Posted 1 year, 4 months ago in 
Loading ...
The Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers have really missed the point in regard to prayers or invocations before public meetings. That act is an acknowledgement that any decision making body (from a town council to the U.S. Congress) understands that there is a higher non-human authority that validates or rejects any laws or decisions made by them.
Everyone knows that if you violate a law of nature (even if that action is permitted by human law) the sentencing is swift and sure and there is no appeal. Examples: All drivers are very familiar with the natural law — two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, even if one had the right-of-way; a routine prescribed burn authorized by human law can get out of control very fast when the laws of nature are disregarded (i.e. the weather); buildings permitted in a flood plain or avalanche zone will eventually be damaged by an act of nature even if approved by a city council or county commission.
Even atheist groups acknowledge in their web-sites and publications that humankind co-exist with natural forces and natural laws that affect human lives and decisions, many of which are beyond human control. Furthermore, they encourage all humans to seek and find within themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet the demands and challenges of life (another way of saying meditation and prayer).
I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.
Gary Parrott
Grand Junction
ACLU is using local atheists
Tags:
Recent Comments
- golfdoc said, "couldn’t have expressed it more clearly mr. park." more
- JMH said, "Scott says, “There is a difference between having religious..." more
- JMH said, "John said, “She’s follwing the Teabagger talking points very..." more
- JMH said, "JMH said, “Sorry guys, but I’ve been called worse and so have..." more
- Rojellio said, "OK, I am confused apparently. The term has nothing to do with..." more
Who's online
- No Members around.
-
Popular Tags
Categories
- General (2554)
- Printed letters (372)
Archives
MOST RECENT
-
Posted 10 hours, 14 minutes ago
Don’t local businesses already get an advantage? -
Posted 10 hours, 18 minutes ago
Tort reform critical to health care reform -
Posted 10 hours, 30 minutes ago
Ritter should not be taking monies from veterans -
Posted 10 hours, 48 minutes ago
Remember our lack of representation next November -
Posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
Annexation wrong for Clifton/Fruitval
-
Posted 10 hours, 14 minutes ago
HIGHEST RATED
274 Responses to “ACLU is using local atheists”
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WCAF is not currently involved with, and has no connection to the ACLU.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ella,
Are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers has not in the past been affiliated with the ACLU? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney, do not plan future involvement with the ACLU?
Was your statement in post #1, a statement on behalf of and/or authorized by the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If Mr. Parrott has any particular evidence that the ACLU is in fact behind the WCAF, I for one would like to see it.
I also wonder if this is the same “heartless” and “soulless” ACLU that has repeatedly defended Christians in their right to freedom of religion. Somehow, Christians never seem to remember that.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I have a reliable source that allows me to confirm that no, the WCAF has no past or current connections with the ACLU, nor have they any plans for such.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Thank you for your information, however, my questions were directed to Ella. I think it important when a claim or an assertion is made on behalf of a particular group, we know whether those claims or assertions are authorized by the group in question. Who was it that authorized you to speak on behalf of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? At this moment all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity.
How’s your lawn coming? I hope you are over your stomach flu.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have one response to this letter:
Huh???
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Regardless of Ella’s source, my source says there is no connection between the two groups. And yes, you can consider this to be “on behalf of the WCAF.”
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This letter helped to remind me to write my several hundred dollar contribution to the ACLU.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just curious, but, why is “Ella” supposed to be some sort of official spokesperson in order to discuss a point raised in the original letter which offers no proof of any “alliance”. Usually “proof” is required of the accuser because “proving a negative”, ie. there is no connection, is nearly impossible.
As for the original letter, a bowl of spaghetti has more organization.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
OK, Scott, are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? What are the names of the two groups (just for the record) that you state have no connection between them. And who authorized that statement? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney do not plan future involvement with the ACLU? At this moment, all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity. And, should we want to reference this statement in the future, I’m sure there are those on this site who would not accept an anonymous post as a credible source.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s look at this closer.
“The Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers have really missed the point in regard to prayers or invocations before public meetings.”
Possibly, but I’m guessing not.
“That act is an acknowledgement that any decision making body (from a town council to the U.S. Congress) understands that there is a higher non-human authority that validates or rejects any laws or decisions made by them.”
Not everyone accepts this. THAT is the point.
“Everyone knows that if you violate a law of nature (even if that action is permitted by human law) the sentencing is swift and sure and there is no appeal. Examples: All drivers are very familiar with the natural law — two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, even if one had the right-of-way; a routine prescribed burn authorized by human law can get out of control very fast when the laws of nature are disregarded (i.e. the weather); buildings permitted in a flood plain or avalanche zone will eventually be damaged by an act of nature even if approved by a city council or county commission.”
Apples and oranges. Praying at city council meetings is not a natural law. Are you sure its the atheists that have missed the point?
“Even atheist groups acknowledge in their web-sites and publications that humankind co-exist with natural forces and natural laws that affect human lives and decisions, many of which are beyond human control. Furthermore, they encourage all humans to seek and find within themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet the demands and challenges of life…”
Okay so far…
“(another way of saying meditation and prayer).”
There are other ways of meeting the demands of life. Some people pray, some people build plastic models.
“I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.”
Already addressed. There is no connection between the two groups. You are aware that the ACLU has repeatedly defended Christians, aren’t you?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
What I am saying is that my source, within the WCAF, tells me that there is no connection between the WCAF and the ACLU, nor is any such connection planned. My source is not an official spokesperson for the WCAF, but is a member of that group.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “What I am saying is that my source, within the WCAF, tells me that there is no connection between the WCAF and the ACLU, nor is any such connection planned. My source is not an official spokesperson for the WCAF, but is a member of that group.”
As oneperson pointed out so eloquently, the burden of proof is always on those who make a positive assertion of the sort that we saw in the original letter. This basic concept of logic is apparently quite foreign and not understood by AP.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What remains is, of course, nothing but a statement by an anonymous source. There is no disclosure of who Ella is, who your source is or for that matter what your real name is? Now, Scott, I think you know how I feel about those who put pressure on other posters to reveal their real name, and that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is systematically exposing the original statement by Ella for what it is. A statement (not an opinion) by an anonymous and as far as we know, unauthorized individual, posted as a reply to the original letter. At present, it has no rebuttal value, and has no more credibility than a whisper in a crowded dark room.
Oneperson,
I wasn’t ignoring you. The answer to your question is that Ella did not give an opinion, she gave a statement of fact. If she does not speak for the group, she certainly sounded like she did. That was my question to her. Since she chose not to answer any of the questions, we are free to assume what we will.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
I can understand him asking for more defined sources from those of us who have responded to the letter, although I wish he had indicated that he requires the same from the letter writer.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Apparently, class does not know the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. I think what he really meant to say was, how dare you question someone that is on my side. The answer to that question is easy, he who dares wins.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Keep in mind that all you have is a statement with absolutely no support in the original letter, yet you seem to be accepting it uncritically. This appears to be a double standard.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I believe you posed those questions to the original letter writer. You may have noticed that I did not presume to answer those questions for him. And yes, I think any question you have as to a statement of fact should be addressed by the letter writer, but it needs to work both ways, right?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re right, I did.
But you questioned Ella’s statement prior to that, and made no attempt to do the same to the letter writer. Your posts present the appearance of accepting the claim in the letter, while requiring a higher level of proof of those responding to it. If this is in error, I apologize, but I think you can see how it appears that way.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 7:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the origingal letter: “I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda.”
Eliminating the very weak attempt at admission of his not knowing, by beginning the statement with “I fear that”, one would like to see something to justify the gentleman’s remarks/and or “fears”. If not, then perhaps his entire letter is without foundation and needs to be disregarded in its entirety.
As far as AP’s remark of “The answer to that question is easy, he who dares wins” is pretty much an indication on his part that facts and truth do no matter. To put it more succinctly and crudely, and what AP’s contention is is “He/she who can throw the most BS wins.” One has to wonder if, many times he really knows what he is even saying.
ashhuggers post of “Huh!” is definitely from kindness.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I have reviewed your question to the original writer, and I have thoroughly read the original letter, and I see no statement of fact in the original letter. Mr. Parrot prefaced his remarks in regards to your question with the words I fear. That indicates that he was giving his interpretation and that is what we call an opinion. No doubt, the innuendo in his letter is an inference that the atheists may be connected with the ACLU, but he used a technique that by now, is so familiar to all of us on this site. That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it. There have been numerous complaints against Mr. Laitres and especially Class of 52 for using this technique and I am sure you are aware of that. However, the point is that I challenged a statement of fact, not an opinion and you challenged an opinion and not a statement of fact. I did not choose to defend the letter writer. I could not defend his opinion, because it was not my own. You chose to defend Ella’s statement of fact. In doing so, and by offering to substantiate her statement of fact with the same anonymous source, you accepted responsibility for that statement and it should be noted that the questions I ask first of Ella and then of you remain unanswered. Please recognize that it is not my responsibility to answer your questions, because I chose not to defend the original letter. Therefore there is no double standard, nor is there any reality to any claim that may be made that I need to answer yours or anyone elses questions in regards to someone elses opinion. Once again, those that use these techniques should realize that they are recognized and can be adopted by the other side. And this is a personal message to you Scott, I had no way of knowing that you would be the person who came to the defense of Ella, and I will admit that I made an issue of her post in anticipation of someone else taking the bait. When we reach a point where we can discuss a subject openly and honestly, without using such techniques, it will be of benefit to everyone. In the meantime, I watch, I read, I understand and I learn. And I respond in kind.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres,
I should have answered your post before I wrote to Scott. You made my point beautifully, right down to quoting the original letter writers “I fear”.
You sir, are intellectually dishonest, for all the reasons I listed in my answer to Scott. If you will quit playing your little games and discuss issues based on their merit, rather than using trickery and innuendo, or making unwarranted demands and inference of obligation to answer false charges where there is no obligation, then perhaps our discussions of issues may have some purpose. I have indicated before and I will again here for your benefit, that solutions and honest conclusions are impossible when the only object in mind is to spread propaganda, and to win at all costs. If your purpose in participating is to exhibit your cleverness, then just how well do you think you have done so far?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I see what your saying. I think it’s splitting a pretty fine hair, but I concede the point.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP posts: “That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it.” While that is true, that I do preface that wording at times, it is not left to stand alone; i.e. an opinion not backed up by pertinent facts, or without a reasoning.
We do realize that while some on these boards have difficulty with reading comprehension, if not a clear understanding of words, even they should by now have come to the conclusion that what are important are the ideas and concepts expressed and that need to be addressed in any response. Some, who shall remain nameless, have difficulty in understanding that.
As to “complaints” I, for one, would like to know where such complaints are lodged or, as I suspect, they are mere whining amongst some cabal of posters on this forum. That, for all intent and purposes, does not carry much weight, at least with me. Rather, I am much more concerned with name-calling, and the uncivil as well as immature mentality it displays.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One again, Mr. Laitres has proven my point that he is intellectually dishonest. That sir, is not a name. It is an observation, and I claim the truth as an absolute defense. What pray tell is yours?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP responds with: “You sir, are intellectually dishonest, for all the reasons I listed in my answer to Scott”
One has to wonder if AP even understands the concept of “intellectual honesty” and, by way of explanation, he might wish to expound upon what he believes is required to be “intellectually honest”? Or, perhaps he may wish to provide us with his very own “designer definition” of the term, as he has already displayed that he has alread assembled a considerable of such terms.
While I never doubt that the gentleman believes what he writes, there is somehow always something missing. And that is quite frequently, and most unfortunately, a lack of knowledge and understanding of subject matter.
Certainly, the gentleman is erudite enough in stringing words but, and the question always is ‘Does he know what he is really stating when doing so?’
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your graciousness in conceding the point lives up to my expectations. Your intellect is beyond question. Not too long ago, we were discussing values, and I must admit that my idea of your atheist values was entirely and completely wrong. If you were the model, there would be far less opposition, or at least far less misunderstanding. I salute you sir.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, AP. I appreciate it.
(salutes back)
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Laitres,
And perhaps the gentleman does not wish to engage in your fools errand. And perhaps you are right that the gentleman has difficulty in understanding what you write. IE “as he has already displayed that he has alread assembled a considerable of such terms.”
Your entire post is nothing but an amateurish attempt at misdirection, innuendo and confusion. You did not address my question as to what your defense is, as expected. Let us both agree that such tactics are not useful, and as you can see they are no longer applicable. Will the madness never end?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just to support my claim that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past, I offer this link: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Heartless and soulless, huh?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres:AP posts: “That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it.” While that is true, that I do preface that wording at times, it is not left to stand alone; i.e. an opinion not backed up by pertinent facts, or without a reasoning.
