I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Mar 28th, 2003 04:25 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10

Ya know, beating your wife and slavery were contemplated by the forefathers as well and were legal at those time...so should it still be the law now?

An appropriate question since Ronnie flogs himself daily.

Sorry, couldn't resist! :/

Mar 28th, 2003 03:59 PM

punkgrrrlie10

Ya know, beating your wife and slavery were contemplated by the forefathers as well and were legal at those time...so should it still be the law now?

Mar 28th, 2003 12:58 PM

Protoclown

Wait...were they by chance talking about a massive orgy?

Mar 28th, 2003 08:05 AM

Ronnie Raygun

.....I can't believe you are so dense.

What is "Congress"?

I'm shocked that you cannot simply state what the forefathers meant by the word "Congress".

This whole debate has nothing to do with the modern "interpretation" of some liberal activist judge.

What did the forefathers mean by the word "Congress"?

What is "Congress"?

Mar 27th, 2003 05:32 PM

punkgrrrlie10

The meaning of Congress is interpreted by legislation put forward by the federal gov't which was amended by the 14th amendment to include state gov'ts which also branches down into state run agencies you friggen retard.

Ya know that whole civil war thing made people realize that they wanted the bill of rights apply to the states b/c darkies were getting denied their rights.

Mar 27th, 2003 01:15 PM

Anonymous

I'd say "Exactly," but something tells me you don't get sarcasm.

Mar 27th, 2003 12:09 PM

Ronnie Raygun

So.....you don't know?

Mar 27th, 2003 12:08 PM

Anonymous

If I'm you? Judge Dredd.

Mar 27th, 2003 12:01 PM

Ronnie Raygun

What is "Congress"?

Mar 27th, 2003 11:13 AM

Anonymous

This is hilarious. Somehow your personal interpretation of law supercedes fact and history?

Mar 27th, 2003 10:53 AM

Ronnie Raygun

All you have to do to understand the 1st amendment is to understand the words.

If you people don't want to understand the meaning of the word "Congress" that's your problem.

"Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine." - Bennett

Where did the forefathers say that it was O.K. to own slaves? Where is it written? In fact The Declaration of Independance says just the opposite......"All men are created equal.."

Where ALL the forefathers perfect? Not by a long shot. Did they ALL own slaves....no. So you will never be able to cheapen their accomplishments with that lame arguement.

Mar 25th, 2003 07:13 PM

Jeanette X

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions. I REALLY should know where this is in there, considering I studied it for two years before I decided not to become a priest. Guess Ill have to look it up on line again or drag out my copy.

So the Catechism overrides the Pope? Thusly the Pope is wrong?

Mar 25th, 2003 06:51 PM

punkgrrrlie10

Quote:

So what you are saying is that the Bill of Rights, as per Algore, are a "living document", which means it can change? Well, lets change it that we take away your freedom to dissent because it's bad for the Bush admin. Lets take away the freedom of religion from Muslims, because up to 10% of them want to kill us. Lets use the Patriot Act to take away our privacy. See where this is going? Down a road to a communist state at the extreme level of change

The Patriot Act already has done this numb nuts. Didn't you read about the denial of due process for american citizens captured on foreign soil? Hello, are you paying attn. to what's going on in the real world or do you just listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bush and eat peanut butter for entertainment?

Mar 25th, 2003 05:02 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

Your kind of a Crusades type catholic, aren't you? Are you going to get off the bus there, opr ride it all the way to "Inquisition" type Catholic?

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. Turn it up Max!!

Mar 25th, 2003 04:57 PM

mburbank

Okay, forgive me if your resume is starting to strecth credability, here, Vince...

You studied to be a priest
You had a beautiful black girlfriend
You have a good chance to be an officer on a nuclear submarine
You have an offer from a chembio unit...

Since you studied to be a priest, shouldn't your disagreement with the Pope over the 'just' nature of this war be more meaningful for you? I mean, it's not like the Pope is a kind of "Agree with me or don't as far as interpretation goes, I mean, sure, I'm the Pope, but hey, it's free country."

Not that you can't have a different opinion, lots of Catholics I know differ with the Pope here and there about, say, Homosexuality and Abortion Rights and such, but even they don't say

"Oh, sure he SAYS that, he HAS to He's the POPE! But it' not a very big deal"

Did this differing with the Pope cause you to loose any sleep or question your judgement at all, or examine it? And how do you find your desire for "CRAZY motherfucker" generals making the enemy "Shit in their Pants" squares with your Catholascism. Your kind of a
Crusades type catholic, aren't you? Are you going to get off the bus there, opr ride it all the way to "Inquisition" type Catholic?

