NationStates Jolt Archive

No, wait, seriously, hold on, I can prove it.

Look at these cases:

Washington v Virginia Dentalle Prosthysys Shoppe, Majorative opinion by Justice J. Jay, wherein he stated "It is apparent to the court that forgetting to varnish wooden teeth prior to installation must hurt like a fucking crown of thorns on the head of Jesus himself."

Father Corken O'Boise v US Department of Education Majorative opinion by Justice Bushrod Washington, whose central thesis of majorative opinion was "No, Father O'Boise, Jesus did not like to 'slip a little fist of love' to the young of his flock." In order for Jesus to actively refrain from manual anal sex with children, he must have existed. Thus, SCOTUS acknowledges the existence if not YET the divinity of Christ. See next case.

State of New York vs A Pimp Named Slickback Majorative Opinion by Judge Lucius "Quintus Cincinattus" Lamar, who, during oral arguments, said "You dumb trick ass motherfucker, the 14th amendment GIVES me the right to set yo' shit straight, Holy Jesus, donchoo know that, bitch?" Notice, the Justice said Holy Jesus.

and most recently:

Scalia vs Everybody Else Minority Opinion by Justice Scalia wherein he wrote "The Establishment Clause is NOT a bulldozer to remove all religion from Goverment, and when Jesus gets here, he's going to wreck all your shit up."

QED, Satanists.

And the ad says "The God Who Wasn't There," "irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed." lol

Its only the supreme court.

And the ad says "The God Who Wasn't There," "irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed." lol

Oh yeah? Well, my town has fifteen new Mormon billboards that say Jesus Christ DID exist, and came to North America and played lacrosse with the mayans.

Non-existant people don't score 11 points in overtime against Xoxocooctot, dude.

Its only the supreme court.

"Only" and "supreme" are immiscible.

"Supreme" means exactly what it implies: Regular plus sour cream and tomato.

"Only" and "supreme" are immiscible.

"Supreme" means exactly what it implies: Regular plus sour cream and tomato.
Only sour cream and tomato? Just who do you think you're fooling? It isn't supreme without pork products, and if you're trying to stiff me on the bacon bits again, I will tear several new ones where there weren't ones before.

I'm pretty certain supreme has to contain olives, by law.

Only sour cream and tomato? Just who do you think you're fooling? It isn't supreme without pork products, and if you're trying to stiff me on the bacon bits again, I will tear several new ones where there weren't ones before.

Sorry, Fidds, but it was ruled by Justice Felix "Hebrew National" Frankfurter that the court don't eat nothin' that ain't got "the sense to disregard its own feces"*.


*taken from Amicus Curae by S.L. Jackson.

Christian is pretty happy about this, his brother Mike isn't quite so upbeat.

I'm pretty certain supreme has to contain olives, by law.

In the famous dissent between Justices Wiley "Blount" Rutledge and Harold "Hitz" Burton, it was determined that olives kill the buzz, yo.

Also, according to the 1947 case, State of New York vs, Kris Kringle, the existence of Santa Claus was confirmed by the United States of America when the US Post Office attempted to deliver christmas letters to Kris Kringle at the court. I wonder where they deliver letters for God. Hmm...

Sorry, Fidds, but it was ruled by Justice Felix "Hebrew National" Frankfurter that the court don't eat nothin' that ain't got "the sense to disregard its own feces"*.


*taken from Amicus Curae by S.L. Jackson.
If that is true, then how do you explain Scalia's habit of breakfasting on a sack full of puppies every morning?

If that is true, then how do you explain Scalia's habit of breakfasting on a sack full of puppies every morning?

Dogs don't disregard feces. In fact, some of them hold feces in particularly high regard. *nod*

If that is true, then how do you explain Scalia's habit of breakfasting on a sack full of puppies every morning?

Scalia was very clear in qualifying his opinion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Scalia was very clear in qualifying his opinion: "Do as I say, not as I do."
Damn you and your cunning, legal mind. I only wish to know one more thing: which law school did you graduate from, and what is the address of the University President so that I may send him due congratulations and letter bombs?

Damn you and your cunning, legal mind. I only wish to know one more thing: which law school did you graduate from, and what is the address of the University President so that I may send him due congratulations and letter bombs?

I, like most prominent legal minds, graduated from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, to which I received a scholarship given mostly out of spite.

The current President and Board prefer to remain anonymous, and by tradition they address the faculty and students via bathroom graffitti.

Scalia vs Everybody Else Minority Opinion by Justice Scalia wherein he wrote "The Establishment Clause is NOT a bulldozer to remove all religion from Goverment, and when Jesus gets here, he's going to wreck all your shit up."


