What Has America Become?

BlackHawkPaul

Fartbarf
Donator
Joined:
Sep 28, 2010
Posts:
5,997
Liked Posts:
2,341
Location:
Somewhere in Indiana
[quote name="R K"]





I thought your response was very well thought out.[/quote]

I was really hoping for a response.

It's one thing to post an article that reflects your ideals.

It's another to use that article and form an opinion you can back that's genuine and have some real thought on.



If IHF's original goal was to spark a debate, then he's succeeded. I see it almost as a HF50 post because he really has not stated his thoughts on the matter.

IHF, do you agree with everything by the author? If so, why? If not, what are the issues at hand that arise conflict?



I can joke about poop and porn all day, but now that you have my attention, you don't want to say anything?

:naughty:
 

mikita

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
59
Liked Posts:
0
[quote name="TSD"]

Precisely from where im standing a nativity in a public park violates seperation of church and state, not allowing people to put porno on tv and internet violates free speech.

[/quote]



The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I've always been curious how that text could possibly apply to local officials putting up a nativity scene for instance. The statement is clear and concise in it's meaning. It's not a catch-all that bans any and all public displays of religion. If there can be no link whatsoever between religion and government, then I would expect all government institutions to be open on Christmas day, since it is a christian holiday.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
Damn Mikita, you beat me to it. I am so fucking tired of hearing the "separation of church and state" argument from people who don't believe in God. Read the fucking Constitution folks. Don't "interpret" it, just read the damn thing.
 

Guest

Guest
Well, interpretation is almost all that's there, because you can exactly talk with the authors and ask intention.



Read it and many will "interpret" what they meant by the words you are reading.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
[quote name="R K"]Well, interpretation is almost all that's there, because you can exactly talk with the authors and ask intention.



Read it and many will "interpret" what they meant by the words you are reading.[/quote]





True.
 

ginnie

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2010
Posts:
253
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
[quote name="IceHogsFan"]What Has America Become?

By Ken Huber | Friday, July 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 am
Has America become the land of the special interest and home of the double standard?



Let’s see: If we lie to the Congress it’s a felony and if the Congress lies to us it’s just politics


Has this only happened recently? Hasn't it always been like that?



If we dislike a black person, we’re racist and if a black person dislikes whites it’s his First Amendment right.


No, it is fine to not like a black person. Just not fine to dislike blacks as a race.

I can understand why, given the history of your country that black people may not like white people. Two hundred years of slavery, and three hundred without equal civil rights will do that to you. Its too easy to say that the past is the past, now lets be friends.



The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and does almost nothing for the victims

How does going to jail rehabilitate you? I thought it was supposed to be punishment?





In public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK but you’d better not use the word “God” in the process.

Now that's an over simplification isn't it? What happen if you use the word "God". (I'm just curious).



You can kill an unborn child, but it’s wrong to execute a mass murderer.


Abortion is a hotly debated issue, and generally the pro-life and pro-choice sides are about equal, however recently the trend is leaning towards pro-life. As far as I know there are guidelines to who can have an abortion. The laws aren't perfect but its hard to satisfy everyone.

Thirty six out of fifty states (72%) presently have the death penalty, so executing a mass murderer would depend on which state you lived in.



We don’t burn books in America — we now rewrite them.

I'm not a big fan of revising history but the ones I read in school growing up were mostly crap, and that was over forty years ago.



We got rid of the communist and socialist threat by renaming adherents “progressives.”

I guess you want another McCarthy back in your country?



We are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea.

WTF?

Firstly, the Korean border is 155 miles. The U.S./Mexico border is 1969 miles - over ten times longer. Plus, the North Koreans do most of the work preventing anyone from crossing over.



If you protest against President Obama’s policies you’re a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your First Amendment right.

Just not true.



You can have pornography on TV or the Internet, but you’d better not put a Nativity scene in a public park during Christmas.

Should porn be banned then?

I do agree that not being able to have a Nativity scene in a public park is silly. I also think it is totally unrelated to the porn issue.



We have eliminated all criminals in America — they are now called sick people.


No, I think they're still called criminals.



We can use a human fetus for medical research, but it’s wrong to use an animal.

Both points are debatable whether its proper or not. What is your opinion?



We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don’t want to work.

That will happen in some cases with Social Benefits, and probably always has - at least since 1935 since the Social Security act was enacted.



We all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology.

Oh come on! You really believe this?



We still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct.


PC is a strange disease indeed, but using an absolute like "only" is just wrong.



Parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games.


No it hasn't. Some parents are good, some are not. Some are really bad. Parenting today is a tough job especially with both parents working in most families.

I would agree that the ease in which Ritalin is handed out is not good. And video games tend to keep kids indoors too much. They should be out playing street hockey.



The land of opportunity is now the land of handouts.

I can't comment too much on this but maybe you can give me some good examples.



The similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.


