Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]


BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Richard Bridge 16 Jun 15 - 04:51 AM
Musket 16 Jun 15 - 04:07 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Jun 15 - 03:48 AM
Musket 16 Jun 15 - 03:45 AM
GUEST,Allan Conn 16 Jun 15 - 02:54 AM
akenaton 16 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM
akenaton 16 Jun 15 - 02:22 AM
Richard Bridge 16 Jun 15 - 12:59 AM
Bill D 15 Jun 15 - 10:54 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Jun 15 - 08:19 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 07:55 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 07:47 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 07:07 PM
Musket 15 Jun 15 - 06:09 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Jun 15 - 05:53 PM
Donuel 15 Jun 15 - 04:45 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 04:16 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Jun 15 - 04:04 PM
Donuel 15 Jun 15 - 03:13 PM
Musket 15 Jun 15 - 02:46 PM
Greg F. 15 Jun 15 - 02:40 PM
Musket 15 Jun 15 - 02:34 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 02:27 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 02:15 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 01:39 PM
Musket 15 Jun 15 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 12:44 PM
GUEST 15 Jun 15 - 12:32 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 12:26 PM
olddude 15 Jun 15 - 12:24 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Jun 15 - 11:40 AM
akenaton 15 Jun 15 - 11:38 AM
Greg F. 15 Jun 15 - 11:03 AM
Richard Bridge 15 Jun 15 - 09:30 AM
Greg F. 15 Jun 15 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 15 Jun 15 - 05:56 AM
Richard Bridge 15 Jun 15 - 02:29 AM
Amos 15 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Jun 15 - 01:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Jun 15 - 10:22 PM
olddude 14 Jun 15 - 10:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Jun 15 - 08:37 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Jun 15 - 08:28 PM
olddude 14 Jun 15 - 08:01 PM
Amos 14 Jun 15 - 08:00 PM
olddude 14 Jun 15 - 07:58 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:51 AM

Musket, I hope that an application for security for costs has been made. If it was refused, what were the grounds?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:07 AM

Just as a point to that. The Dept of Health and Public Health England (speaking purely UK here, and this also applies to the rest of The UK) does have a policy in line with what Steve says.

However, unlike people in spheres of influence such as those setting the policies of faith schools, NHS people cannot be judgmental. As I type, the sexual health services of the CCG for Buckinghamshire is facing a judicial review of its freely available contraception service by a consortium of religious interests. To date, as you cannot ignore the action, that's over £300K in legal fees. Money that has to be taken from front line services. The real costs haven't even started yet. If it goes to court, the actual consortium rather cleverly does not have any assets (it's costs to date are paid for by voluntary donations and is constituted to not make those controlling it liable) so once this nonsense is halted in court, the CCG (patients, tax payer, call it what you will) will not be able to recover the costs.


Nice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:48 AM

Bill has not missed any points. His post on abortion is right on the money. I'd add that we could try much harder to reduce the numbers of abortions by means of free availability of contraception, along with contraceptive advice of a practical and strictly non-moralising nature, and of much better education for relationships in schools (to which priests and imams and the like are not invited to contribute).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:45 AM

Allan makes a perfectly reasonable point and in doing so, takes all the fun out of the thread.

Sorry, I was under the impression this was a "walk round and view the exhibits" thread. It totally fascinates me that both countries can have a decent education system but superstition still lingers as an alternative to discovering reality.

The real world is far more exciting and "wondrous" than the parochial narrow take on existence as printed in the bible, Q'ran, Talmud or Lord of the Rings.

Mind you, it doesn't just need superstition in order to confuse yourself. Interesting post above, pointing out a moral question but then saying it isn't anything to do with morals. I suppose if he had enough typewriters he could eventually post Hamlet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:54 AM

It is sad but typical in the way this thread quickly deteriorated with really both sides to blame but there was no need for it. I am not talking about individuals' posting history on other threads etc just this thread! It is clear that Richard's initial few posts do not suggest that a judge's ability to sit in judgement of other people should be questioned just because he has personal religious beliefs! The question was whether you could have faith in someone's ability to tell truth from fiction or fantasy if those beliefs were of a fundamentalist creationist tendency! It may be a cultural thing but I think here in the UK most people, many religious as well as non religious people, would worry about fundamentalist extremists being in such positions! If someone can dismiss the entire modern science of archaeology (and that is just one the sciences being dismissed by creationists) then how could you trust their judgement in other matters. That seems to be Richard's point. You may not agree with his point but it is a perfectly valid point to make! What we get though is heated debate with eventually personal insults thrown about by both sides of the debate. Come on guys surely we can discuss things in a better way than this?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM

I would also point out that in the UK, modern society has determined that the production of children by women without recognised partners is a means of attaining a much higher standard of living.