We do realize that while some on these boards have difficulty with reading comprehension’
Not only with reading comprehension but with the English language. I do wish Mr. Laitres that AP would learn the difference between infer and imply since it would make it meuch easier to understand what he is driving at. One may infer a meaning from what someone else writes. One may imply something in his own writing. AP nearly always uses them exactly backwards thus confusing the issue.
He likewise still does not understand what is meant by the burden of proof. The letter writer canno make statements about a postulated role of the ACLU with the Atheists without providing us some proof, or prefacing his comments with the words: “In my opinion” in which case we would know that it is unsubstantiated opinion which together with a dollar might get you a cup of coffee. Scott and ella denied that was the case but they are not required to offer proof. It does not cut both ways as Scott seemed to imply. If I tell you that the invisible purple spaghetti monster controls your every thought, you may deny it but I am the one who must offer proof for my positive assertion (since you would be unable to prove a negative in any case).
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
J. Eugene Fox,
It is apparent that you believe that I am under some obligation to defend the original letter. I did not write the original letter. Even Bobbie from Delta caught the significance of the preface “I fear” in the original letter. You must realize that even if you can interpret this letter not to be an opinion, I am still under no obligation to defend it. Now that letter may be your subject of choice and that would be fine. But it wasn’t mine. My subject was the statement of fact written by Ella. There is no preface in her statement. There is not even the remotest attempt to make her statement an opinion. It is undeniably a statement of fact. I simply posed questions in regards to that statement of fact. In doing so, I was operating under the same rules that you constantly profess to be your own. and that was the point. You can continue to be in denial or pretend you are obtuse, but what you can’t do is legitimately defend the position you have taken. Scott realized that early on, and only stubbornness motivates you for a second bite of the apple. And unfortunately, malignant stubbornness is a malady that in incurable. Now, you have the floor. Indubitably you will use it to sustain my diagnosis.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have a novel idea - why don’t one of you people contact the ACLU in Denver and/or Washington, D.C. and simply ask whether they are involved in the issue here in Grand Junction/Mesa County?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 6:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Anyone around here who considers him or herself a Christian is wasting their time. It would be better spent in the closet, praying as Jesus recommended!!!
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Why does the opinion offered in the letter not need to be supported just as much as a statement of fact? Can anyone toss out any old opinion and have it accepted as long as they are carefult to phrase it as an opinion?
If so, I disagree with that. The letter writer implied that the ACLU was behind the atheists/prayer issue. He phrased it as an opinion, but it is an accusation just the same and he offered nothing in the way of evidence.
It seems to me that a statement of fact is no less acceptable than an opinion in such a situation. In that case, then an opinion offered with no support can be countered with a statement with no support.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52: I must confess to not being nice as I was really, amusing myself with AP, using his own techniques against him. Apparently he does not at all like it. One, hitekredneck is also upset with my writing in the 3rd person. That is intentional on my part as it assists in keeping the conversation out of the personal sphere, and addressing ideas rather than the personality which, for the most part, is totally non-productive. If some will note, whenever something is posted, some people will begin addressing what they believe are inferences, innuendo, etc.
That does not bother me too much but, that is all too often because they cannot see the central point or supporting arguments, viewing disagreement as a personal attack, and thereby changing the subject to that of personalities. If they view disagreement, even fundamental ones, in that way, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. That, they have to work through themselves. It is sad really, as it does not allow any of the discussions beyond a very base level.
Above, you were “diagnosed” by AP, undoubtedly the gentleman must believe himself to be an expert in the field of psychology and psychoanalysis,able to determine what is your motivation and who and what you are. Such reminds me of former Senator Bill Frist who, being so good as a doctor (MD), that he could diagnose the patient Terry Schiavo just by watching a video tape of her lying in bed.
While we all do perform some “analysis”, some of us do attempt to base and restrict that analysis to what the other has posted, and usually following a protracted period and from multiple posts. It is only those who are either unfamiliar with subject matter, unable to separate the personal from the concepts or ideas that so quickly leap to conclusions about another. That is why, in so many even in this forum, that we see so much “name calling” and attempted denigration of others. To say that such is truly childish is a gross understatement.
Perhaps I should cease amusing myself with them but at times, even I do succumb to temptation. Something else to work on I guess.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My name is Anne Landman. I am the founder of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers. We have no involvement with the ACLU, nor do we plan to be involved with them. That does not eliminate the possibility that we might seek their assistance at some point in the future should our local governments willfully persist in violating the law regarding the invocation, but at this point we are completely uninvolved with the ACLU and have no plans whatsoever to contact them.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
An opinion is nothing more than a conclusion. It may or may not be based on evidence, but it is uniquely the property and responsibility of the one who expresses it. To defend or not to defend, to support or not to support is solely within the dominion of the person expressing the opinion, or by transference to someone voicing agreement with that opinion. On the other hand, a statement of fact does not require a conclusion. It is raw data, and must always be based on evidence. Otherwise, it is nothing but a lie, and an attempt to pass fraudulent information. It is acceptable to challenge either an opinion or a statement in fact. If an opinion is proven to be based on incorrect information, it becomes an error in judgment. If a statement of fact is proven to be wrong, by virtue of being based on non-existent or an anonymous source, (actually one in the same), then it can be seen as nothing more than a lie. While it is perfectly acceptable for you to ask anyone to defend their opinion, it is more appropriately done by asking them to explain their opinion. Asking a third party to defend or explain an opinion that they have not expressed agreement with, is also acceptable, because it is a request. But to assert that there is some moral obligation to defend someone elses opinion or statement of fact, when that person has not expressed agreement with the opinion or statement in question is dishonest. As most often used in this forum, this assertion is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, based upon an assumption of which side of the issue a person is on. If misinformation is presented in an opinion, most people know to take it with a grain of salt. However, if misinformation is presented as a statement of fact, it can be presumed that the intent was to misinform. How many times have we all seen this forum reduced to a propaganda site, by those who don’t come right out and state a fact, but rather hide behind innuendo, and when challenged, they retort, nowhere in my writing did I say that you were stupid. Usually followed by; maybe this person would like to go back and show me where I said he was stupid, in an attempt to put their opponent on the defensive, and send them on a fools errand. Such bandying of words, when it is clear to everyone who read the original statement that it was the intent to call the person stupid, and that intent was based upon an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that a question was not answered. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose for some on this site is not the discussion of issues, but rather as a testing ground for their strategies of deception. It is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with these individuals, and therefore I have adopted a policy of fighting fire with fire, in a continuing attempt to expose to the readers the intent of these individuals to reduce this forum to nothing more than their own private political propaganda instrument. To ignore these individuals is simply to enable them to post their propaganda unchallenged. Until such time that all readers learn to recognize and condemn these tactics, the only limit to these individuals propaganda campaign is their own sense of self restraint, and that does not appear promising at this time.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
A statement of fact does not become false simply because the original source is unknown. You may not accept it unquestioningly, but that lone factor has nothing to do with the truth or false nature of the statement.
I’m not quite sure what kind of proof would be possible in this particular case. You could be given a name, but that could be nothing more than a random name out of the phone book. The WCAF does not have a website, but even if it did, how could it demonstrate there is no connection between the ACLU and the WCAF? You are asking for proof of a negative, which is difficult at best and completely impossible in most cases.
You have an unsupported opinion that has been answered with two statements of fact. I don’t think you’re going to get any more than that.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Until now I always thought my daughter and her friend had monopolized the market on “self-righteousness”, I now know they simply hold second and third place titles.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You should re-read post #10. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was trying to prove that the WCAF was connected with the ACLU? I was simply asking for a clarification of the statement and a source for the statement. Neither was I was defending the orignial letter writers opinion. That is up to him.
I will asume that you were not attempting to put words in my mouth or to cause a diversion. You’re drifting pilgrim.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oneperson,
My congratulations to your Daughter and her friend. I am sure you could be much more specific than that.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“You should re-read post #10.”
Okay, here it is: “OK, Scott, are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? What are the names of the two groups (just for the record) that you state have no connection between them. And who authorized that statement? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney do not plan future involvement with the ACLU? At this moment, all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity. And, should we want to reference this statement in the future, I’m sure there are those on this site who would not accept an anonymous post as a credible source.”
“Where in the world did you get the idea that I was trying to prove that the WCAF was connected with the ACLU?”
I didn’t say you were. But you were asking for verification of the statements made by Ella and myself, which referred to that connection. I was pointing out that no such verification is possible, since it is asking to prove a negative. You did ask me if such a connection was planned in Post #10.
“I was simply asking for a clarification of the statement and a source for the statement.”
You also asked me if such a connection was planned. This has been answered, but cannot be proven.
“Neither was I was defending the orignial letter writers opinion. That is up to him.”
Agreed, which he failed miserably at.
“I will asume that you were not attempting to put words in my mouth or to cause a diversion.”
No, just trying to show that no verification of the statements you were asking for verification on is possible, as it involves proving a negative. I know for a fact that no connection exists between the ACLU and the WCAF, but I cannot prove that such a connection does not exist. I cannot prove a negative. What kind of verification or clarification were you expecting?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What I was trying to do Scott, was to verify the message and the messenger. I don’t care if there is a connection. But since there have been many statements previous to that post with regard to litigation on this subject, I was simply trying to find out if there were any plans, past, present, or future by the WCAF to involve the ACLU. The writer, Ella, placed themselves in a position of making a statement for that group. What better source, if that person was authorized to make the statement. Her use of the word currently begs the question, what of the past and what of the future? I never ask for proof. I was simply seeking an authentic source for the statement, and a clarification as to the extent and meaning of the statement. And like the original letter writer, Ella chose to decline comment. In other words, this would be a draw, except for the fact that you chose to answer for Ella. The fact that you did, therefore, did not answer my questions. Nor did it provide any other source than a user name. Now we can both continue to try to spin this, but what is the use. There is nothing to spin. We both know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact, and we both asserted shat we think should be the rules concerning those. And that has given us both something to think about. And that is the only positive thing that I can see that has emerged from this whole discussion. But, perhaps that is enough. I do enjoy talking to you, and my mind remains open and malleable to your ideas. I realize the issues that we don’t agree on, provide a greater opportunity for conversation, but I also recognize that our relationship is based on something other than trying to force our opinions on each other. And that takes effort and a desire to understand, and I believe that is the essence of the value of this forum.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
How can you know that someone claiming to speak for the WCAF is in fact doing so? I could give you a name, but you have no way of checking to see if I gave you a random name out of the phone book. Ella and I have both told you out of personal knowledge that there is no connection as the letter writer implied. What kind of verification beyond that can anyone provide?
I’m not trying to be difficult, honestly. But it looks to me like you’re asking for something that no one can provide. I have given you my word that what I said is true. What else can I offer?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, a while back, hugelburg wrote a letter stating that he was communicating with both groups, acting as an attorney in the process, and mentioned possible legal action.
Now, technically, if one is dumb enough to believe anything huggieburg says, there was/is no direct communication between the two groups, only through the middle (man)?
That help muddy the waters a little more for ya?
It’s a case of trying to deflect the attention away from reality in order to gain some type of advantage.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your word is good enough for me. However, I did not particularly want your word. I did not particularly want you to be responsible for making that statement. That is the point you are missing. When I engaged Ella, Scott was the last person on my mind. I will predict in the future that the ACLU will be involved. To me, that is neither here nor there. But to someone that made the statement that would not happen, it could matter. I am not saying that is what you said, and I clearly understand what you said. I am simply telling you, my preference would have been for Ella to have answered my questions, just like you would have preferred if the original letter writer would have answered yours. What I distinctly did not set out to do or wish to do or have intent to do was to put Scott in a position of making a statement which later turned out to be untrue. Whether the ACLU will become involved with WCAF remains to be seen. I’m not saying it will happen and I’m not saying it won’t. I was simply trying to pin down the “currently” word. If you wish to take responsibility for what you said, not Ella, then your word is more than good enough for me, and I think that is what you are saying.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I’m pretty sure Bill Hugenberg never wrote that he was in contact with the ACLU. There are other organizations that have expressed interest in this situation, but to my knowledge, the ACLU is not one of them. You may be thinking of the FFRF.
AP,
I see what you’re saying, but even Ella simply said there was no currect connection. There may be in the future. I don’t know. But there isn’t now and there are now plans for such.
I realize you were asking Ella, but as I was in the position of having the answer to your question, I thought I’d help out. And yes, I take responsibility for what I said, as always.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It was in a printed letter Scott.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof.”
Scott, you don’t believe that is actually going to happen do you? WLJ takes great pride in never having documented anything he has ever written.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, no. Not at all. If I get time later this evening I might see if I can find it just to prove him wrong, but I don’t expect him to back up what he says. Why would he start now?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let me see…
” Scott
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm PM This User Report this comment
Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof. ”
People and their lack of punctuation….