Fucking win.

of course the US is a christian nation. What ever gave someone the idea that is wasnt? The idea that a president must be christian to be ellected? The "one nation under god" part of the pledge? The power of the christian lobby?

This isnt to say that the US should be a Christian nation but really why is that news

Scalia vs Everybody Else Minority Opinion by Justice Scalia wherein he wrote "The Establishment Clause is NOT a bulldozer to remove all religion from Goverment, and when Jesus gets here, he's going to wreck all your shit up."


...you know, this one is barely even satire. :tongue:

...you know, this one is barely even satire. :tongue:

Well, my satire kung fu is not strong, here.

Frisbee even deleted an entire thread of mine, designating it as "attempted satire = fail".

Well, my satire kung fu is not strong, here.

Frisbee even deleted an entire thread of mine, designating it as "attempted satire = fail".

That was a dark day indeed.

Also, lol.

"Only" and "supreme" are immiscible.

"Supreme" means exactly what it implies: Regular plus sour cream and tomato.

*doubled over, pounding fist on desk from laughter*

Thank you....

Only sour cream and tomato? Just who do you think you're fooling? It isn't supreme without pork products, and if you're trying to stiff me on the bacon bits again, I will tear several new ones where there weren't ones before.

Dammit, there's something funny I should be able to say about this line, and I'm just not in the right frame of mind to generate it. I blame the Convention coverage.

Also, according to the 1947 case, State of New York vs, Kris Kringle, the existence of Santa Claus was confirmed by the United States of America when the US Post Office attempted to deliver christmas letters to Kris Kringle at the court. I wonder where they deliver letters for God. Hmm...

According to some of my friends, Neil Peart's house.

Uhu... your money has references to God on it, IIRC your pledge does (or at least sometimes?), any politician who wants to get into office anywhere decent will be pretty Christful in the run-up, and about 80% of the population are self-declared Christians IIRC. How would it not be a Christian nation?

...Bushrod? Seriously? That sounds like a frat boy nickname or something.

According to some of my friends, Neil Peart's house.
I gotta admit he's good. But your friends are sadly mistaken. Everyone knows that Clapton is god. So is it written in graffiti so shall it be!

Well, my satire kung fu is not strong, here.

Frisbee even deleted an entire thread of mine, designating it as "attempted satire = fail".

I saw that! Silly Fris. Or, rather, lacking-in-silly Fris.

Non-existant people don't score 11 points in overtime against Xoxocooctot, dude.

Damn, no mortal can score 11 points in overtime against Xoxocooctot.

Damn, no mortal can SPELL Xoxocooctot

I saw that! Silly Fris. Or, rather, lacking-in-silly Fris.

Silly satire is one thing. Satire in the form of abusive personal attacks on a NS player is another, and those will continue to be lock and/or ban worthy.

Silly satire is one thing. Satire in the form of abusive personal attacks on a NS player is another, and those will continue to be lock and/or ban worthy.

Heh, that wasn't exactly intended as a harsh criticism. I didn't see the thread before it was deleted, so I really don't have an opinion beyond, "poo, I would have liked to see what that was before it disappeared." :tongue:

Silly satire is one thing. Satire in the form of abusive personal attacks on a NS player is another, and those will continue to be lock and/or ban worthy.

Is it really your position that the post, taken as a whole, was truly abusive, or even a personal attack?

May I repost it, with the satirical anti-semitism xxxxxed out, but clearly inferable, and see if it would be regarded as such, even by the object of the post?

So it's official that the USA is one nation under God, but is it also God's nation? That is to say, has it been confirmed that the United States are the Promised Land and that the evangelicals are currently God's chosen people? If so, Israel has become obsolete.

As everyone can see The Supreme Court has a long and rich tradition of laughing at the constitution :p :p :p

...Bushrod? Seriously? That sounds like a frat boy nickname or something.Oddly, "Bushrod Washington" is a real name, beloved by law students like "Learned Hand" (better known as "Stupid Foot"), or Felix Frankfurter (alias "Happy Hot Dog").

As everyone can see The Supreme Court has a long and rich tradition of laughing at the constitution

Are you trying to say that your nation's constitution is laughable?

Are you trying to say that your nation's constitution is laughable?

Maybe he wasn't trying. Anyway I'll do.

Your nation's constitution is laughable

Watch me laugh at you constitution.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

and mock you...

:p

Constitutions are twisted attempts from the ruling classes to legitimize injustice and oppression. Laws are instruments of the elites, they will ignore them when they conflict with their interest and apply them to full extend when they find them useful.

Separation of church an state, patriot acts, guam, etc...

like one of the most beloved Mexican presidents once said... Laws are for the enemy.

Beautiful flamebait, Santiago I. Looks like you already triggered a lovely response. And to think that I'm somewhat responsible for it as well, even though it was Exilia and Colonies who started the fun.

