don't assign attributes to people you've never met based on your own beleifs.

Appended: Sorry for my general lack of knowledge of the US constitution, I'm British.

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.

Notice the right to petition the government and free speech are two separate rights. Nothing about "morality" in there.

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.
This should start some discussion. How do you know what speech, exactly the founders wanted to outlaw?

I would regard it as a joke if those organisations (nice how you put a business, Playboy, in with Black Panthers and the KKK) were not able to say what they wanted to.

You can't silence people just because you don't agree with them!

Thats because the founding fathers never dreamed that they'd see the sick and evil groups we see today. They never thought they'd see rednecks in robes killing people becuase of their skin or the opposite. They never thought they'd see evil atheists attacking religion. They never thought they'd see sodomites attacking the true definition of marraige. They never thought they'd see sluts on tv promoting immorality. They never thought they'd see old men making boy rape websites. The founding fathers never dreamed of the evil we have today.

We're still waiting for proof of your accusations. Link to the places on his site where he said that. It shouldn't be so hard.

Thats because the founding fathers never dreamed that they'd see the sick and evil groups we see today. They never thought they'd see rednecks in robes killing people becuase of their skin or the opposite. They never thought they'd see evil atheists attacking religion. They never thought they'd see sodomites attacking the true definition of marraige. They never thought they'd see sluts on tv promoting immorality. They never thought they'd see old men making boy rape websites. The founding fathers never dreamed of the evil we have today.

And why, pray tell, should we legislate your morality?

Thats because the founding fathers never dreamed that they'd see the sick and evil groups we see today. They never thought they'd see rednecks in robes killing people becuase of their skin or the opposite. They never thought they'd see evil atheists attacking religion. They never thought they'd see sodomites attacking the true definition of marraige. They never thought they'd see sluts on tv promoting immorality. They never thought they'd see old men making boy rape websites. The founding fathers never dreamed of the evil we have today.

Well, that depends on your point of immorality. I don't believe in legislating law based on a religion's laws, so I don't support laws banning porn.

Thats because the founding fathers never dreamed that they'd see the sick and evil groups we see today. They never thought they'd see rednecks in robes killing people becuase of their skin or the opposite. They never thought they'd see evil atheists attacking religion. They never thought they'd see sodomites attacking the true definition of marraige. They never thought they'd see sluts on tv promoting immorality. They never thought they'd see old men making boy rape websites. The founding fathers never dreamed of the evil we have today.

You seem to be incredibly well aware of what people 200 years ago were thinking.

Your constant repetitive slogan of "never thought" does seem to suit though.

If you look at some quotes from Madison and Adams you can tell they wouldn't tolerate the crap we put up with today for a single minute.

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.
Yeah, I think I'll support you in your endeavour to arrest those who disagree with you.

Free speech in the US is a joke. Nowadays evil organizations like playboy, NAMBLA, kkk, black panthers, homosexual fanatics, and the ACLU are protected by "free speech." The founding fathers didn't want groups like this protected by free speech. They just wanted people to be able to protest the government peacefully.
Pornography is very evil. It promotes adultury, lust, and immorality. The ACLU is just another hate group, and so is evil.
Maybe you should go back to Fred Phelps' congregation, where you belong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385868

If you look at some quotes from Madison and Adams you can tell they wouldn't tolerate the crap we put up with today for a single minute.
Indeed: breach of the wall of separation of church and state, for example.

If you look at some quotes from Madison and Adams you can tell they wouldn't tolerate the crap we put up with today for a single minute.
what makes you so sure they'd tolerate you?

playa hata!!!!1!

Wow, the US left now has a response to Ann Coulter?

Who'd have thunk it???

I've never heard of the guy, but yeah, he sounds like an idiot/nutcase.
he is nowhere near ann coulter, all she does is insult and spew venom, she has never stated a fact in her life. ted rall may be an anti-bush crackpot but he tells it how it is and he tells the truth

For all you atheists information, nowhere in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state thats ACLU propaganda actually read the constitution.

If you look at some quotes from Madison and Adams you can tell they wouldn't tolerate the crap we put up with today for a single minute.
Actually I think Washington has better quotes to look at than Madison.