“Yeah, I know I just don’t think.
It was the ACLU he was talking about.
I could be wrong….”
Nuff said…
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot - Based on comment #38 is obvious to any reasonably intelligent layperson that you are a psychotic personality with delusional manifestations. But help is available - I understand the Indian Health Service provides excellent mental health care at no charge to any Native American who needs it.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
It would appear from your rant, that my post had a profound effect. Fortunately, I am not delusional enough to believe that it will trigger any alterations in conduct or behavior. To expect that would be truly delusional. But it was nice of you to confirm that my post got to you.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay folks, after reading and suffering through 55 posts, it is time to get back to the substance of the letter and its various implications.
“I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.”
Having served on one of the boards of the ACLU (in one of the more active cities in that wonderful and politically ambiguous state of California) I can assure you that ACLU members do indeed have a LOT of principles. They do not ‘use’ anyone. Do you homework and conduct a little research and you will find quickly that the ACLU is reactionary organization and does not go out looking to stir things up. Rather, they are constantly being approached by all sorts of individuals and organizations that, for a variety of reasons, feel that their personal and constitutional rights have been threatened and, in some cases, egregiously violated. Dig a little deeper and you find that some of these complainants have included many christians and, in one very infamous case, the American Nazi Party of George Lincoln Rockwell - not exactly a flaming liberal but, nonetheless, someone who just wanted to do a little ‘goose-stepping’ in a very jewish area. Against local sentiment they did indeed defend the guy and won in court. Not a very popular thing to do but they did so as a matter of ‘principle’.
The ACLU certainly does not have a ‘financial’ agenda. In fact, the board I served on was constantly struggling to to stay afloat. The lawyers serve pro bono, as well as the individual board members. Your pitiful attempt to demonize the ACLU and, by inference, all other organizations that work to preserve and protect our constitutional rights is simply dishonest and mean-spirited. A_P et al, please stay off the personal attacks and get back to the point - assuming you can actually remember what that is.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I’ve been through all the Bill Hugenberg letters regarding the invocation I can find, and I have seen no reference to the ACLU whatsoever. The closest thing I have located is this bit from his letter of June 11:
“However, to avoid any misunderstanding, I offer the following clarifications: First, I do not represent the WCA, but rather sought to clarify and explain current law for the benefit of the council. Second, my legal memorandum to the council did not mean to “hint” that the WCA intended to file a lawsuit — only to acknowledge the possibility that it or some other injured party might do so if the council persisted in its current practices. Thus, rather than seeming to dare the council to “pursue litigation,” my intention was to caution against “inviting” such litigation by refusing to modify any arguably unconstitutional practices.”
You may notice that there is no reference to the ACLU. Unless you can support your claim more than you have in the past, I will simply consider this yet another baseless rant by Willis, and will ignore it like most everyone else does.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Unless you can support your claim more than you have in the past, I will simply consider this yet another baseless rant by Willis, and will ignore it like most everyone else does.”
Scott you are such a nice guy and so patient, that you have taken longer to come to that conclusion than most of us. But of course WLJ can prove us wrong by quoting the relevant letter (don’t hold your breath).
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
Oh, I came to that conclusion along with the rest of you. I just enjoy letting him demonstrate that he can’t put his money where his mouth is.
Wow. The Flying Spaghetti Monster just came to me in a vision and told me that Willis next post here would be nothing but an irrelevant and snide comment having nothing to do with the topic. Then God appeared and said that of course Willis would back up his claim, because no follower of his would make empty claims.
We’ll see which one turns out to be right.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I found it, keep looking.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why? You found it, prove it. I don’t believe you. You made the claim, you back it up.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What part of the atheist message don’t you understand? It is really quite simple. The atheist love our Grand Junction city council, and they are especially fond of the taxpayers in Grand Junction. And in that spirit they have made a good faith offer that they believe will save the city council great embarrassment, and will avoid bankruptcy for the taxpayers. What they are saying is; we believe that the city council is breaking the law, by having an invocation as any part of the public meeting, and we are offering our elected officials an opportunity to mend their ways of their own free will and without duress, which BTW would conform not only to what we believe the law is, but also to the atheist agenda. And the ACLU is not involved in any way with this good faith gesture, however, if the city council refuses to accept their good faith offer, then the atheists may find it necessary to deploy the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the ACLU. This, of course, ignores the fact that the 800 pound gorilla is an integral part of the “or else” factor in the negotiations, and has been omnipresent in the room since the beginning. It is all about image. You see, the presence of the 800 pound gorilla transforms what the atheists would have us think is a good faith gesture into an or else demand, and that image is counter productive for the atheists. This creates a dilemma. How do you hide an 800 pound gorilla and still make sure that everyone understands that the gorilla is still in the room? The obvious answer is to release an official statement saying; don’t make us have to use the invisible 800 pound gorilla to embarrass the city council and bankrupt the taxpayers.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So we have:
- The WCAF is not working with the ACLU
and
- So what if they were.
Case closed!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger - AMEN!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
A very interesting choice of words.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Almost. You’re close, but off on a few details.
Yes, actually. The WCAF did approach the city council primarily to prevent a lawsuit, from one of the national organizations or depending on the outcome, on behalf of the WCAF. I would submit that anytime a group of citizens approaches the city council to discuss an issue, that “gorilla” is in the room. Why is this any different?
To my knowledge, the ACLU has never been mentioned as one of potential litigants, but it’s certainly possible. I do know that there has been contact with a lawyer from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but nothing from the ACLU.
What difference does it make? The city council is doing something unconstitutional. They have admitted this. The WCAF did not file a lawsuit, they approached the city and asked to discuss the issue. Why is it so hard to imagine that they have anything other than the city’s best interest’s in mind? What would they gain from a lawsuit?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What difference it makes has to do with the difference between a request and a demand. Are you familiar with the provision in law that defines assault as a threat coupled with the ability to carry out that threat. It is all about perception, Scott. As you know, in today’s world, it’s not what is, it’s the public perception of what is.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Do you have any evidence that the WCAF ever did anything other than make a request of the city? Or does it not matter simply because of the potential for a lawsuit?
The public perception does not make something true. The WCAF has never threatened the city with a lawsuit. They have pointed out the city’s vulnerability to a lawsuit as a result of them doing something unconstitutional, and offered several ways for them to fix it. Thanks to Chuck Norris and the Daily Sentinel, national awareness of this issue has increased, thus increasing the potential for litigation by a national group. Just because the public is misinformed doesn’t make the misinformation true.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The proper metaphor is not criminal threat/assault. It is more like nicely asking your neighbor to stop letting his dogs crap on other neighbors’ lawns, and reminding him that there are legal recourses if he ignores the request.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s there Scott, I just went back and looked again.
Obviously you need the practice in proper research.
Have fun.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you aren’t going to provide the date of the letter in question, I am going to assume that you can’t. It’s not my job to support your claim.
I’m still waiting.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t it odd how that works out Scott?
A lot of us have been waiting for reliable documentation from the BBB for quite some time.
Some of us have been waiting for simple questions to be answered with none forth coming.
A lot of us are still waiting for some indication of honesty in a couple of the members of the BBB.
Some of us keep hoping for some semblance of honest discourse on numerous subjects instead of the hateful, belittling and argumentative diatribes from classless, little bobbie and others.
So you just go ahead and wait and see how much sympathy you get.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m not looking for sympathy. I’m looking for you for once to put your money where your mouth is and support a claim you have made. You said you have the information, but you are childishly withholding it apparently under the misapprehension that I am obligated to search for it myself.
If you are unable to actually give a date for the letter in question, then it will become obvious rather quickly. It is already becoming so.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As usual scott, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
You research skills are in question, and for me to do the research for you would place you in the position of needing me to accomplish that which you are not able to accomplish by your own efforts.
Whether or not you are able to perform has no effect on my life.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And your understanding of how discussions work is apparently non-existant.
You make a claim. In this case, it was that Bill Hugenberg stated in a letter to the Sentinel that he was in contact with both the WCAF and the ACLU. If you want anyone to take your claim seriously, you need to provide support for that claim. You don’t get to make a claim and sit back and wait for someone to prove you wrong. you will simply be ignored instead.
Since you are unwilling to support your claim, you apparently cannot. Color me surprised.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I don’t need any evidence. I never made a claim that the WCAF made anything but a request. You are the one who has made a statement as to there being no affiliation, and as you stated, to your knowledge, no planned affiliation between the WCAF and the ACLU. Now comes the statement by Anne Landman stating the contingency that if the city does not comply with their request/demand, that just such an affiation with a “national association” may be in the offing. You will recall that you put yourself in the position you presently enjoy. My post that you took issue with makes no claim other an analysis of what has taken place, and relates that to possible public perception. While public perception does not make something true or false, it is simply what the public perceives the truth to be. If there is a public perception that there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, then for the public, there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room. It goes to hearts and minds, Scott.
I think I should let you know here, that today is national hug an atheist day, so don’t freak out like you did last year. No one is trying to hurt you.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott,
As I stated earlier, and which you chose to ignore, the Bombastic Buffoon Brigade has consistently thrown out unsubstantiated claims and refused to offer any reliable sources.
usually, IF we are given ‘details’ they come from a website with a name like http://www.hatetheUSA.org or hitlerforever.commie…
Normal rules of discussion have never applied to them personally.
You are getting the same treatment that we receive.
You don’t like it very much do you?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Doesn’t matter to me in the least. You have never supported a single claim you have made, as far as I can remember. This is just more of the same. It also doesn’t matter if anyone else’s claims were supported or not. We are talking about YOU. You say you have the information that supports your claim. You refuse to disclose this information because someone hurt your feelings. Perhaps in Willisworld, that is a valid argument. But then a lot of things are different in Willisworld. When you decide to grow up and join the rest of us here in reality, we’ll talk again. Maybe.
AP,
If you feel justified in making assumptions about the motivations of people you don’t know, in situations you are not familiar with without evidence, then go right ahead. These kinds of assumptions are one of the main reasons why the public perception is what it is.
Of course a lawsuit is a contingency. I never said it wasn’t. The US government has contingency plans to invade Canada, but that doesn’t mean they’re planning to do it. Claiming nefarious motives just because of that is hardly justified. You’re right about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. You’re wrong that the atheists put it there. It’s been there as long as the city council has been conducting unconstitutional prayers. The atheists just pointed it out to them. If you want to vilify them for that, go ahead. They’ve already gotten at least one death threat from a “Christian.” If you find hard to believe that atheists could be doing this for any reason other than self-aggrandizement and selfishness, then you don’t know much about atheists.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh scott, now yer making me blush…
It really is all about ME?
Oh golly gee whiz.
And the ‘death threat’ thing….?
Well, gene made a claim that he got a phone call one day, and everybody felt anger that such an event could have occurred.
Then, with some reflection a few days later when it became extremely obvious that sometimes gene creates things in attempts to garner sympathy or pity, I decided there probably was not a phone call.
And the whiners deliberately pushed the 800 pound gorilla into the room to use as a threat.
The sole purpose was to push their agenda.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I think you are creating boogie men where there are none. The atheists put their own spin by trying to create the impression that they were only trying to help. Like you said, the possibility of a law suit has been there all the time. What I did was point out, as you well know, that there may be a different perception based on the same evidence. If you find that truth to be unacceptable, then you can just keep trying to spin it your way, and I will just keep presenting the other side. That’s not a problem. Public perceptions are what they are, but I think the public is entitled to input from both sides, don’t you? You may not like the public’s perception and you may do everything you can do to change that perception, but I don’t think it is right to point the finger at the other side for doing the same thing. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
You are right, a contingency plan is just that, a contingency plan. But contingent upon what? In this case, we have Ms. Landman’s statement which outlines the contingency that would be the tripwire for implementation. And that makes it a little more real in the public mind. As far as nefarious motives are concerned, I would leave that up to the reader. I just pointed out the possibilities, but since you brought it up. Have you read Mr. Kearsley’s latest letter. You may notice some similarities there to what you claim I am doing. Again, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Or perhaps you would like to condemn his letter at the same time. No, I didn’t think so.
Again, you are right. The atheists are the ones that made sure that everyone realized that the 800 pound gorilla was in the room. Now why would they do that? Nefarious purposes perhaps? For a simple request, did they really need the 800 pound gorilla? A word of advise, Scott, spinning is a political art form, and the rules that hold true for politics also hold true for spinning. One of the hardest lessons to learn in politic is knowing when to quit.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I am sure you know that there is an unfavorable opinion of the request from the atheists already by the public in general. I am sure that there are hot heads on both sides, and as with any issue of this kind, there may be incidents, however, the idea that if they don’t get their way (demands), they will litigate and the majority of taxpayers will have to pay for it, is not a very neighborly way to advance your cause.