I think our sense of personal responsibility is being rapidly eroded?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:22 AM

Bill, I think you miss the point, most people take the view that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances.....but modern society is moving towards the use of abortion as a convenience.
This has more to do with modern economics than morality.

It seems clear to me that "life" begins with conception I don't see how any scientist(and this forum seems to be full of them), can disagree. It is simply more convenient for the "abortion on demand" lobby to claim that a baby is not a baby until the moment of birth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 12:59 AM

Oldtwat - your country, alas, is probably the most powerful in the world. Yet it is alarmingly primitive and dangerous in too many respects. It deserves the criticism. I have worked there, in New York and Hollywood and have no desire to return. It is a danger to the rest of the world, both economically and militarily. And you sound more and more like Sheriff J. W. Pepper with each post.

I no longer post about UK politics only because the (US based) mods routinely delete any threads about UK politics before they get started.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 10:54 PM

Pete..."Bill, whose freedom to choose....certainly not the child in the womb ?"

**Child** is a loaded word until about the 20th week of pregnancy. Before that it is a zygote, then a fetus. Even then a fetus needs to be over about 24 weeks to have a 50-50 chance of survival. The statistics are available for everyone, but people differ about the relevance of them.
If one 'believes' that a zygote receives a 'soul' at conception, they treat abortion one way, if the believe that only a child after birth receives a soul, they see it differently, and if they do not think that 'soul' applies to anyone, it is entirely a different matter.

In any case, 'choice' is not something relevant an unborn of any stage. People of different cultures have treated the choice that parents & other adults make in many ways. Like all subjective issues, opinions differ.
We can agree that abortion is not a happy solution to a problem, but neither is war.. or theft.. or lying. Different problems require adjustment of one's moral guide. If you wish to say 'no' to ALL abortions, you severely limit choice about important issues. Even so, those who DO have religious objections to abortion should be allowed to follow those beliefs... in their own case! It is like other subjective views, religious & otherwise, it is personal and should not be decided by clergy, community, friends, or media. It is something for the parents.. especially the woman... to decide.
We have fairly good birth control to help avoid the problem...(except for genetic problems, rape, incest...etc.) but the issue will ALWAYS be there, and no one can design one single rule to cover everything. 25 years ago, *I* had to help make the decision when a planned pregnancy was determined to be not viable. It was about the saddest thing I can imagine, but there was no way around it. You might ask God why such things happen. I just treat it as bad luck. Such things happen to good Christians, good atheists and good agnostics. The decision is for each one to make.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 08:19 PM

Are you at least as intelligent as George Bush? I think we should be told...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:55 PM

I am now done playing with you so I will bid you farewell. If you want to be an American then apply and you will have a vote and the right to debate our system of government. Since I do have connections to the government, highest levels I may say, i probably can help you with the citizen issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:47 PM

Country envy I guess, can't think of any other reason to concern yourself with another countries laws or government. A wanna be yank I guess. Hoorah god, guns and country


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:07 PM

Richard or should I call you dick. You seem to want to be American as every post is about our country. Real easy put your hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution. Which does include the 2nd admendment by the way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 06:09 PM

On a related subject.

A senior Vatican official has been arrested for abusing children in the name of God in Latin America

The bad news? He is to be tried in a Vatican court. The same Vatican that protected him till the pressure became too much.

Superstition and courts. They go together like farts and astronaut suits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 05:53 PM

Donuel, stay safe somewhere. I never can see any rationality in anything you post. But I think your heart is in the right place. Maybe. Maybe you intend to refer to Don Rickles - of whom I had never heard until today.

Oldtwat - you really don't need any answer. Your gibberish lost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:45 PM

Rich

I knew Don Riccles, you are no Don Riccles. Still you do a good parody of a mean fool. At least I hope it is a parody.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:16 PM

I see you took a break from scaring little children Richard to answer me Lol


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:04 PM

Pete, there is NO serious scientific support for creationism. None. The whole concept is a fantasy. You have been shown this in this very site by a well qualified person - but you will not listen. Go back to la-la-land.