For all you atheists information, nowhere in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state thats ACLU propaganda actually read the constitution.
what are you? the head dumbass?

No I can actually read. And I found no seperation of church and state.

No I can actually read. And I found no seperation of church and state.
read my ass, "the aclu made up seperation of church and state" i wouldnt think you could read since you have no idea where it came from

and to boot, reading, good job, we know you passed 3rd grade, hows your reading COMPREHENSION?

1st amendment: "no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise there of"


you are obviously too dumb for me to bother breaking it down so ill cut it short.

people can practice whatever religion t hey want, but once the government starts dictating what they can and cant do the are violating the establishment clause, there is an INHERENT seperation of church and state

For all you atheists information, nowhere in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state thats ACLU propaganda actually read the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
it doesn't say it word for word, but what can you expect from a document 200 years old?

Pornography is very evil. It promotes adultury, lust, and immorality. The ACLU is just another hate group, and so is evil.
The playboy thing is funny, the ACLU bit is just sad.

In what way, would you say, is the ACLU a hate group?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
it doesn't say it word for word, but what can you expect from a document 200 years old?
Indeed, and I'm pretty sure that if the US Congress did what Commando2 wants it to do, it would deeply, and repetitively, breach the above law.

Well, the ACLU wants to destroy christianity. That seems pretty hateful to me.

And what the constitution was talking about was it didn't want America to have an official church like Englands Anglican church. That doesn't mean it can't promote the religion 80% of the country follows.

Well, the ACLU wants to destroy christianity. That seems pretty hateful to me.

And what the constitution was talking about was it didn't want America to have an official church like Englands Anglican church. That doesn't mean it can't promote the religion 80% of the country follows.

Is the church too incompetent to promote its own goddamn religion?

Well, the ACLU wants to destroy christianity. That seems pretty hateful to me.

And what the constitution was talking about was it didn't want America to have an official church like Englands Anglican church. That doesn't mean it can't promote the religion 80% of the country follows.
whoah, we have king of the lunatics here

1) the aclu has protected religion as much as it has fought against its intrusion in our lives

2) PROMOTING A RELIGION IS AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE FOOL

Promoting and establishing are completely different.

No I can actually read. And I found no seperation of church and state.
For a bonus point, can you tell us where the quote actually came from then?

Was it
A) scrawled on the back of a napkin at the ACLU's biannual meeting to decide how to make life a little less bearable for honest, hardworking christian folk?

Or B) written in a letter from one of the people who helped write the constuition to a priest as part of an explaination of religion's place in government?

Promoting and establishing are completely different.
ESTABLISH IS NOT BEING USED IN THE VERB FORM, i thought you knew how to read?

it an ESTABLISHMENT, thats a fucking noun. the VERB is RESPECTING

whoah, we have king of the lunatics here

1) the aclu has protected religion as much as it has fought against its intrusion in our lives

ACLU protects religion (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)

and it does it again (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)

three times (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)

Well, the ACLU wants to destroy christianity. That seems pretty hateful to me.
Seeing as you're a big fan of reading things:
http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

Can you find burning churches and banning the Bible in this mission statement? Also, take a look at the bits in bold. You see a head nod towards freedom of religion?

And what the constitution was talking about was it didn't want America to have an official church like Englands Anglican church. That doesn't mean it can't promote the religion 80% of the country follows.
It wanted to encourage a separation, so that no-one of any faith would be treated unequally and to make sure that the government didn't encourage a public show of piety as a substitute for actual action.

Explain this to me then-

"I think, of all of the laws governing our land, the 10 commandments are the ones that are most important to us as a people"
-John Adams

Explain this to me then-

"I think, of all of the laws governing our land, the 10 commandments are the ones that are most important to us as a people"
-John Adams
he didnt write or even help write the constitution, nor was he a president anyone gave 2 craps about

however he was ironically an ambassador that signed a document that said "In no way is the government of the united states based on christianity" or something to that sort. Treaty of Tripoli (barbarous treaties) Article 11

Jefferson:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

Explain this to me then-

"I think, of all of the laws governing our land, the 10 commandments are the ones that are most important to us as a people"
-John Adams
I would submit that he is talking about the people, the public, of whom most were men and women of faith. However, that doesn't mean that he was saying that the 10 commandments were a part of the government or that they should be a part of the government or should in any way dictate the actions that a government takes or the laws that it passes.