The other thing that seems interesting is the timing. First it is an election year, and second, all across the United States, including one of the military academies and thousands of small towns and cities, these same “requests” are being made by “groups” claiming to be small independent citizens of citizens just trying to “help”. I think the public perception is exactly right, that it is a coordinated national effort to impose their agenda onto the rest of the nation as a whole.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: ” I think the public perception is exactly right, that it is a coordinated national effort to impose their agenda onto the rest of the nation as a whole.
GM6 assumes that her perception is identical with the public perception. Her way of thinking represents only the far right wing in small town Western Colorado, a cultural and intellectual backwater for many years until relatively quite recently. I venture to say that you would hear a very different public response in places like Aspen, Boulder, perhaps Telluride, etc and certainly in Boston, New York City, San Francisco, the halls of the Supreme Court and other places where people’s thinking is representative of the 21st century, not the 18th.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am not involved other than the debate on this forum, but the way I see it, the ONLY thing at issue is local leaders behaving in a way that is unconstitutional.
Whoever has the time and courage to address issue has my respect and gratiitude. I don’t care who they are or what motivates them or the names of their cats. All I care is that they are trying to do a good thing.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are probably right about the communities you named, but we don’t live there and since I am from the south and southwest (and still have friends there), I think you might find you are sadly mistaken, on local levels.
And, I really don’t care if you think we are backward here, we live here and we are in the majority here, so guess what public opinion is here. You are the one I don’t understand. You say you are almost 74 years old, why do you live in a place you where obviously despise all the people with whom you live? If I despised this area and the people here as much as you claim to, I believe I would find a place where I was happier for the rest of my years. As Callahan, Edfast mortuary says in their ads; Life is short, don’t waste it.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is why I admire the courage of those who are taking up this issue; because they are going against a local majority that seems to have forgotten, that in our Republic the majority does not always rule.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: You say you are almost 74 years old, why do you live in a place you where obviously despise all the people with whom you live? If I despised this area and the people here as much as you claim to, I believe I would find a place where I was happier for the rest of my years.
What in the world gave you such an idea. My family and I love living here. This town is full of people who share our ideas and interests. The Grand Junction Symphony, (where I have been a member of the Board) is marvelous (do you attend?) and the music and drama outlets here are great. The outdoors life and the fly fishing is outstanding. The community is changing rapidly for the better as more and more educated people with a diversity of interests move here to retire. The only thing I dislike about Grand Junction is the current ultraconservative views of the majority of voters. However, that will change before long and it currently only affects local politics. As shown in recent elections, voting in Mesa county is out of step with the majority of Colorado voters, out of touch with national realities and divorced from world opinion. That means it is largely irrelevant where it really counts and I can put up with local dinosaurs like Ms. Rowland and Josh Penry since I don’t have to interact with either of them (and Penry gets outvoted by the Democratic majority).
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
I said nothing about majority rule. Actually, I don’t have an axe to grind here. I am just tired of people like Class demeaning, and slamming the place we live at every opportunity. It seems like every thing has turned upside down, and no matter what it is from farming to prayer, he and a couple of others (not necessarily you) have nothing but disdain for us and our way of life, so I decided to speak up. The old timers here, who have had booms and busts before have never been under such an assault as we are now. If people like class want to live in Boulder or Apsen, fine, but don’t try to change my home town to be what you want when everyone else seems happy here, or did until these little groups started being so “helpful”.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: “If people like class want to live in Boulder or Apsen, fine, but don’t try to change my home town to be what you want when everyone else seems happy here, or did until these little groups started being so “helpful”.”
I am sure that the Native Americans who lived here felt exactly the same way when your ancestors moved in and dispossesed them (usually with violence).
You and the “old timers” need to get over the notion that you own the place. Things change continuously and this community is changing rapidly.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 - Amen, progressive brother-in-arms! I agree that Grand Junction is slowly emerging from it’s position as an intellectual and cultural “backwater.” As time advances, people with modern ideas and adequate educations will supplant the ever-diminishing cadre of local “yokels” who are desperately waging a losing war against progress.
I look forward (even willing to pray to a deity, of such a mythical creature exists) to the day (not far off) when the citizens of Grand Junction can proudly unfurl a new flag proclaiming the place we love to live as “The Peoples Republic of Grand Junction.”
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6 - Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that no one should challenge the City Council prayers because the majority would like to see these prayers continue.
If you are just sick and tired of people who imply that this valley is full of backwater hicks, I understand your frustration with that. It is rude.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Atheists and Socialists
It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter. They cling to their communism, or their atheistic beliefs or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-American sentiment, or anti-capitalism sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix has lived here for years, and perhaps has come to believe that such entitles her to more ‘ownership’ of the town in which she lives. Actually, that is not the case. What she owns is her own personal property, and is no more nor less of a ‘citizen’ than an individual who has been here a single year or even a single month. Some may believe diffently but, such is an illsusion which they choose to entertain. If she, as well as other long time residents, in any community or even the country, were to recognize that length of residence is not a standard of measurement to be used making one person more of a ‘citizen’ than another, they might alleviate a great deal of their frustration.
As we get older, there is one thing that must be recognized and actively fought. It is that we are all, to one degree or another, averse to any type of change. Those who can adapt to it, live happy and productive lives, those who cannot condemn themselves to isolation, bitterness and misery. Some have the courage to change, while others do not. And, that is a choice that each and every person must make.
While some may attempt to ‘live in the past’, that is an impossibility. The world is ever changing, even locally. The secret to success (whether personal, business, or otherwise) is to learn and adapt. Othewise, on will definitely end up miserable, wasting one’s time bemoaning the loss of what is, and all too often, a ‘romanticized’ version of what was.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P it is also rude to run down atheists. We do not agree on some things but I am surprised to hear you spouting generalities about people who do not believe as you do.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP once again presents us a very clear indicator that whatever knowledge or understanding of what his country is about, has been picked up ‘by accident’. “It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter. They cling to their communism, or their atheistic beliefs or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-American sentiment, or anti-capitalism sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
That statement, along with his own definition of what he believes is ‘patriotism’ (found in the forum section), makes it clear that the individual would have been as much of a zealot in whatever country and in whatever period of time he lived.
If he had lived in Germany during the NAZI period, he would have waved the ‘twisted cross’ with as much ardor as he now waves the ’stars and stripes’.
If he had lived in Soviet Russia or China under Bolshevism or Maoism, he would have proudly displayed and waved the hammer and sickle with as much ardor.
Such is what happens to individuals who do not have a center of their own. They are controlled by externals, from whatever source. The only requirement is that it be ‘absolute’ in nature.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhuger,
on the prayer issue, I don’t really care. My point is and always has been to be a law abiding citizen.
RL
I understand that I am not more than a citizen, however, I worked for more hours than you have been alive, maybe to make this town a city with parks etc, and to see a group enter and want to change it to a socialist community with them on the hill, and the rest of us in the streets, as their socialist programs make it necessary for me to leave my home, as my retirement income does not grow at the same rate, breaks my heart, but it also makes me angry. If you feel that is living in the past, then OK.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From this letter writer I understand that everybody else is supposed to love the changes brought in by people that moved here in the last few years.
Not being really old enough to understand all the twists and turns made by people who would rather mis-direct a conversation than answer honest questions I am confused.
RLLaitres is kind of new to this area. Classof62 is also somewhat new to the area, and some others. They are also very liberal in their political positions which is very unamerican. People should be able to live their lives without the government making lots of decisions about who can do anything with their lives and property.
They think the government should be able to brainwash children to not believe in God of what their parents want them to believe. That is not what this country was founded on. Some guys keep asking questions about gun control that don’t get answered because whoever WLJ is asked the questions first. What a stupid argument.
I thought this would be a good place to learn about local stuff but its only a bunch of old people sniveling about conservatives and what they did to this country. From my history books and studies on the net, this country was a much better place before the democrats elected President Johnson.
RLaitres uses a lot of words to go around a subject and I sometimes just want to ask him what he is trying to hide.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah I don’t really agree with the whole “move over old-timers and make way for the new” rap.
For one thing the Grand Valley has, for a long time been a place of “down to earth” folks — Utes of course, and more recently ranchers, farmers, blue collar workers, and retirees.
I don’t like people insulting the current populace and implying that this area is on its way to being “just like” other places so we should all just get used to it.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh let me be clear I was responding more to grandmasix, not Alexander! Sheesh!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander, I think you’ve pegged it. There is allot of sniping that goes on back and forth… but, I believe it has improved in the past few weeks. Most times if you read past the sniping and ignore the posts of the snipers, you can learn some good info and have decent discussions. Hang in there!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It is not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Barack Hussein Obama, April 6, 2008
I suppose it is just a matter of interpretation, and what your agenda may be.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The liberals are romping. They believe the world belongs to them. Those who are not liberal are neanderthals. The “People’s Republic of Grand Junction”. Dream on.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix responds with: “and to see a group enter and want to change it to a socialist community with them on the hill, and the rest of us in the streets, as their socialist programs make it necessary for me to leave my home, as my retirement income does not grow at the same rate”
First, it is unfortunate that you are being forced to leave your home. That should not happen to anyone, in particular a senior citizen who has lived their for many years, is able to, and want to remain in their home.
However, I do not agree that such is ’socialism’. When speaking of socialism, and which is its true definion, refers to an economic system where the means of production are either owned by, or totally controlled by the government. That is quite different from the issue of social responsibility, something which, along with the issue of civility is now in quite short supply, not only locally but nationally, and in all areas. Such is what happens when what becomes most important in peoples lives, is not the individual but material things such as money and power (political or otherwise.)
grandmasix also made the statement that she has worked more hours than I have been alive. Sorry, but that is not true. I will be 67 next week, and my 40 working years (excluding 24/7 military time) quite frequently involved 60 and 70 hour weeks.
Now, I am busier than ever doing what I really love to do, that is studying, thinking, and writing, as well as ‘keeping track’ of what government is doing.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander says: “They are also very liberal in their political positions which is very unamerican.”
Not so, Alexander! America is a whole spectrum of political and religious beliefs. It is a large part of what makes this country so great!! I hope you learn this as you mature.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think I should be able to keep the money I earn to spend the way I want to spend it. Giving a half of my money to the government so the politicians can give it to people that don’t belong in this country, or that don’t work to earn their own money is wrong. Taking care of people that can’t work and earn money was always done by churches and other organizations like the salvation army and it was good for the poor people and the sick ones.
I read where over 80% of all the money the government takes in to give to the poor and old people gets used up by the government agencies in charge of giving the money to the people that need help. That’s wasteful and should be looked into and people arrested and thrown in jail.
It didn’t used to be like that before President Johnson. And my grandad says he started the worst of it.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “The liberals are romping. They believe the world belongs to them. Those who are not liberal are neanderthals. The “People’s Republic of Grand Junction”. Dream on.”
From such a statement, I will assume that the individual is speaking of ‘political liberals’. So, I will once again invite him, or any other who believes as he does and uses the term so blithely, to present us with what he believes constitutes “political liberalism.”
If, with such an invitation and opportunity, they do not wish to avail themselves of the opportunity, one must conclude that they do not know its meaning or significance. In such a case, they may wish to stay away from it altogether, lest they make fools of themselves with those who do.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, being as knowledgeable as you are, I am surprised that you need others to explain to you what a liberal is. May I suggest that you avail yourself with a mirror. That will define it for you.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander you and your grandad are right about government waste and taxes being too high. Of course there is a place for modest taxes to build roads and bridges and libraries, and to pay for police officers, firefighters, schools, the military, etc.
But it is heartbreaking to see so much waste, and to see the money we put into Social Security stolen from under our noses.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rush Limbaugh says words mean things. RLaitres uses words wrong a lot of times and it makes his letters hard to understand sometimes. In letter 102 he says -First, it is unfortunate that you are being forced to leave your home. That should not happen to anyone, in particular a senior citizen who has lived their for many years, is able to, and want to remain in their home.
That should be THERE for many years. Their means something else.