Oldtwat - when you have learned to formulate an insult, I may rise to one. Right now your invitations to blow you are unlikely to have a beneficial effect on your nonagenarian soggy egg noodle. All you are demonstrating is your own stupidity. You have not earned any mark of respect. Quite the converse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 03:13 PM

A man's perspective is as great as his singular or multi sourced perspective.
As for Scalia goes, his written opinion on torture is illuminating.
He said that since torture always worked for Jack in the book 24, torture is a valid and useful tool.

Case closed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:46 PM

You can cream on prescription for the fantods.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:40 PM

You MUST be kidding me.

Sorry, Richard, but its all frighteningly true.

Even more terryfying is that 75%+ of that 101 million plus are members of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and so vote.

Now, if that there ain't enough to give ya the fantods.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:34 PM

Bloody hell. Everyone should have a view on emotive matters such as abortion, however, stupid comments such as "evolutionary religious" are not befitting of any adult debate.

This is a moral issue. Far above superstition, so leave your silly comments for fellow God botherers eh pete? Moral dilemmas require sober mature input, not make believe fantasy.

Regard slime. Live with it. The word you are looking for is, I believe, "primordial."

Anyway? What do you think everybody and everything must have been descended from? If we are in the image of your imaginary friend, I am Loki g over the bar at my mate, who is, let's face it, adorning the sort of face you never tire of kicking. Surely, this god character could have done better than him? Mind you, if he looks a bit like me, fair play to him. We both know perfection.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:27 PM

And it's Mr old twat to you sir. I earned it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:15 PM

Tell me, does that curly powered wig make you feel like lady Gaga? My wife has a little black dress you can borrow


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:39 PM

Don't be hard on him pete. The word on the street is if you tug his beard three times, your wish is granted


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:28 PM

You have millions, we have pete.

Luckily, nobody asks him to to anything more complicated than use a tin opener.

I can imagine the clerk of the Supreme Court trying to explain things to this sub intelligent judge in the Father Ted fashion, with a picture of two small cows.

"This is a small cow. This cow is far away."

I would show pete some evolution, but he clearly makes me pause, judging by his bizzare post above. Most humans evolve past that stage once they realise going swimming on a Sunday morning with the money they were given for Sunday School is a better use of their time.

They tend to be, recalling back, about eight years old at the time.

The evolution you speak of but don't understand tends to take much longer than what you reckon the world has been around for, so it wouldn't sink in if Steve or others with a professional interest even tried to explain to you. Educating pork isn't always a successful past time.

We used to be starfish apparently. Judging by some photos in magazines I recall as a teenager, we still have what appears to be one, although you need two mirrors to check your own.

Just wandering past, peering at the exhibits...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:15 PM

Bill, whose freedom to choose....certainly not the child in the womb ? You can only justify, IMO, abortion on demand if you view the unborn as not being human. Perhaps the evolutionary religious outlook accommodates that thought ? It seems paradoxical that there is a call to save convicted murderers from the needle, while it is acceptable to rip a child out the womb on demand.   Yes, i expect a Christian judge May try to make rulings that accord with his beliefs if possible, but so would an anti theist who thinks we all miraculously ascended from the slime millennia past, to present.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:56 PM

What was that about the " truth of evolution " Steve .   You,ll be getting the snail after you at this rate.   Go on Steve, show me some evolution !.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:50 PM

Musket,   You seem to have a persecution complex, if you think the term ...atheist...is sneering. If you call me a theist, I don't think it is sneering, but you,s add plenty of obviously sneering remarks, which would seem to make you a hypocrite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:44 PM

Yeh, I know dan, but it ain't about them as far as I,m concerned. They might already be too hardened to be able to change, though I hope not. It is about anyone willing to listen, and of course, about God my saviour and creator.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:32 PM

So, there's at least 101 million of 'em out there.

Gives one pause to think.


Yes. To think that religious fundamentalists are not far from having control of nuclear weapons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM

Pete, don't bother he just wants to fight.
Can someone rename this thread to a bunch of old men fighting :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:26 PM

You know very well, Richard, that we are not kidding.   If I am a Christian and see that the bible teaches a youngish earth, that is a consistent position,and you have demonstrated nothing to demonstrate your microbes to men belief. Go on, show me some evolution !.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:24 PM

Bla bla bla Richard


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 11:40 AM

That has to be satire, doesn't it?