Regardless, this so called seperation is to protect the peoples right to practice a religion freely right? Then how come Christianity is being diescriminated against? Public school students are taught about Hannuka and made dradels in 1st/2nd grade, but Jesus is not mentioned once. And Christmas songs are being banned from winter concerts(thanks to the ACLU). And the boy scouts can't recieve donations from the army(thanks to the ACLU).

Regardless, this so called seperation is to protect the peoples right to practice a religion freely right? Then how come Christianity is being diescriminated against? Public school students are taught about Hannuka and made dradels in 1st/2nd grade, but Jesus is not mentioned once. And Christmas songs are being banned from winter concerts(thanks to the ACLU). And the boy scouts can't recieve donations from the army(thanks to the ACLU).
The boy scouts is an organisation that descriminates against gays and atheists. They're perfectly entitled to do that, but not to recieve public money at the same time.

If Christianity isn't being taught in schools to an equal level as other religions, then some teachers aren't reading the syllabus properly.

Hey commando2, the 2nd amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Anyway, quit promoting your right-wing fanatical BS. People should be able to say what they want without worrying about people like you censoring the media, like was done in Nazi Germany. No offense to any Nazi's out there, but they did burn books that disagreed with them, and censored the radio, newspaper, and such.
Plus, if your a Christian, which you seem to be, you shouldn't pass judgement upon non-believers,because the Bible says

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves that wicked person'."

James 4:11-12 "Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and destroy. Who are you to judge another?"

So, first off don't misrepresent the Constitution, and Secondly, do not apply your values to others, also, don't misrepresent religious people, we aren't all right-wingers. I personally think it is up to the individual what they do or don't do, as long as it is legal, and I don't judge nonChristians.

"Blos mir einen", buddy

Regardless, this so called seperation is to protect the peoples right to practice a religion freely right? Then how come Christianity is being diescriminated against? Public school students are taught about Hannuka and made dradels in 1st/2nd grade, but Jesus is not mentioned once. And Christmas songs are being banned from winter concerts(thanks to the ACLU). And the boy scouts can't recieve donations from the army(thanks to the ACLU).

1. Never made a dreidel. Don't know what you're talking about.
2. THere's nothing wrong about teaching about a religion objectively for historical content.

Jefferson:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
Thats right, its answer B!

The bonus point goes to New Genoa.

BS I was a boy scout they discriminated against no one. They don't allow gay people to lead groups because they might molest the children. That is hardly discrimination, just a precaution. And it doesn't discriminate against atheists either. If anything atheists are discriminating against it.

BS I was a boy scout they discriminated against no one. They don't allow gay people to lead groups because they might molest the children.For that, you should just crawl into a little hole of bigottry and slowly disintegrate.

I said might. Not will. And it certainly is a possibility, as it has happened before. Prove to me it will never happen again.

I said might. Not will. And it certainly is a possibility, as it has happened before. Prove to me it will never happen again.
Why is it more likely with gay scoutmasters than straight ones? What justification can you have for banning gay scoutmasters that couldn't be used to ban all of them?

I think the statistic is something like 98% of all pedorasts are hetrosexual men.

I said might. Not will. And it certainly is a possibility, as it has happened before. Prove to me it will never happen again.

I give you my word that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than clergymen are. :p

BS I was a boy scout they discriminated against no one. They don't allow gay people to lead groups because they might molest the children. That is hardly discrimination, just a precaution. And it doesn't discriminate against atheists either. If anything atheists are discriminating against it.

AAAAAAAHHHH HA HA HA HA HAHA HAAAAAAAAAA!!

New flash Junior. Boy Scouts get molested anyways, and the scoutmasters responsible don't go advertising their taste for little boys. Hell, most of them don't even see themselves as homosexual.

:upyours:

I give you my word that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than clergymen are. :p
Lol

Seeing as you're a big fan of reading things:
http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm


The ACLU has its own agenda. Despite its claim to be supporting the Bill of Rights as established by the first ten amendments, it has explicitly avoided supporting the 2nd Amendment.