I agree with Mr. Limbaugh, words do mean things, and people should learn what words mean before using them.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have to go do some things for my Mom.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander, Rush Limbaugh uses very hurtful words to describe people who do not agree with him. RLaitres made a typo. THERE is a huge difference.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I see you have met Mr. Laitres and class of 52. I don’t know if you are aware of the fact that both of them are well over the age of retirement and being on the government dole gives them time to wrap themselves in the red hammer and cycle banner, and spew their hatred for America. And they apparently hate more than America. They hate where they came from, they hate where they are, and I am sure they will hate where they are going. They hate Christians, they hate our troops, actually they appear to hate everyone but Obama. And I think that is because Obama grew up in a home that hates America. He has spent quite a bit of time in the last several years painting a grossly false picture of his Father and Mother, in the hopes that Americans won’t realize how peculiar his parents really were. Obama describes his Mother as, “the dominant figure in my formative years… The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics”. Obama describes his Mother as a mid western girl of faith, but a recent Chicago Sun Times article presents a very different picture-a girl who spent grade 8 through 12 growing up radical, and atheist on Mercer Island near Seattle. Obama has tried repeatedly to sell himself as a Christian. Perhaps he is; but his Mother pretty clearly wasn’t and his attempts at presenting a false portrait of his Mother raised serious questions about his honesty.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander states: “I think I should be able to keep the money I earn to spend the way I want to spend it.”
It is impossible to say what age is Alexander but it is quite clear that he is sorely lacking in knowledge of history and, sadly enough, so is “granddad.”
Perhaps Alexander birthed himself, changed his own diapers, and paid for all his schooling himself. He undoubtedly also built the roads he travels on, built the sidewalks he walks on, and also defended himself from enemies, foreign and domestic.
Maybe both ‘granddad’ and Alexander, instead of spending time on public forums such as this, might better spend their time at the library reading some history. Otherwise, they might live their entire lives, and even die without knowing what responsibility means.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, again with his usual omniscience “knows” how others live, and what sources of income they have. Perhaps he would care to tell us how he, in his lifelong independence, conceived himself, birthed himself, changed his own diapers, housed and sheltered himself, educated himself (including building his own school and writing his own books), etc.
We of the “hammer and sickle” brigade, as he would characterize retired seniors, would be very interested in learning how that was accomplished.
The gauntlet has been cast down. Let us wait and see if he answers or, as we all know will be the case, we will see more evasion.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is there no level to which AP can sink? He posts, in #111: “Obama has tried repeatedly to sell himself as a Christian. Perhaps he is; but his Mother pretty clearly wasn’t and his attempts at presenting a false portrait of his Mother raised serious questions about his honesty.”
Now, perhaps some of us are at times not too mindful of how we communicate, but to sink to the level of attacking another’s parents, be it mother or father, is definitely a new low, even for the likes of AP and some of his sycophants. When reading such posts I am mindful that many grew up, not only without manners, but with absolutely no sense of propriety.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander,
Did you hear that Rush Limbaugh just signed a new radio contract. They will pay him 38 million dollars a year with an eight hundred thousand signing bonus. Now that is talent on loan from God
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post 111 — AP what are you ON today? Holy cow, that is some mean, nasty, ignorant stuff you are spewing.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ash, i agree that ap was vitriolic in his reply…however, read #112 in which rlaitres, attempts to debase a young mind with abuse…the young (i believe) alexander is simply trying to broaden his horizons, and rather that attempting to give his point of view on the subject, rl lambasts him with insult…if you’re going to call somebody for innappropriate behavior, please do so equally
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Something about “Alexander” doesn’t add up.
I wonder if “Lil’Alex” is an alter ego of another.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Since I am a senior myself, I think it is pretty obvious that I don’t characterize all seniors as members of the “hammer and sickle brigade”. No, I save that label for a few very particular and peculiar individuals. Membership in that particular fifth column unit must be earned. Fortunately very few individuals, mostly johnny come latelys actually qualify. But I believe in credit where credit is due, and when they earn it, well they just buy the whole can. Are they stuck in the brigade forever? Sadly, many who bring their brigade membership to this harsh and rugged environment, this western land of courage and self reliance, this land of deep abiding faith will not be successful in their midnight attempts to relocate. Still others, eventually, will adapt and in the end find solace in having found such a beautiful and pristine eternal home. And this stalwart and righteous community will welcome them with open and everlasting arms.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor bobbie, from delta…
” t is impossible to say what age is Alexander but it is quite clear that he is sorely lacking in knowledge of history and, sadly enough, so is “granddad.”
Perhaps Alexander birthed himself, changed his own diapers, and paid for all his schooling himself. He undoubtedly also built the roads he travels on, built the sidewalks he walks on, and also defended himself from enemies, foreign and domestic. ‘
No bobbie, his Mother probably took care of him when he was real young.
And obviously, his PARENTS taught him something other than moronic liberal ways.
He made several points not related to infrastructure, but about government waste on moronic liberal giveaway to buy votes programs.
I noticed that you failed to address those issues that he actually raised.
That makes it look like you have a reading and comprehension problem.
He also mentioned that you use a lot of words to avoid discussing he issue you are purportedly responding to.
That kid’s smarter then you bobbie, be careful.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck responds with: “i agree that ap was vitriolic in his reply…however, read #112 in which rlaitres, attempts to debase a young mind with abuse…”
What is this? a “Yes, but…” type of rationalization. And the word “debase”? Give us a break will you hitek? And please learn the English language, if only the meaning of words, prior to attempting its use. Their is no “debasement” involved. It is but a “kick start” to have people, even Alexander, learn and understand prior to posting their opinions instead of merely repeating what others have said Would that more adults would do the same.
I don’t know how others were raised, but in my upbringing, you had every right to speak but one had not better be spouting nonsense or one could expect correction, not only from teachers, but parents and other adults. Perhaps too many were raised with sensitivity to their “itsy bitsy feelings” in mind. That may explain why so many supposed adults never grew up.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction” “…not spouting”
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” We of the “hammer and sickle” brigade, as he would characterize retired seniors, would be very interested in learning how that was accomplished. ”
HUH? hammer and sickle brigade?
How about the Moronic Bombastic Buffoon Brigade bobbie?
Your arguments get sloppier every time you post.
He ‘birthed himself’ and all the other garbage you threw out in an attempt to make yourself look smart failed again bobbie.
I too am a ’senior’, and I too am disgusted with your attitude towards somebody that claims to be, and appears to be, young and in search of knowledge.
I can, on the other hand, believe that quite possibly YOU did self conceive after being told to go **** yourself.
There is something seriously wrong in your head and it seems as though there has been substantial inbreeding. Probably not anything your parents or any other relative did, just you, all by yourself.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, you have some proof of your claim?
Or just shaking your head to see if it still rattles?
How many alter egos do you have on here that makes you think a new person probably is a snake in the grass liberal?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Was it I that brought up the subject of Obama’s parents? You only have to turn on your television to know the truth. It was Obama who included his parents in his latest political ad, in hopes of riding his all American, Mother’s created image all the way to the White House. In the political world, that makes his statements and the subject of those statements fair game, as well as his honesty. Mr. Obama seems to be remarkably incompetent at papering over his lies. And you can count on Senator McCain to use Obama’s remarks against him in the general election, but amusingly, so has Senator Clinton, who suddenly recast herself as a friend of gun owners, sending out campaign fliers emphasizing Obama’s flip-flopping on gun control.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, ignoring another post responds with: “Sadly, many who bring their brigade membership to this harsh and rugged environment, this western land of courage and self reliance, ”
One must ask in what environment does AP believe he is living? What has he been watching all his life to get this picture in his head? It sounds like he has based it upon a string of “B” westerns.
As far as courage goes. Some of us have encountered “courage” all of our lives, and throughout this country. Courage is, doing what has to be done and when it has to be done, no matter what the cost. It is NOT, walking around with a six-shooter on one’s hip. And, the task requiring the greatest courage of all, is to look at oneself in a brutal and frank manner. And that is something which, even if they know it has to be done, few have the courage to do.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc posted: “Something about “Alexander” doesn’t add up.
I wonder if “Lil’Alex” is an alter ego of another.”
The same thought had crossed my mind. There is usually a way to tell, but I haven’t been watching the available indicators too closely.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Why the answer to your question is simple. I am in my Native environment. Countless generations of my people are buried in this land. I thrive in this harsh environment. This is my niche. I am fully acclimatized to the rigors of this rugged land. You seek to impress me with your pipe dream of a changing political environment. If I seem underwhelmed with your efforts, it is because I recognize a lesson from the millenniums, that in order to change anything, you must first adapt, so you can survive autonomously. Failure to do that means that you won’t be here to attempt to change anything else. You subject yourself to nature’s law of unintended consequences, if you are unable or unwilling to find harmony with your surroundings. Fail to find this harmony and the only change will be when you are gone, and your passing will not be noticed in the circle of life.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP responds with: “You seek to impress me with your pipe dream of a changing political environment. If I seem underwhelmed with your efforts, it is because I recognize a lesson from the millenniums, that in order to change anything, you must first adapt, so you can survive autonomously.”
Ignoring the personal aspects, that is a quite interesting response. Perhaps what is missing is the individuals recognition that adaption also requires that one know what “reality” is, if one is to know what has to be done in order to adapt.
The last part is also interesting. “…so you can survive autonomously.” While that appears laudable, I am very much afraid that the individual is attempting to live in some romanticized past, one where even his ancestors gathered into tribes. That was for several reasons, including survival.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hite, I didn’t love RL’s post 112 either but didn’t think it as bad … anyhow I just chime in when the spirit hits. Can’t possibly keep up with all the idiocies.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Mr. Laitres, you really need to get out more. Reality is not to be found in your virtual world. You have asserted that the western slope of Colorado is on the brink of a socialist revolution. Your group refers to one another as comrades in arms. You can’t seriously be contemplating taking over the western slope by force of arms? If you are, then you need to throw away that pipe before you get hurt. It has been some time since I actually heard someone speak in such revolutionary terms, and you do sound bitter indeed. I did not think of you as one who sat cross-legged on the floor, wore love beads, and had a five foot by eight foot red, hammer and sickle flag, with a silhouette of Che Guevara super imposed on it, hung on your wall. I knew that your rhetoric and agenda was borrowed from the counter culture of the 1960’s, but have you grown so militant and filled with bluster as to believe that such a plan has any hope of even the smallest success? Look around you, it is not just the police, or elected officials you would have to overcome. The western slope has always been the home of conservative patriots. We are populated by hunters, who are the descendants of pioneers. Do you believe that these people would just stand by and allow you and your small group of atheist miscreants to seize power by force of arms? You, sir, are on a collision course with reality. Until this very moment, I did not realize the depths of your desperation, and I am hoping that you will think better of it. Such things are just nonsense.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, if the paranoia gets any worse, please call 911. There are people who care about you and want to help.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “You have asserted that the western slope of Colorado is on the brink of a socialist revolution. Your group refers to one another as comrades in arms.”
Oh please, provide us all with the reference of where anyone stated that (source, chapter and verse being appreciated). Please,inquiring minds want to know. Otherwise, we must unfortunately conclude that, once again, you make stuff up as you go along. That is truly sad.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
Thanks for caring, Ashhugger. Many times when we deal with other people we begin to understand their thinking, and the limits to which they are willing to go. One of the things that I understand very well are those who are willing to make a suggestion of something without the will to follow through. Early on, I learned from Mr. Laitres and Class of 52 the value of giving someone something to address. They are masters of the art. I am simply an uneducated country boy trying to apply what they have taught me. There is one fundamental difference between us. They are the teachers and I am the student. I am doing my best to live up to their expectations. I know that misunderstanding what another person had said is an acquired art form, but I think I’m doing OK for a greenhorn. Wouldn’t you say?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP — not exactly sure what you are saying, but you seem to be alright now … have a nice night OK?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitek; however, read #112 in which rlaitres, attempts to debase a young mind with abuse
Are you out of your cotton-pickin mind? Debase with abuse? He gave him some advice couched in very civil language, something you, AP and WLJ have long since excluded from your diatribes.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Laitres,
First I will address your concerns as to how your take-over plans were inadvertently exposed. In a discussion by two members of your self-described fellow members of the “hammer and sickle brigade” (Laitres, post #113)it was stated.
“Classof52 - Amen, progressive BROTHER IN ARMS!… As time advances, people with modern ideas and adequate educations will Supplant the ever-diminishing CADRE of local “yokels” who are desperately waging a losing WAR against progress”. GJBubba (post89)
Supplant; to take the place or position of somebody by force. (dictionary)
War; armed fighting between groups (dictionary)
Arms, to arm; to equip someone with weapons (dictionary)
Cadre; military unit (dictionary)
“I look forward (even willing to pray to a deity, of such a mythical creature exists) to the day (not far off) when the citizens of Grand Junction can proudly UNFURL A NEW FLAG proclaiming the place we love to live as “THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC of GRAND JUNCTION.” GJBubba (post 89)
As Rush Limbaugh would say, word do have meaning. I noticed that you did not deny that such a plan exists. Your question appears to be “how did the “hammer and sickle brigade’s plan become public knowledge?” If your intent is to deny or disavow your plans, perhaps you would like to take the above quotes and explain using the same words how any other meaning would be applicable. Failure to do so can only result in the affirmation that there is such a plan, and remember, the watchers are watching.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52. The “quick in and out” of the “Alexander” post, would indicate that it was a “sham”, very much as dc and I suspect.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres: “Classof52. The “quick in and out” of the “Alexander” post, would indicate that it was a “sham”, very much as dc and I suspect.”