From American news I get over here, I didn't think this was the case. That said, FEMA screwed up really bad in the first case, and BP oil in the second.



And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who’s at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes, and tells us the problem is solved so incumbents can get back to their reelection campaigns.

I don't know enough about American government to really comment on this one, but it sounds like the way politics work up here too... :D



What has happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Please tell me...
 

jakobeast

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,903
Liked Posts:
21
Location:
yer ma's pants
I am on the Right moreso then most of my friends.



That article is full of crap. Drawing a comparison between porn and a Nativity scene? Wow. I guess this article was written by me. Honestly. That is like the shit I would write. Grasping at straws, making Special person comparisons, and so on.



Yes, the country is goin down the crapper. It has been for some time. Obama is for sure the gonna be the reason it falls off the face of this earth.



Wait, but Bush keep reading to kids when the towers were hit and made TARP happen.



Wait, but Clinton was getting blown and not paying attention to world affairs.



Wait, but the other Bush was only after oil.



Wait, but Regan wanted trickle down economics.



Wait, but Carter only cared about peanuts.



Wait, but Ford was a dope.



Wait, Nixon was a crook.



Wait, but LBJ was from Texas too



And so on.
 

ginnie

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2010
Posts:
253
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
[quote name="jakobeast"]I am on the Right moreso then most of my friends.



That article is full of crap. Drawing a comparison between porn and a Nativity scene? Wow. I guess this article was written by me. Honestly. That is like the shit I would write. Grasping at straws, making Special person comparisons, and so on.



Yes, the country is goin down the crapper. It has been for some time. Obama is for sure the gonna be the reason it falls off the face of this earth.



Wait, but Bush keep reading to kids when the towers were hit and made TARP happen.



Wait, but Clinton was getting blown and not paying attention to world affairs.



Wait, but the other Bush was only after oil.



Wait, but Regan wanted trickle down economics.



Wait, but Carter only cared about peanuts.



Wait, but Ford was a dope.



Wait, Nixon was a crook.



Wait, but LBJ was from Texas too



And so on.[/quote]

I think we can both agree that the article is a gross simplification of the facts!
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
[quote name="mikita"]



The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I've always been curious how that text could possibly apply to local officials putting up a nativity scene for instance. The statement is clear and concise in it's meaning. It's not a catch-all that bans any and all public displays of religion. If there can be no link whatsoever between religion and government, then I would expect all government institutions to be open on Christmas day, since it is a christian holiday.[/quote]



I dont necissarilly view christmas as much of a religious holiday anymore, I mean it is, but plenty of non-religious people still celebrate, as well as those that arent even christian.



from what I gather in court cases though it merely says "no law respecting establishment of religion" it is generally interpreted that the government will show no preference for one religion over another.



Think about it, if a public park displayed a nativity scene and refused to put up religious symbols for X, Y and Z religion for their special holiday's, do you think thats right? By default, putting up a manger scene shows "preference" regardless of if nobody asks them to put up a giant mural of Krishna for some holiday.



As i mentioned earlier christmas is hardly a religious holiday in this country anymore, even non-christians celebrate it. I have a very multicultural workplace, with an array of faiths and damn near all of them celebrate christmas with their families. Obviously, they dont see it as religious either.



[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]Damn Mikita, you beat me to it. I am so fucking tired of hearing the "separation of church and state" argument from people who live in reality. Read the fucking Constitution folks. Don't "interpret" it, just read the damn thing.[/quote]

I kid :)



"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. "



Ok for you gun folk, it doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear guns. Arms could be anything from a sling shot to a 200 megaton nuclear warhead. If the government outlawed the private ownership of fire arms you would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not guns, the government essentially wouldnt be violating whats written there. If you think it is, by that logic its already violating it because you cant own a M1A2 abrams main battle tank with a full outfit of 120mm depleted uranium sabot's and dont say im being dramatic.



This shit needs to be interpreted plain and simple. i dont want to see joe citizen rolling down my street in a hmvee with a vehicle mounted mk. 19.





Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.



How does that not need to be interpreted? That could mean simply that congress cant establish a religion but they can go ahead and take an existing one and make it the official religion, or congress cant make any laws that have anything to do with religion. Which is it? No its not clear as day. Even in simple terms it needs to be interpreted.



It is wrong for the government to show preference of one religion over another, plain and simple. The God syndrome overtaking the military needs to stop too, its becoming tantamount to crusade mentality. The few of us that didnt go to church on sunday back in basic used to get smoked for it. excluding yourself from super happy jesus prayer time, used to get you berated by your superiors as well. If I was a giant vagina, I would have taken some motherfuckers to court for violating my civil rights like some soldiers have.



History has shown us what happens when God has a place in government, and I would prefer not to repeat it.



[quote name="jakobeast"]

Wait, but LBJ was from Texas too



And so on.[/quote]



little know historical FACT about LBJ and his first texas senate seat. he stole it, at gunpoint....and no im not joking.