When they step forward and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of "the people", and define "the people" in the 2nd Amendment as being the same "the people" in the rest of the Constitution, it will then be fair to say that they have no agenda other than to strictly uphold our rights under the Constitution.

Until then, they are picking and choosing what rights they even think we have, if we have any at all.

he didnt write or even help write the constitution, nor was he a president anyone gave 2 craps about

however he was ironically an ambassador that signed a document that said "In no way is the government of the united states based on christianity" or something to that sort. Treaty of Tripoli (barbarous treaties) Article 11
Do people give two craps about George Washington?


Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

I am sorry if my comment sounded offensive.

Chess squares you never cess to amaze me. Are you Ted Rall, because honestly your opinions and beliefs are as misguided as his. For all the people saying it is free speech and under the current judicial dictates it is, must recognize that the free speech that is granted nowadays to Americans was not always the case. There were many laws and dictates stating one did not have entirely free speech hence the arresting of dissenters in WW1 and the Civil War. He is correct in stating that the majority of the Founders did not support the free speech Americans have now. Though I do treasure the speech granted now. Ted Rall is pig headed and incorrect in his opinions but yet I think one should allow it basically to realize how ignorant people can be and also for amusement(In how can one actually believe what he is spewing).

Who is Ted Rall and why does anyone care?

Pat Tillman was killed by his fellow solders in a screwed up fire fight and then the Army falsified the whole incident and gave Tillman a fraudulent Silver Star. Tillmam died because a shorthanded over extended Army put him into combat with in a poorly trained unit with incompetent officers.

Was Tillman a hero? Perhaps, but he didn't die a hero's death, he died a senseless one.

Pat Tillman was killed by his fellow solders in a screwed up fire fight and then the Army falsified the whole incident and gave Tillman a fraudulent Silver Star. Tillmam died because a shorthanded over extended Army put him into combat with in a poorly trained unit with incompetent officers.

Was Tillman a hero? Perhaps, but he didn't die a hero's death, he died a senseless one.

It would be hard to cast Rangers as "poorly trained". Chaos is something that happens in combat, and regardless of how well trained you might be in peacetime, you can't guarantee that these things won't happen in combat.

I've read the citation. It doesn't seem falsified to me.

As for officers, there's no guarantee they're bright, either. Do you know how officers come to be? A decision was made long ago that anyone with a bachelor's degree was somehow brighter than the average man, and therefore deserving of a position of leadership. It's been this way for decades.

So they get intellectuals (like the people on this board), talk them into wearing a uniform, and tell them to lead men in combat.

If you're lucky, the intellectual removes his head from his rectum (where it was placed at university) before you get into combat.

I disagree. Many have their heads tucked into their rectums in High School.

That liberal scumbag Ted Rall ticks me off so much. Wether he mocks the families of 911 victims, supports Osama Bin Laden, or laughs at the deaths of heroes like Pat Tillman, Ted Rall never fails to piss me off. This piece of crap is even worse than Michael Moore, which is truly amazing. I've sent a million e-mails to this prick telling him to turn himself in for treason and cowardly Ted Rall hasn't even responded. Even for the crap liberal New York Times, hiring Ted Rall is a disgrace. Rall referred to Condi Rice as a n*gga, said an awesome president and good Christian like Reagan was going to hell, and is just plain annoying. I wish Zell Miller could duel him and kick his liberal ass. Ted Rall is an admitted marxist too. So why doesn't he build a time machine and go back to Soviet Russia and do us all a favor. This baby killing elitist hippie also said he supported the veit kong. Stupid traitor.
Dude, just be quiet. I happen to like Ted Rall very much; and since when is he a baby-killer, or an elitest. He makes his money from making comics, for crying out loud. He never called Condoleeza Rice a N***er; show some proof if you make comments like that.

The ACLU has its own agenda. Despite its claim to be supporting the Bill of Rights as established by the first ten amendments, it has explicitly avoided supporting the 2nd Amendment.

When they step forward and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of "the people", and define "the people" in the 2nd Amendment as being the same "the people" in the rest of the Constitution, it will then be fair to say that they have no agenda other than to strictly uphold our rights under the Constitution.