You are probably right, but if it was not a sham, then his grandfather was very likely the person who calls himself Willis Leon Johnson on these forums and who likely guided his little hands on the typewriter keys. WLJ has expressed his belief several times in these forums that people should indoctrinate their children when young before they get exposed to the world of ideas.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres, aka bobbie of Delta, has failed to explain how any conclusion other than he and other members of the “hammer and sickle brigade” are conspiring in an armed take-over plan of all public offices in their effort to overthrow the existing government on the western slope. As explained in post #137. His failure to respond indicates that he is in agreement that such a plan exists and confirms that he is a co-conspirator in that plan. Henceforth referred to as The Great Hammer and Sickle Brigade Armed Conspiracy Debacle.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think it was WLJ who wanted to indoctrinate children when they were young. As I recall, it was a liberal that should be given credit for that idea. I’d be happy to give you his name and affiliation if you would like along with a direct quote.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry I didn’t get back sooner. Today is my wedding anniversary, and the wife wanted some attention.
Most of Willis’s post isn’t worth responding to. He still hasn’t supported his claim, I notice. Big surprise.
However, I will address this little gem:
“And the whiners deliberately pushed the 800 pound gorilla into the room to use as a threat.
The sole purpose was to push their agenda.”
In a way he’s right, although not the way he thinks. The “agenda” is to make sure the city council is following the law. Right now, they’re not. It’s plain and simple, but Willis (and others, no doubt) can’t accept that atheists might be responsible citizens, so there must be a dark and nefarious purpose behind the whole thing.
AP,
“I think you are creating boogie men where there are none.”
I’m creating boogie men? You’re the one ascribing hidden agendas to people you don’t know. I’d say you’re creating your fair share.
“The atheists put their own spin by trying to create the impression that they were only trying to help.”
This is an assumption on your part. You were not present at the meetings where this was discussed, you do not know the people involved, yet you claim to know their motivations. You don’t know this, AP. This appears to be a “statement of fact” on your part. I don’t see the words “I think” or “I fear” here, so this can only be taken as a statement of fact. Are you speaking as an official representative of the atheists? Are you in a position to know their motivations?
“Like you said, the possibility of a law suit has been there all the time. What I did was point out, as you well know, that there may be a different perception based on the same evidence.”
A perception fueled by unwarranted assumptions like the above.
“If you find that truth to be unacceptable, then you can just keep trying to spin it your way, and I will just keep presenting the other side.”
And I will keep pointing out that you have only speculation supporting “the other side.”
“That’s not a problem. Public perceptions are what they are, but I think the public is entitled to input from both sides, don’t you?”
As long as both sides have facts, yes. You have only speculation. There is also a side that suggests space aliens are behind the whole thing. Shall we have equal representation from that side as well?
“You may not like the public’s perception and you may do everything you can do to change that perception, but I don’t think it is right to point the finger at the other side for doing the same thing.”
I’m just pointing out that “the other side” is based on pure speculation. What’s wrong with that?
“You are right, a contingency plan is just that, a contingency plan. But contingent upon what?”
The city council continuing to violate the US Constitution, of course. I thought this was clear. So what?
“In this case, we have Ms. Landman’s statement which outlines the contingency that would be the tripwire for implementation. And that makes it a little more real in the public mind.”
Good. Then the public should be joining with the atheists in asking the city council to cease violating the law.
“As far as nefarious motives are concerned, I would leave that up to the reader.”
I think the readers can see that you have nothing but speculation, if that’s what you mean.
“I just pointed out the possibilities, but since you brought it up. Have you read Mr. Kearsley’s latest letter. You may notice some similarities there to what you claim I am doing. Again, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Or perhaps you would like to condemn his letter at the same time. No, I didn’t think so.”
Do you always equate speculation with facts?
“Again, you are right. The atheists are the ones that made sure that everyone realized that the 800 pound gorilla was in the room. Now why would they do that? Nefarious purposes perhaps? For a simple request, did they really need the 800 pound gorilla?”
No, they didn’t. But it was already there. Again, so what?
“A word of advise, Scott, spinning is a political art form, and the rules that hold true for politics also hold true for spinning. One of the hardest lessons to learn in politic is knowing when to quit.”
The truth isn’t spin, AP. I have it on my side. You don’t.
grandmasix:
“I am sure you know that there is an unfavorable opinion of the request from the atheists already by the public in general. I am sure that there are hot heads on both sides, and as with any issue of this kind, there may be incidents, however, the idea that if they don’t get their way (demands), they will litigate and the majority of taxpayers will have to pay for it, is not a very neighborly way to advance your cause.”
I agree, and apparently the atheists agree as well. That’s why they talked to the city council instead of just filing a lawsuit. You get more flies with honey, don’t you agree?
“The other thing that seems interesting is the timing. First it is an election year, and second, all across the United States, including one of the military academies and thousands of small towns and cities, these same “requests” are being made by “groups” claiming to be small independent citizens of citizens just trying to “help”. I think the public perception is exactly right, that it is a coordinated national effort to impose their agenda onto the rest of the nation as a whole.”
Speculation. Any evidence? Maybe it just happens to be when the atheist group was organized enough to do something? It might all be a coincidence. Oh, you forgot to mention the pending court cases regarding “In God We Trust” on the money and “under God” in the Pledge. They should be decided in the next few months too. It’s all a conspiracy!!
If there is an agenda, it is only to make sure the government is following the law. That’s all that is being asked for in every single one of the cases you mention. What is so wrong with following the law?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“I don’t think it was WLJ who wanted to indoctrinate children when they were young. As I recall, it was a liberal that should be given credit for that idea. I’d be happy to give you his name and affiliation if you would like along with a direct quote.”
You want indoctrination? Look up the Wedge Document. The Discovery Institute is about as conservative as they come.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck responds with: “i agree that ap was vitriolic in his reply…however, read #112 in which rlaitres, attempts to debase a young mind with abuse…”
What is this? a “Yes, but…” type of rationalization. And the word “debase”? Give us a break will you hitek? And please learn the English language, if only the meaning of words, prior to attempting its use. Their is no “debasement” involved. It is but a “kick start” to have people, even Alexander, learn and understand prior to posting their opinions instead of merely repeating what others have said Would that more adults would do the same.
I don’t know how others were raised, but in my upbringing, you had every right to speak but one had not better be spouting nonsense or one could expect correction, not only from teachers, but parents and other adults. Perhaps too many were raised with sensitivity to their “itsy bitsy feelings” in mind. That may explain why so many supposed adults never grew up.
ok, rl, let’s take a look at what “debase” means:
de·base Audio Help /dɪˈbeɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -based, -bas·ing. 1. to reduce in quality or value; adulterate: They debased the value of the dollar.
2. to lower in rank, dignity, or significance: He wouldn’t debase himself by doing manual labor.
huh…looks to me like the second definition qualifies what you did to the young person…there was no correction involved in what you put forth, as the young alexander was only putting forth his points, not claiming them as absolute…because you disagree with the young person, you claim his points as nonsense…what you did, sir or ma’am, was garbage…i could understand if he made absolutes, but he didn’t…re-read his posts…or are your hemorhoids possibly getting in the way of fresh thoughts?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, happy anniversary….mine’s later this month-21 years
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck,
Thanks. We’re at 14 years. We’ve had a few rough spots, but we just might make it now.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It would appear that you have joined the ranks of the nit-pickers. It would also appear that you don’t know the difference between a statement of fact and a statement based on a conclusion. And that conclusion is based on common sense and evidence.
One, my statement was written after it was announced that Mr. Hugenberg, Attorney at Law would be representing the interest of the atheists. This would lead an ordinary person to believe that litigation was being considered.
Two, it would require a complete suspension of reason to assume the atheists had a meeting in which they discussed their requests/demands, without consideration of what their resources were if their requests/demands were not met.
Three, the fact that the prayer issue has popped up at the same time in various towns and cities nationwide, most notably in Ohio. This would lead the ordinary person to believe that there is some national organization coordinating these efforts.
Four, common sense dictates that a request is seen more favorably than a demand. This fact would be a deciding factor in the amount of public resistance not withstanding resistance of the city council in giving into a demand. This would lead an ordinary man to conclude that the best strategy for success would be to frame the atheist demand as a request.
Five, as previously stated, my statement was not a statement of fact, rather it is a statement based on a common sense conclusion. The indicator that a conclusion was involved is the word “spin”. This is a subjective (existing by perception) term, and to be used in this context requires a conclusion.
Six, the belated Anne Landman statement indicates that there is, and I believe has been, consideration of association with a “national group”. Her statement also indicates they possibility of litigation. Considering this belated revelation, and all the other evidence involved, I believe it would lead a common man to believe that the conclusion upon which my statement was based was not only correct, but the judgement used in forming that conclusion has been vindicated.
You will recall that my very first post in this matter was a request for clarification and a source for that information, from Ella on her original post. You then interjected with hearsay information from what you stated was a reliable, but anonymous source, and you backed that up as a second anonymous source. You will recall at that time, I not only accepted your hearsay information, but indicated that your word was good enough. Now you return with a strategy of nit-picking which contributes nothing to the subject that was at hand. This is recognized as a strategy of deception. Scott, I realize that you do not want to leave this subject, and I realize that the issue is near and dear to your heart, and I realize that you feel you are on the defensive as a result of this discussion. I am asking you to realize that I have done everything I could do in this process to avoid placing you in this position, even down to detailing the pitfalls in advance to you, and indicating to you that you were not my person of choice to engage in this discussion with. I have always thought you to be a pretty fair minded and straightforward person. Please don’t prove me wrong.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander, as I said in my earlier post, “read past the sniping and ignore the posts of the snipers”. Rlaitres and Classof52 posts above are very good examples.
You hang in there, keep reading and learning and don’t believe for one second that everyone will take your questions and opinions and twist them around! Most will talk (post
with you and answer your questions in a more civil manner.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
Amen!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From bobbie
” As far as courage goes. Some of us have encountered “courage” all of our lives, and throughout this country. Courage is, doing what has to be done and when it has to be done, no matter what the cost. It is NOT, walking around with a six-shooter on one’s hip. And, the task requiring the greatest courage of all, is to look at oneself in a brutal and frank manner. And that is something which, even if they know it has to be done, few have the courage to do. ”
Interesting, some have ‘encountered’ courage, and I’m willing to bet that there are several who have SHOWN courage when real courage was needed, not the phony ‘courage’ we see here on a daily basis.
As to ‘Alexander’ being a child or grandson of mine.
NOPE! Never heard of the person before his postings on here.
However, he did make one very valid point that was pooh poohed as a “typo”.
He used ‘their’ in place of the proper ‘there’.
That is not a ‘tpoy’ but a flagrant misuse of the words.
While everybody does it on occasion, he was correct.
” ashhugger
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm PM This User Report this comment
Alexander, Rush Limbaugh uses very hurtful words to describe people who do not agree with him. RLaitres made a typo. THERE is a huge difference. ”
Tonya, what does Mr. Limbaugh say that is ‘hurtful’ that is not truthful?
Sometimes the truth hurts. In fact, sometimes the truth cuts pretty damned deep and causes a lot of pain, but it’s still the truth.
If he is spouting lies on the air, we would all like to hear about it.
In fact, there are a lot of people in powerful positions that would LOVE to have an excuse to abuse Mr. Limbaugh for lying.
So far a lot of people have tried to prove the MAN wrong only to have their heads handed back to them.
But, this isn’t about him is it?
It’s all about ‘hurtful words’. And how bad you feel when somebody tells the truth and it ‘hurts’.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander might be young, but he shows a great deal of maturity when he writes “RLaitres uses a lot of words to go around a subject and I sometimes just want to ask him what he is trying to hide.”
Don’t be intimidated by him Alex. Keep posting your thoughts.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rush Limbaugh is an “entertainer”, not a political commentator. Defend him all you want, Johnson, but any thinking person can see through his deceit and his personal agendas.
These posts have become nothing more that group #1 vs.group #2, and,after the 2nd or third comment, they gear up for battle,and,more often than not, go off tangent in their zeal to attack each other. Now and then, Johnson will pipe up with something that adds nothing to the discussion but his own contempt for the dreaded “liberals”.
There is usually nothing to learn from these comments, except that pettines, anger, and divisiveness have grown immensely in this country. (I have my own ideas as to who is at fault for that).
At any rate, HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY, AMERICANS!!!!!! (sincerely)
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
golly roland, did I say something that bothered you?