Are you telling me that my sarcasm detector has broken again?

Don't feel bad about it. Apparently that happens every few thousand posts.

Don't feel bad about it. Apparently that happens every few thousand posts.

What happens? ;)

What happens? ;)

You take posts seriously and suddenly everyone seems evil

May I repost it, with the satirical anti-semitism xxxxxed out, but clearly inferable, and see if it would be regarded as such, even by the object of the post?

Let's just say "no". There is a broader world beyond NSG. We've got better things to do than satirically ego-slam each other.

Furthermore, there are more than NSG regulars surfing these forums, and not everyone has sufficient history to see that your posts are intended as satirical. If a casual reader sees your post and counters with non-satirical slams, you've made our policing job that much harder. This is not a hypothetical situation either - we deal with it all too often.

No.

You take posts seriously and suddenly everyone seems evil

That and the batteries of the sarcasm detector as well as your mockery scanner die simultaneously.

You take posts seriously and suddenly everyone seems evil

That post flew straight over your head, do you have emoticons disabled or something?

That post flew straight over your head, do you have emoticons disabled or something?

No I just like to post

Furthermore, there are more than NSG regulars surfing these forums, and not everyone has sufficient history to see that your posts are intended as satirical. If a casual reader sees your post and counters with non-satirical slams, you've made our policing job that much harder. This is not a hypothetical situation either - we deal with it all too often.

No.

We need some sort of way to get around this... Maybe we need a specific smiley.

:satire:

Hmmm, didn't work.

Maybe we need a
"WARNING SATIRE AHEAD"
at the top?

Or instead of a 'spoiler' button, a 'satire' button?!

I guess we all should use significantly more smileys in order to make sure that people see the difference between :mad: posts and :p posts, in order to avoid responses of the :upyours: kind.

I guess we all should use significantly more smileys in order to make sure that people see the difference between :mad: posts and :p posts, in order to avoid responses of the :upyours: kind.

Duly edited

We need some sort of way to get around this...

When it involves flaming a NationStates player, no we don't. Focus your satire outwards, please.

NSG n00bz can't repel satire of that magnitude!

http://gregsbigfathead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/windowslivewriterallahackbar-f0f5ackbar2xd-41.jpg

Also, according to the 1947 case, State of New York vs, Kris Kringle, the existence of Santa Claus was confirmed by the United States of America when the US Post Office attempted to deliver christmas letters to Kris Kringle at the court. I wonder where they deliver letters for God. Hmm...

I've been getting them for years now. You'd be surprised how many people send naked pictures of themselves to God.

That's futile. God already knows how you look naked. Since not everyone has the taut body of a super model, God sometimes wishes that he wasn't so darn omniscient.

That's futile. God already knows how you look naked. Since not everyone has the taut body of a super model, God sometimes wishes that he wasn't so darn omniscient.

hahaha

Let's just say "no". There is a broader world beyond NSG. We've got better things to do than satirically ego-slam each other.

Furthermore, there are more than NSG regulars surfing these forums, and not everyone has sufficient history to see that your posts are intended as satirical. If a casual reader sees your post and counters with non-satirical slams, you've made our policing job that much harder. This is not a hypothetical situation either - we deal with it all too often.

No.

So, from reading the post, you really felt it was derogative to Cat Tribe, an "ego-slam"?

Did a "Modest Proposal" really advocate eating children?

Well, a no is a no, but I'd ask you to consider that the post, when read, was not an attack in the form of satirical praise, but praise in the form of satirical attack. I honestly think that was starkly evident.

As to the broader world beyond NSG, its exactly that broader world that makes room for literary technique other than the most obvious.

So, from reading the post, you really felt it was derogative to Cat Tribe, an "ego-slam"?

Did a "Modest Proposal" really advocate eating children?

Well, a no is a no, but I'd ask you to consider that the post, when read, was not an attack in the form of satirical praise, but praise in the form of satirical attack. I honestly think that was starkly evident.

As to the broader world beyond NSG, its exactly that broader world that makes room for literary technique other than the most obvious.

Just for the record, I fully understood the "attack" was praise in the form of satire. Perhaps my ego is too healthy, but I took no offense and was greatly amused. ;)

I do have to admit, however, that I can see why the Mods would feel the need for a general rule against such "attacks," satirical or otherwise. Among the many reasons, it may not always be so clear that the attacks are purely satirical. And other satirists may be more heavy-handed and actually cause offense.