"God created humans, pretty much in their present form, all at one time, within the last 10,000 years or so".

You MUST be kidding me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 11:38 AM

I think Dan was right, Richard's much too ignorant to insult; better to insulate him, a few rolls of insulation wrapped round him would be a service to the community.. :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 11:03 AM

Lest anyone think Scalia is being singled out, here are some disturbing statistics from Pew, Newsweek and Gallup polls conducted 2012-2014:

* 76% of Americans (U.S.) self-identify as Christians. [so far, so good]

* 42 % of these believe in "creationism" - and that "God created humans pretty much in their present form, all at one time, within the last 10,000 years or so".

* 47% believe that "Jesus will return to earth in the next 40 years or so".

* 45% believe that "the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist".

So, there's at least 101 million of 'em out there.

Gives one pause to think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 09:30 AM

Well said Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 08:43 AM

the discussion seems to revolve around Christians holding a judicial office

No, Goofus- it revolves around cretins holding judicial office.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 05:56 AM

I hope to get back later........if this is,nt already closed down for abuse and jingoism !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:29 AM

OldTwat - not only can you not spell, you also cannot formulate an insult with any of the essential core that makes an insult sting. An impotent old man without an argument that holds water. Probably rather like his bladder. Beliefs are not automatically entitled to respect. Stupid ones deserve derision. But NONE of that was my principal point. The point is whether a JUDGE (you do understand that word, don't you?) who apparently cannot follow logic or evidence is fit to be a judge in the most powerful court in the USA. And it looks like game, set, and match to those who say that Scalia has demonstrated his own unfitness.

Fugitive from Sanity - How many judges in SCOTUS are Muslims who are suggesting that there are validities in the fantasies of extremist Muslims? I say again that the point is whether a JUDGE (you do understand that word, don't you?) who apparently cannot follow logic or evidence is fit to be a judge in the most powerful court in the USA. And it looks like game, set, and match to those who say that Scalia has demonstrated his own unfitness.

Steve - well put.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM

Same tune, different words. You cannot have a republic of popular consent and common law if one person's absolute metaphysics gets to interfere with other peoples'. It's too simple to have to even explain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:08 AM

By the way, the discussion seems to revolve around Christians holding a judicial office. Does anyone have any opinions on Muslims doing the same, and/or influencing governmental policies??

Just thought I'd ask.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 10:22 PM

olddude: "I respect your beliefs or non belief, kindly respect mine also."

Not possible for wannabe liberal socialists. They only believe in the government's handouts....It's their god, from which all blessings flow.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 10:18 PM

When I insulated you Richard it was only to show you how bullying feels. So please no more bullying. I am done insulting as I made my point. With that I meant nothing by it other than a lesson. I respect your beliefs or non belief, kindly respect mine also


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 08:37 PM

Well Steve, stay in England.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 08:28 PM

Worked fine? You still have the death penalty, you have the world's stupidest gun laws, you had racist segregation until 50 years ago, you've been absolute bastards to Cuba, lynchings were de rigeur until the early 20th century, you had McCarthy, you wiped out the buffalo, you've been the prime mover par excellence apropos of global warming, you destroyed native American culture and your foreign policy would be a bloody laughing stock were it not so tragic. Could you explain to me what part of "worked fine" I don't understand, please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 08:01 PM

Well musket my friend it has worked fine for over 200 years. However you are welcome to your opinion with any bias from me. Now Richard on the other hand, lets just say idiot and leave it at that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 08:00 PM

The point is NOT "bible believers in public office". It is "religious policies injected into the dialogue of the commons". If Scalia is allowing his private religious convictions to color or warp his sense of justice under the Constitution, he is hardly suited for the job. The great principle of the Constitution is that there should be NO religious test (one way or the other) for public office, and likewise that there should be NO mixing of religion and state issues.

Everyone may have a different deiity, but the nation has only one majority at any moment. It is impossible to derive justice from so many deities, but it can work to derive it from clearly established fundamental laws and the will of the individuals taken collectively. That's what a democratic republic does.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 07:58 PM

Bla bla bla Richard as always you ape


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 18 April 8:41 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.