Now and then you pipe up with something that adds nothing to the discussion but his own contempt for the honest, civil posters on this site.
As usual, there is nothing in your rants that relate to reality, just anger and divisiveness and anger. (pettiness is just a bonus to him)
But, I do appreciate the self description.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It would appear that you have joined the ranks of the nit-pickers.”
When the truth is being misrepresented, then yes I am.
“It would also appear that you don’t know the difference between a statement of fact and a statement based on a conclusion.
Ah. This is a new category. So now we have Statements of Opinions, Statements of Facts, and Statements based on Conclusions. It’s hard to keep up.
“And that conclusion is based on common sense and evidence.”
Common sense is relative, and I have yet to see any evidence.
“One, my statement was written after it was announced that Mr. Hugenberg, Attorney at Law would be representing the interest of the atheists. This would lead an ordinary person to believe that litigation was being considered.”
Incorrect. It was announced that Mr. Hugenberg was offering his legal experience to both the atheists and the city. He was not representing anyone’s interest, except the laws’. This is one of the misunderstandings that has lead to the incorrect public perception of the issue.
“Two, it would require a complete suspension of reason to assume the atheists had a meeting in which they discussed their requests/demands, without consideration of what their resources were if their requests/demands were not met.”
So what? I would submit that any group meeting with the city would do the same thing. Why are the atheists being singled out? Wouldn’t prudence require this to happen, regardless of the issue?
“Three, the fact that the prayer issue has popped up at the same time in various towns and cities nationwide, most notably in Ohio. This would lead the ordinary person to believe that there is some national organization coordinating these efforts.”
This is the one aspect that may carry some weight. Of course, it isn’t proof. And even if it is, all that is being requested anywhere is that the law be followed. This doesn’t seem to matter when it is in fact the core of the issue. You said you accepted my word. I’m telling you it is a coincidence – that there is no connection. Is my word good enough or not?
“Four, common sense dictates that a request is seen more favorably than a demand. This fact would be a deciding factor in the amount of public resistance not withstanding resistance of the city council in giving into a demand. This would lead an ordinary man to conclude that the best strategy for success would be to frame the atheist demand as a request.”
Only if the law was in fact on their side, which it is. Why is it so hard to imagine that the atheists don’t want to see the city in an expensive lawsuit any more than anyone else does? Especially when the city would almost certainly lose? This seems to be based more on the public perception of atheists rather than any facts. Atheists can’t be “good” so anything they do must have a devious or self-aggrandizing purpose. The idea that the atheists are good citizens as well doesn’t seem to be considered.
“Five, as previously stated, my statement was not a statement of fact, rather it is a statement based on a common sense conclusion. The indicator that a conclusion was involved is the word “spin”. This is a subjective (existing by perception) term, and to be used in this context requires a conclusion.”
You said “The atheists put their own spin by trying to create the impression that they were only trying to help.” What evidence are you basing this conclusion on? Do you know the motivations of the people involved? Did you attend any of the meetings where this was discussed? You can call it a conclusion all you want, but you are not in the position to make this kind of conclusion, and as such it is based purely on speculation. That is not nit-picking, it is a statement of fact.
“Six, the belated Anne Landman statement indicates that there is, and I believe has been, consideration of association with a “national group”. Her statement also indicates they possibility of litigation. Considering this belated revelation, and all the other evidence involved, I believe it would lead a common man to believe that the conclusion upon which my statement was based was not only correct, but the judgement used in forming that conclusion has been vindicated.”
So because a national organization is interested in the situation (perhaps because of Chuck Norris’s misinformed editorial) and the possibility of a lawsuit exists (because the city council is doing something illegal) then automatically you leap to the conclusion that the atheists cannot be doing this for any good reasons. Why is getting the council to follow the law not a good reason in and of itself? Why is that being completely ignored?
“You will recall that my very first post in this matter was a request for clarification and a source for that information, from Ella on her original post. You then interjected with hearsay information from what you stated was a reliable, but anonymous source, and you backed that up as a second anonymous source.”
I have my reasons, as I have said before, for not revealing my name. Revealing my source would put that at risk. If that source isn’t good enough, then fine.
“You will recall at that time, I not only accepted your hearsay information, but indicated that your word was good enough.”
Appreciated.
“Now you return with a strategy of nit-picking which contributes nothing to the subject that was at hand. This is recognized as a strategy of deception.”
I’m not nit-picking. I am pointing out that your argument is based mostly on speculation on motivations that you are not in the position to be privy to. If you actually accepted my word, then you would not be continuing to do this. Obviously, my word is not good enough.
“Scott, I realize that you do not want to leave this subject, and I realize that the issue is near and dear to your heart, and I realize that you feel you are on the defensive as a result of this discussion. I am asking you to realize that I have done everything I could do in this process to avoid placing you in this position, even down to detailing the pitfalls in advance to you, and indicating to you that you were not my person of choice to engage in this discussion with. I have always thought you to be a pretty fair minded and straightforward person. Please don’t prove me wrong.”
I believe I am being fair-minded. I am in a position to know the actual situation, including the motivations of the atheist group from first-hand knowledge, not hearsay. You stated you accept my word on this, yet you have disregarded what I have told you about them. You are continuing to assume the worst of the atheists, despite being told by someone close to the group that you are wrong. You are forming a conclusion based on speculation and ignoring factual information that is being offered to you. I can only assume that you do this because it contradicts what you believe about atheists. You have completely avoided the real issue here – that the city council is doing something illegal – and instead focused on the group that brought the situation to light. Regardless of the motivations of the atheists, the city council is doing something illegal. That should be stopped, shouldn’t it?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey scott,
You keep making the following assertion:
” The city council continuing to violate the US Constitution ”
It’s really not quite accurate.
The Constitution isn’t what is being violated, but a supreme court decision.
There is nothing that says the supreme court was correct in its decision, just the word of a bunch of crybabies with high priced attorneys.
Numerous ‘decisions’ have been overturned throughout the years.
A fact which should indicate that sometimes the Constitution is not always followed in the decision making process by nine political appointees.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnson, your own version of “reality” is just a little “unreal”to me.
I am not surprised by your twisting of everything that was said ,and presenting it back in no sensible way at all.
I certainly have NO “contempt” for the “honest and civil” posters here, but, unfortunately, you are not included in that group.
I have not posted here for a long time, and do not intend to resume, largely because it is a waste of my time. My opinions are better shared with those who have a more open mind.
I do enjoy checking out what goes on with these posts,however, but I am never surprised by your responses to anyone who posts here and happens to have a different opinion then you.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In trying to respond to the heart of the basic concern of prayer; it is fundamentally the most sincere and sober thoughts of your heart. That part of your being that determines precisely what you will or will not do, and most importantly of that process, just which way your are headed. Though it is not irrational therein to express the need for guideance from the best source one’s heart can ever grasp. Doing so in a verbal fashion is not a requirement.
For those that may think that such an endeavor of heart is not a rational process, they might consider a noted effect in physics that has evidenced that communication across an inifinatie amount of space with no time dealy is possible. I believe they called the state of matter evidencing it the Boisen-Einstien condensate. All the atoms involved in it have the same energy states. After dividing it into two such groups of atoms and moving them apart a notable distance, if one group’s energy state is alter the other also changes with not time delay. This can show potential for a synaptic connection allowing an inifinite mind (and possibly minds of lesser quality similarly dispirsed]. Also of note is energy’s light-speed [and thus by Einstien’s theories] timeless nature that causes all things to exist. Though I have to say, the Bible’s common translation does a poor job of expression the full potential of the Hebrew it is written in, and thus assumably the full original intent of its creation. One may note that the Hebrew work for God [Elhym] seems to center around the expression of Might[ing] of us[ing]. Alot of the Hebrew leans to pointing to an active expression as being at the heart of a noun.
Sincerely in need of help as any,
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No roland, your opinions are better shared with other people of your philosophies and beliefs.
You can’t function in an arena where other peoples ideas and thoughts are given equal status.
I function quite well in a large mix of people with varying philosophies where competing thoughts are treated with courtesy and respect.
Here, you view me as mean and nasty to deal with.
But that’s because I will not cower to your stupid philosophies and ideas.
However, I do deal with other people who hold the same viewpoints as you entirely differently because we RESPECT each others positions.
Here you show no RESPECT for others, nor does classless or little bobbie, from Delta, and others.
You get what you earn around here little buddy.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP in post #140 is again way off the mark: “Mr. Laitres, aka bobbie of Delta, has failed to explain how any conclusion other than he and other members of the “hammer and sickle brigade” are conspiring in an armed take-over plan of all public offices in their effort to overthrow the existing government on the western slope. As explained in post #137. His failure to respond indicates that he is in agreement that such a plan exists and confirms that he is a co-conspirator in that plan. Henceforth referred to as The Great Hammer and Sickle Brigade Armed Conspiracy Debacle.”
As ashhugger stated, he is at times much too paranoid and should probably seek help, or at the very least expand his edcuation so as to gain much greater perspective. Of course, as part of ‘Goebbels Gang’, that is definitely not going to happen.
He has been spinning so long that I am very much afraid the no longer knows in which direction he is facing. Not only that, but he cannot even distinguish when someone is being literal and when being sarcastic or facetious.
That is why we see him flip-flopping between ideas and concept as well as projecting his own views onto others and re-interpreting everything that others say, that to conform to his own designer dictionary and preconceptions.
And then we have “Sue” who, like a dutiful and unthinking follower, and with aspirations of becoming the ‘Madame du Salon’ of these ‘intellectual sans culotte’ proceeds with her blind endorsement of whatever others within that ‘Goebbelsian group’ have to say.
As many of them are quite senior, perhaps they have come to believe that they have ‘wisdom’. While a person who is older may have wisdom, it is not automatic. What the progression in life and the time provided does, is merely provides an opportunity to acquire wisdom.
One can acquire wisdom through over that period, but only if the effort has been made to do so. Otherwise, one retains the same level at 81 that one had at 18. And to be quite honest, I have met many who, at 18, I would consider to be much wiser than those in the higher age group as their minds are inquisitive, they are constantly questioning (even as to what they themselves believe), and constantly looking for new answers. And that may be wisdom itself or, if not, at least an important and requisite step in its acquisition.
Whatever the case may be, it is never too late to start. We can only hope that at least some members of the ‘Goebbels Group’ will recognize and accept the possiblities.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To paraphrase Alexander, you sure do use a lot of words bobbie.
He also suggested that by doing so, you may be trying to hide something.
I think probably it is a fear of honesty.
” Whatever the case may be, it is never too late to start. We can only hope that at least some members of the ‘Goebbels Group’ will recognize and accept the possiblities. ”
And who is this ” Goebbels Group ” of which you speak?
The ones that recognize and follow the concepts postulated and enacted by the late J, Goebbels of nazi fame?
Here’s a quote of his that you seem to follow quite closely.
” “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” “
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
“I can only assume that you do this because it contradicts what you believe about atheists”.
This would seem to be a statement based on a conclusion about someone you do not know, and you are not in a position to make such a conclusion. Do these words sound familiar to you Scott? I fear that there is no amount of reason or fact that will satisfy you. You seem to be laboring under the false impression that yours is the only point of view or yours is the only opinion that should be allowed. I think you should recognize that I too have the right to form conclusions. At your request, I explained how I reached the conclusion. You are welcome to your rebuttal, but I think you have just about played the string out, and public perception of our discussion is what it is. From this point, if you wish to continue your spin, that is your prerogative, but please don’t ask me to cooperate with you as I have an opposing point of view, and that is my prerogative. Nit-picking is nit-picking, Scott, whether you engage in it or I engage in it. The public can form it’s own opinion as to why Mr Hugenberg is involved. The public can make it’s own decision as to what motivates the atheists. The public can make it’s own decision as to whether the city council is in violation of the law. You have presented your side, and I have presented mine. If you wish to continue to discuss it, I would simply ask you to address your remarks to those which you wish to influence, the public. I have much better things to do with my time, than to assist you in restarting your subject. I have made my points to the public. I see nothing to be gained by restating them. Your consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to discussing other issues with you.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, rl, for your opinion, but I think and speak for myself. I agree with and endorse what I choose and last time I checked, I am not blind. You are not the authority of the amount of wisdom I possess.
You have a problem with me, that is your issue to deal with. I don’t do anyone’s time for them, nor will I not lose sleep over your opinion of me.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, Johnson, many of my friends are right-wing conservatives, and we agree to disagree, but we are still friends when all is said and done. Opinions and ideas are exchanged, and I usually enjoy it. It is called “healthy discourse”.
But, you can’t help yourself with the insults.(”stupid philosophies and ideas”..do you think that kind of approach makes people want to converse with you?)