I forgot who his opponent was in the primary, but basically that guy won by like 100 votes, but then some oil baron named Parr, came up with like 200 votes in some bumbfuck town where all but 2 voted for LBJ. When some democratic party members went down to check the validity of the list (it was a primary). Parr had hired gunmen locked and loaded so they couldnt look at it. So they called in the Texas Ranger that took down bonnie and clyde, and had a standoff, eventually they let them look at it for like a minute, they copied down 17 names and went to check on these people, a bunch of them were dead, and a bunch werent even qualified to vote and the rest said they never voted and could prove they werent even in that county on voting day. not one of the 17 names they were able to copy down prior to being out showdowned was a legit vote. The powers that be pressed the courts to confirm LBJ the winner before they could make a decision on the legitimacy of the votes and LBJ won.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. "



Ok for you gun folk, it doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear guns. Arms could be anything from a sling shot to a 200 megaton nuclear warhead. If the government outlawed the private ownership of fire arms you would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not guns, the government essentially wouldnt be violating whats written there. If you think it is, by that logic its already violating it because you cant own a M1A2 abrams main battle tank with a full outfit of 120mm depleted uranium sabot's and dont say im being dramatic.



This shit needs to be interpreted plain and simple. i dont want to see joe citizen rolling down my street in a hmvee with a vehicle mounted mk. 19.



You may be joking here, but I agree with your first paragraph. The gov't shouldn't limit any of it. According to simply reading it.
 

mikita

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
59
Liked Posts:
0
[quote name="TSD"]

Ok for you gun folk, it doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear guns. Arms could be anything from a sling shot to a 200 megaton nuclear warhead. [/quote]



"Arms" is a rather generic term. However, when one looks at the 2nd amendment in it's historical context, it's pretty clear the founders were speaking of firearms. Little in the way of interpretation is needed there. If you want to protect other types of weaponry, I'll entertain the argument. However, any common sense discussion of the 2nd amendment would have to include firearms.



That could mean simply that congress cant establish a religion but they can go ahead and take an existing one and make it the official religion, or congress cant make any laws that have anything to do with religion. Which is it? No its not clear as day. Even in simple terms it needs to be interpreted.



Congress is barred from legislating anything (shall make no laws) that relates to or refers to (respecting) the establishment of a national religion. I'm sure the Church of England weighed heavy on the founders minds when writing that. The text is fairly plain. Anything that shows reverence to Christianity could reasonably be viewed as violating the establishment clause, while use of the generic "God" on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance seems to be ok with the courts. I tend to agree with that standard.



Where I get lost is when that text is applied to some small town mayor or city councilman putting up a nativity scene somewhere. The first amendment is specifically directed at Congress, and not at local communities. If a community with a predominant religion wants to display some kind of symbol, I don't see that as tantamount to a national religion. I'm not even sure they intended for that to apply to the states.
 

JOVE23

New member
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
2,458
Liked Posts:
0
For the record, if I was rich enough I would totally buy an Abrams and load it up with 120mm DU sabots. Atlanta traffic is a bitch.
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
[quote name="mikita"]



"Arms" is a rather generic term. However, when one looks at the 2nd amendment in it's historical context, it's pretty clear the founders were speaking of firearms. Little in the way of interpretation is needed there. If you want to protect other types of weaponry, I'll entertain the argument. However, any common sense discussion of the 2nd amendment would have to include firearms.



[/quote]



Congress is barred from legislating anything (shall make no laws) that relates to or refers to (respecting) the establishment of a national religion. I'm sure the Church of England weighed heavy on the founders minds when writing that. The text is fairly plain. Anything that shows reverence to Christianity could reasonably be viewed as violating the establishment clause, while use of the generic "God" on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance seems to be ok with the courts. I tend to agree with that standard.



Where I get lost is when that text is applied to some small town mayor or city councilman putting up a nativity scene somewhere. The first amendment is specifically directed at Congress, and not at local communities. If a community with a predominant religion wants to display some kind of symbol, I don't see that as tantamount to a national religion. I'm not even sure they intended for that to apply to the states.[/quote]





I actually agree with you here. I think it should only apply to state and federal properties. ( I suppose I disagree with the state part) but for the most part I agree.
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,108
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
[quote name="mikita"]Where I get lost is when that text is applied to some small town mayor or city councilman putting up a nativity scene somewhere. The first amendment is specifically directed at Congress, and not at local communities. If a community with a predominant religion wants to display some kind of symbol, I don't see that as tantamount to a national religion. I'm not even sure they intended for that to apply to the states.[/quote]





Perhaps the Supremacy Clause or the 14th Amendment give Congress and the Federal Government the right to apply the First Amendment to the States and further, cities, villages, etc., assuming they are under the jurisdiction of the States.



THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Article. VI.



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



14th Amendment



Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Top