Mar 25th, 2003 04:25 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions.

ALL Popes are ALWAYS against war and the would NEVER endorse a war against muslims.

P.S. Just a little fuel for the fire. Y'all are welcome to take it from here.

Mar 25th, 2003 01:57 AM

VinceZeb

Mar 25th, 2003 01:54 AM

VinceZeb

Quote:

Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine.

Now of course, the taking away of guns is what allowed Chairman Mao to do his "Great Leap Foward" and re-educate the masses of China. Killing many due to violence and starvation, btw,but at least they didnt have those guns that are guarneteed to us by a dusty 200+ year old rule that should be changed.

Mar 24th, 2003 02:36 PM

punkgrrrlie10

Quote:

So if you believe in seperation of church and state (which is not a quote of the forefathers that yoiu claim to support) to the extent that people cannot have a public prayer at a football game, you support putting limits on peoples free speech.

Since the Congress has made no law establishing a prayer in public schools it should be allowed.

I think you are missing the point of practical application here. In order to allow prayer in a public setting, a time would have to be instituted in order to have it, thus enacting and having state action. A kid who doesn't want to take his math test would basically say "oh yeah, I have to pray right now" and that disrupts the process of actual learning which the state is charged with doing in a public education system. THat's what people are paying their taxes for. If people want their kids to pray so badly, they send them to private schools.

And it's nice that you agree w/that person's OPINION, and that it reflects your OPINION, but that doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation of the 1st amendment nor the application of it to the states through the 14th. You can think that burning babies is a great thing, but that doesn't make it law.

Mar 24th, 2003 01:51 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

Here is the crux of it. School districts have elected school boards. Could that be an elected representative to which the refer? OK, iffy to some people but I believe they do fit the definition of elected representative. Teachers are not elected but are state employees and do respresent the government and they are, to some degree, under the regulations put forth by the school board (elected representatives). When they talk about establishing a religion one interpretation of this could be that the teacher, as a representative of the government, cannot introduce lessons which would instill in the minds (establish) of students favortism of ANY religion. In other words, to be neutral in that regard because it is not a part of education unless you are at a parochial school that endorses THAT religion. Additionally, you know as well as I do that if public school teachers started talking about the Jewish, Muslim, or even pagan religions during the time the children were at grade school age, the ultra-conservatives would have a hissy fit. Thusly, the schools are already religiously slanted by ommission ... that's certainly establishing something in the children's heads, don't you think? Add to that national christian holidays which they decorate public schools with every year (Easter, Christmas, ect). I have yet to see a Chanuka decoration in a public school. I have yet to see a school teach philosophy and/or classical Greek logic at the grade school level. It's not religious but it may actually lead to some religious questions that some adults can't answer and we can't have that. Can you see why people of other religions might feel shat upon Ronnie? Schools are already Christian skewed. You either have all religions represented if you inisist on religious education or none and since the Constitution says not to establish any religion, my vote would be an interpretation of NONE ... neutral ... NOW do you get it?

P.S. I hate you

Mar 24th, 2003 01:10 PM

Bennett

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

Mar 24th, 2003 10:30 AM

mburbank

Vince!! You're Roman Catholic? What do you think of your air head pussy Popes anti war stance? Isn't it rough on you disagreeing with him when he's Christs Viccar on earth?

And Naldo. I am shocked to find you endorce Satanist Prayer in our schools.

Mar 23rd, 2003 04:08 PM

VinceZeb

Actually, I DO know what I am talking about, and I don't need to go to law school to know about the law. Considering the fact the church vs state debate is something that I consider a vast source of information and views, I study it. But what I said is the truth.

Govt cant respect an establishment of religion. If a religion is established as being a part of the govt, that is illegal. But the govt can not infringe on my right to be Roman Catholic.

The govt stays out of religion. That was the whole point of the article, because the Church of England was made a STATE church by King Henry VIII because the Pope would not grant him a divorce from his wife because she would not produce a male heir. Our founders wanted whoever lived in the country to be able to worship however they wanted, but would not infringe on those rights. They would also not regonize a state religion. That is what it says. You can examine it all you want. Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

Mar 23rd, 2003 03:04 PM

punkgrrrlie10

I suggest both of you look at the composition of the supreme court right now and the decisions they've handed down on the 1st amendment b/c you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Mar 23rd, 2003 01:14 PM

Jeanette X

You still haven't answered my question Ronnie.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off