Until then, they are picking and choosing what rights they even think we have, if we have any at all.
Maybe because, oh, I don't know, THE FUCKING NATIONAL GUARD IS ALL IT CURRENTLY APPLIES TO!

Ya see, there's the thing about a well-regulated militia, that part that is always ignored. The 2nd amendment applies to a well-regulated militia. Nothing else. If you can get a well-regulated militia, fine. But a bunch of people aren't a well-regulated militia.

Maybe because, oh, I don't know, THE FUCKING NATIONAL GUARD IS ALL IT CURRENTLY APPLIES TO!

Ya see, there's the thing about a well-regulated militia, that part that is always ignored. The 2nd amendment applies to a well-regulated militia. Nothing else. If you can get a well-regulated militia, fine. But a bunch of people aren't a well-regulated militia.

Unfortunately, you're wrong.

It applies to "the people". There are three subjects to the Constitution - the Federal Government, the States, and the People. It's an apportionment of who has which rights.

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you want "the people" to mean something else, then we can eliminate the rest of your rights using the same argument.

It might also be noted that according to Federal law, the "militia" is ALL male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.

So pony up those guns right now, because technically, I AM IN THE MILITIA.

Maybe because, oh, I don't know, THE FUCKING NATIONAL GUARD IS ALL IT CURRENTLY APPLIES TO!

Ya see, there's the thing about a well-regulated militia, that part that is always ignored. The 2nd amendment applies to a well-regulated militia. Nothing else. If you can get a well-regulated militia, fine. But a bunch of people aren't a well-regulated militia.
The 2nd amendment has taken a course somewhat similar to the first. While there may not be an explicit separation of church and state lined out in the Constitution, it has come to be accepted that that is what the 1st amendment means. Similiarly, while there may be no explicit language giving the right to own a gun to every American, it has come to generally be accepted that the 2nd amendment gives one.

Chess squares you never cess to amaze me. Are you Ted Rall, because honestly your opinions and beliefs are as misguided as his. For all the people saying it is free speech and under the current judicial dictates it is, must recognize that the free speech that is granted nowadays to Americans was not always the case. There were many laws and dictates stating one did not have entirely free speech hence the arresting of dissenters in WW1 and the Civil War. He is correct in stating that the majority of the Founders did not support the free speech Americans have now. Though I do treasure the speech granted now. Ted Rall is pig headed and incorrect in his opinions but yet I think one should allow it basically to realize how ignorant people can be and also for amusement(In how can one actually believe what he is spewing).
have you read anything rall has written and looked at it from a non "ZOMG LIBERALS ARE EVIL THEY ARE THE DEVIL TRYING TO KILL THE CHURCH!!!@@#!!" point of view?

It might also be noted that according to Federal law, the "militia" is ALL male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.

So pony up those guns right now, because technically, I AM IN THE MILITIA.
But is it well-regulated? Thought so.

JB has a point. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to grant rights to the people, but to limit the powers of government. It's all in the phrasing. Especially the first ten.

Here's the Second Amentment:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The question is in the emphasis which is impossible to tell from paper. However, when we examine the wording and phrasing from the other ten amendments, it's easy to see that the point of this isn't just that a Well Regulated Militia is necessary and members of which has the right to bear arms.

It is saying that:

A: A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

B: THEREFORE, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is related to the importance of a militia, but the wording is very specific in keeping them separate statements.

JB has a point. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to grant rights to the people, but to limit the powers of government. It's all in the phrasing. Especially the first ten.

Here's the Second Amentment:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The question is in the emphasis which is impossible to tell from paper. However, when we examine the wording and phrasing from the other ten amendments, it's easy to see that the point of this isn't just that a Well Regulated Militia is necessary and members of which has the right to bear arms.

It is saying that:

A: A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

B: THEREFORE, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is related to the importance of a militia, but the wording is very specific in keeping them separate statements.


In light of what they wrote in the Federalist Papers, and in the writings of George Mason (who is the man who thought up the 2nd Amendment), it's even easier to see that they had the idea that the people have the right to form their own militia - and they have the right to individually own weapons.

In 1876, the Supreme Court held that we have certain rights even if they are in future forbidden by law - that freedom of speech is equal and concomitant with the freedom to bear arms.