On the topic of the thread, brilliant OP. :hail:

The only thing that keeps me from ROTFLASTC is knowing that John McCain and his ilk actually believe the Constitution established the U.S. as a Christian Nation!!! :eek::eek:

The only thing that keeps me from ROTFLASTC is knowing that John McCain and his ilk actually believe the Constitution established the U.S. as a Christian Nation!!! :eek::eek:
This sounds like it would make a good subject for a Dan Brown novel.
"If you look at Trumbull's painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams is actually Mary Magdalene! Also, notice the crucifix hanging on the wall disguised as crossed swords."

No, wait, seriously, hold on, I can prove it.

Look at these cases:

Washington v Virginia Dentalle Prosthysys Shoppe, Majorative opinion by Justice J. Jay, wherein he stated "It is apparent to the court that forgetting to varnish wooden teeth prior to installation must hurt like a fucking crown of thorns on the head of Jesus himself."

Father Corken O'Boise v US Department of Education Majorative opinion by Justice Bushrod Washington, whose central thesis of majorative opinion was "No, Father O'Boise, Jesus did not like to 'slip a little fist of love' to the young of his flock." In order for Jesus to actively refrain from manual anal sex with children, he must have existed. Thus, SCOTUS acknowledges the existence if not YET the divinity of Christ. See next case.

State of New York vs A Pimp Named Slickback Majorative Opinion by Judge Lucius "Quintus Cincinattus" Lamar, who, during oral arguments, said "You dumb trick ass motherfucker, the 14th amendment GIVES me the right to set yo' shit straight, Holy Jesus, donchoo know that, bitch?" Notice, the Justice said Holy Jesus.

and most recently:

Scalia vs Everybody Else Minority Opinion by Justice Scalia wherein he wrote "The Establishment Clause is NOT a bulldozer to remove all religion from Goverment, and when Jesus gets here, he's going to wreck all your shit up."

QED, Satanists.

You honestly deserve some sort of award for the best use of a legal education ever.

Just for the record, I fully understood the "attack" was praise in the form of satire. Perhaps my ego is too healthy, but I took no offense and was greatly amused. ;)

I do have to admit, however, that I can see why the Mods would feel the need for a general rule against such "attacks," satirical or otherwise. Among the many reasons, it may not always be so clear that the attacks are purely satirical. And other satirists may be more heavy-handed and actually cause offense.


I appreciate your praise, but I'm so tired of the way you support reasonable moderate excercise of authority for genuine purposes of preserving rational discourse. A broad and contextually cognizant grasp of regulation in its intent and consequence is NOT what a lawyer should be touting.

This sounds like it would make a good subject for a Dan Brown novel.
"If you look at Trumbull's painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams is actually Mary Magdalene! Also, notice the crucifix hanging on the wall disguised as crossed swords."

Kirk Cameron can play the lead in the movie version...

So, from reading the post, you really felt it was derogative to Cat Tribe, an "ego-slam"?

Did a "Modest Proposal" really advocate eating children?

Well, a no is a no, but I'd ask you to consider that the post, when read, was not an attack in the form of satirical praise, but praise in the form of satirical attack. I honestly think that was starkly evident.

As to the broader world beyond NSG, its exactly that broader world that makes room for literary technique other than the most obvious.

Psst...did you happen to save a copy of this post? Can it be TG'd? ;)

Psst...did you happen to save a copy of this post? Can it be TG'd? ;)

I TG'd it to Cat himself. Dunno if he saved it to forward.

Please don't whisper in my hear. It makes it hard for me to stand up from my desk in half an hour.

No, wait, seriously, hold on, I can prove it.

Look at these cases:

Washington v Virginia Dentalle Prosthysys Shoppe, Majorative opinion by Justice J. Jay, wherein he stated "It is apparent to the court that forgetting to varnish wooden teeth prior to installation must hurt like a fucking crown of thorns on the head of Jesus himself."

Father Corken O'Boise v US Department of Education Majorative opinion by Justice Bushrod Washington, whose central thesis of majorative opinion was "No, Father O'Boise, Jesus did not like to 'slip a little fist of love' to the young of his flock." In order for Jesus to actively refrain from manual anal sex with children, he must have existed. Thus, SCOTUS acknowledges the existence if not YET the divinity of Christ. See next case.

State of New York vs A Pimp Named Slickback Majorative Opinion by Judge Lucius "Quintus Cincinattus" Lamar, who, during oral arguments, said "You dumb trick ass motherfucker, the 14th amendment GIVES me the right to set yo' shit straight, Holy Jesus, donchoo know that, bitch?" Notice, the Justice said Holy Jesus.

and most recently:

Scalia vs Everybody Else Minority Opinion by Justice Scalia wherein he wrote "The Establishment Clause is NOT a bulldozer to remove all religion from Goverment, and when Jesus gets here, he's going to wreck all your shit up."

QED, Satanists.

Damnit if i didn't leave my good supplements to this at a different domicile.
That, and my new browser sucks donkey.