I do agree, though, that respect has to be earned. I have never disrespected anyone on this forum, except to disagree with your approach to “civil discourse”. You, on the other hand………
at any rate, it is a beautiful day, hope you and yours have a good July 4th weekend.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
roland stated: “No, Johnson, many of my friends are right-wing conservatives, and we agree to disagree, but we are still friends when all is said and done.”
Roland speaks fact, and many of us have had the same experience. The reason is that we do not make disagreement on any issue, no matter what it is, even religion and politics, a personal one. But, that is because we know the person first, THEN move on to discussion of issues. In a forum such as this, such unfortunately cannot occur.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
(post contracted to save room)
You keep making the following assertion: ”The city council continuing to violate the US Constitution” It’s really not quite accurate.
Yes, actually it is.
“The Constitution isn’t what is being violated, but a supreme court decision.”
And as has been point out, the Supreme Court was charged over two hundred years ago with interpreting the Constitution. They have repeatedly interpreted it to mean that what the city council is doing is unconstitutional and thus, illegal.
“There is nothing that says the supreme court was correct in its decision, just the word of a bunch of crybabies with high priced attorneys.”
Just two hundred years of case law. Like it or not, that’s reality.
“Numerous ‘decisions’ have been overturned throughout the years.”
And until this is overturned, the city council prayer as it currently stands is unconstitutional.
“A fact which should indicate that sometimes the Constitution is not always followed in the decision making process by nine political appointees.”
Then you have your work cut out for you, don’t you? You just have to convince enough people that the founding fathers were wrong about the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. Should be easy for such a dazzling conversationalist like yourself.
AP,
“This would seem to be a statement based on a conclusion about someone you do not know, and you are not in a position to make such a conclusion. Do these words sound familiar to you Scott?”
Yes, but I am basing that conclusion on the posts you have made in this very thread. The evidence is there for all to see. Why am I not in a position to look at what you have posted?
“I fear that there is no amount of reason or fact that will satisfy you.”
Sure there is. You just haven’t provided any. I get shown to be wrong all the time. But speculation that goes against personal experience isn’t very convincing.
“You seem to be laboring under the false impression that yours is the only point of view or yours is the only opinion that should be allowed. I think you should recognize that I too have the right to form conclusions.
Sure, but should those conclusion be challenged if they go against known information?
“At your request, I explained how I reached the conclusion. You are welcome to your rebuttal, but I think you have just about played the string out, and public perception of our discussion is what it is.”
That doesn’t make it true, and that’s what I’m trying to point out – that the perception is not based on facts, only speculation.
“From this point, if you wish to continue your spin, that is your prerogative, but please don’t ask me to cooperate with you as I have an opposing point of view, and that is my prerogative.
So apparently my word is not good enough, as you said it was.
“Nit-picking is nit-picking, Scott, whether you engage in it or I engage in it.”
This whole discussion is nit-picking because the real issue is the illegality of what the city council is doing. The motivations of the atheists are simply a smokescreen to distract attention away from that, and make the atheists out to be the bad guys.
“The public can form it’s own opinion as to why Mr Hugenberg is involved. The public can make it’s own decision as to what motivates the atheists.”
Yes, I’d just like them to do so based on facts, not speculation.
“The public can make it’s own decision as to whether the city council is in violation of the law.”
Wrong. The Supreme Court gets to do that, and they have. And the city and the atheists have agreed that the prayer is in violation of the law. Unfortunately the public has no say in that.
“You have presented your side, and I have presented mine. If you wish to continue to discuss it, I would simply ask you to address your remarks to those which you wish to influence, the public. I have much better things to do with my time, than to assist you in restarting your subject. I have made my points to the public. I see nothing to be gained by restating them. Your consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to discussing other issues with you.”
Sounds good.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, your entire post not copied to save room.
In the recent past 5 of your supreme court justices have used foreign law as a basis for their decisions, NOT the United States Constitution.
So, as I stated earlier, nine political appointees is not the same as the Constitution.
Were the justices to be chosen based on their knowledge of the Constitution and the original intent of the authors, Judge Bork would have been a shoe in, but he was blocked for purely political reasons.
Now, do you suppose that was because a few senators had a political agenda that they wanted to have a way around the Constitution to accomplish?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah bobbie, yer right.
We don’t have the ability to get to know our erstwhile opponents on this board, so we have to deal with what we are presented with.
You, and your friends on here have a very bad habit of attacking any other poster with a differing philosophy.
For example, “Alexander” posted a couple of messages with pretty direct questions, and his reasons for asking, you personally attacked him and basically told him he was stupid and should grow up believing what you think.
dc decided, apparently with no factual basis that this poster was an ‘alter ego’ and as such probably deserved no respect.
Tonya decided to gloss over your misuse of words as ‘mere typos’ when it was quite obvious that it was NOT a typo, but a clear use of the wrong word.
Something that all of us are guilty of at one time or another, but his point was correct.
Wrong words used in the wrong places do make reading somewhat difficult, especially when they are mixed in with the other thirteen thousand words you use in every post.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Laitres,
What a relief. I am so glad that you rethought your ill-advised plan, and issued this general denial. You may have saved yourself considerable consternation, and your reply shows your realization of the problem that you created. And oh BTW, those definitions were straight out of the dictionary.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“In the recent past 5 of your supreme court justices have used foreign law as a basis for their decisions, NOT the United States Constitution.”
Irrelevant tangent, unless the Marsh 1983 case was one of them. And even then, all you have to do is initiate litigation, take it to the Supremem Court and try to convince them that the original ruling was wrong. Until then, this is how it works, like it or not.
“So, as I stated earlier, nine political appointees is not the same as the Constitution.”
but those appointees have, for the last two hundred years, been charged with interpreting the Constitution. Why do you contuinually ignore this point? Perhaps because it makes your argument completely meaningless?
“Were the justices to be chosen based on their knowledge of the Constitution and the original intent of the authors, Judge Bork would have been a shoe in, but he was blocked for purely political reasons.”
Politics is hell.
“Now, do you suppose that was because a few senators had a political agenda that they wanted to have a way around the Constitution to accomplish?”
Right, because the Senate is just full of atheists trying to destroy Mom, apple pie and the American way of life. Come on, Willis. Remember that Congress does a sectarian invocation too. Why would they be approving Supreme Court judges who would decide that government-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional? Do you even think about your arguments before you trowel them up here?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To one of my posts:
One said: “You, and your friends on here have a very bad habit of attacking any other poster with a differing philosophy.”
The other said: “I am so glad that you rethought your ill-advised plan”
How pathetic can one get. The first apparently cannot distinguish between challenges to philosophies (or perhaps he does not know the meaning of the term), and the other takes my challenge to his previous statement as somehow admitting that there was such a plan.”
Speak of spin! I realize that both are seriously handicapped in the English language, but even one with a mediocre education would recognize this as an attempt to re-interpret the statement of another. Unfortunately, both of them are not even mediocre at it, never mind competent. Sorry gentlemen, but you will have to do better than that.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - You state, “In the recent past 5 of your supreme court justices have used foreign law as a basis for their decisions, NOT the United States Constitution.”
I assume you are aware that our constitution and entire legal system is based on English common law, which at the time our founding fathers used it, was considered “foreign law.”
Since our Constitution is based on “foreign law,” it’s obvious that every decision made by the supremes since the adoption of the constitution is based on that kind of law.
The only true “domestic law” is that which was in place among the various tribes of indigenous peoples who proceeded the formation of our country.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres,
Why are you blaming me? It was your plan. Are you attempting to escape personal responsibility? How typical!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres do you have a problem with everybody?
If I earn money by working for it, why should I be forced to give it to somebody that has done nothing to earn anything of mine?
While I may not be as old as you, and I probably will learn a lot in the next few years, I know that your stupid remark of giving birth to myself and all that other stuff is only a way to hide from what I said. I realize the need for taxes to provide roads and schools and other stuff for the public good. What good is done by stealing from the people that earn money and giving it to illegal aliens and lazy people?
The churches and salvation army do good things for poor people. Can you name one poor sick person that got rich from the money stolen from people with jobs and given to them by the government?
Your attitude towards me and probably all young people is really sick and stupid.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Alexander” posts the following: “RLaitres do you have a problem with everybody?” and ” and “Your attitude towards me and probably all young people is really sick and stupid.”
To the first I would answer the following. No, only with those who base their entire position on “Me and I” (selfishness or self-centeredness), at the core of their political or other philosophies. That, if you are a young person, need to look at that first when approaching broader issues.
Then, the second statement of my view toward “young people” and toward you in particular, is not only nonsensical but quite off the mark as I speak to young and old alike. And, if you are young, and are alread using the words “sick and stupid” in your posts in reply to others, it also indicates that you are also displaying what is known as a ‘lack of manners’.
You may wish to consider something else. If you are unable to understand what others are actually saying, then you may consider doing something that we learned when young ourselves. Speak less, listen more, and expend more time ‘learning’ than attempting to teach, something which you are definitely not yet qualified to do.
You may find others who may and will come to your defense, because you are supposedly “young”. That does not wash with me. You may even take some comfort. You probably should not, as you are being ‘used’, and for their own purposes. You may wish to consider that prior to proceeding any further in this forum. It is merely a suggestion, and entirely up to you.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And from the resident genius…
” GJBubba
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis - You state, “In the recent past 5 of your supreme court justices have used foreign law as a basis for their decisions, NOT the United States Constitution.”
I assume you are aware that our constitution and entire legal system is based on English common law, which at the time our founding fathers used it, was considered “foreign law.”
Since our Constitution is based on “foreign law,” it’s obvious that every decision made by the supremes since the adoption of the constitution is based on that kind of law.
The only true “domestic law” is that which was in place among the various tribes of indigenous peoples who proceeded the formation of our country. ”
Following that little bit of logic, why not just throw the Constitution out the window?
After all, if everything contained in that document is based on ‘foreign law’, what good is it anyway?
Why all the squabble about anything being unConstitutional if it’s all just a bunch of garbage?
gjblubber, sometimes you come close to making sense, then you correct your course and get back on the stupid track.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
and again with the ego…rl seems to think he’s the one who’s particularly qualified to state what particular philosophy is the only one to believe…he states “To the first I would answer the following. No, only with those who base their entire position on “Me and I” (selfishness or self-centeredness), at the core of their political or other philosophies. That, if you are a young person, need to look at that first when approaching broader issues.”
because the young man feels (quite agree with him, too) that he should be allowed to keep what he has rightfully earned through hard work instead of handing it over, you say that makes him selfish….garbage….it makes him appreciate the rewards for hard work….
rl stated “Then, the second statement of my view toward “young people” and toward you in particular, is not only nonsensical but quite off the mark as I speak to young and old alike. And, if you are young, and are alread using the words “sick and stupid” in your posts in reply to others, it also indicates that you are also displaying what is known as a ‘lack of manners’.”
yet he demeans alexander’s thoughts, insulting his intelligence, and shows even worse manners, instead of putting forth his ideals in a polite, civil manner.
rl said “You may wish to consider something else. If you are unable to understand what others are actually saying, then you may consider doing something that we learned when young ourselves. Speak less, listen more, and expend more time ‘learning’ than attempting to teach, something which you are definitely not yet qualified to do.”
i believe you give good advice here, but should pay heed to it as well…and who are you to determine if this young person can speak their mind or not?….if you feel he is incorrect, then correction is called for, but you don’t need to browbeat or lambast them…he wasn’t trying to “teach” anything, he was explaining his position…get over that ego, rl….
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “Laitres,
Why are you blaming me? It was your plan. Are you attempting to escape personal responsibility? How typical!”
Again, an attempt to evade. Who said there was a plan, developed by anyone? Was that not a figment of your imagination, constructed of nothing less than a misrepresentation (undoubtedly based on your failure to understand) of the statement of others.
We realize that some like to see ‘conspiracies’ at every turn, and you may be of that mind-set. Could the problem perhaps be that when you see two people who disagree with you together, that somehow they are ‘hatching some plot’, against you, the community, or the country?
Or perhaps you would like to ban public assembly and (on the internet or otherwise) of those that disagree with you and yours.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alex, when RL writes: “To the first I would answer the following. No, only with those who base their entire position on “Me and I” (selfishness or self-centeredness), at the core of their political or other philosophies. ——————–What he is really saying is that if you are not a liberal, you are selfish or self-centered.
And when he says that others are using you, he is simply putting you down as he has in previous posts.
Alex, as I wrote earlier, do not let him intimidate you. Those of us who have read his fog for a while now are able to see right through him.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
You’re losing track of your argument.
“Following that little bit of logic, why not just throw the Constitution out the window?
After all, if everything contained in that document is based on ‘foreign law’, what good is it anyway?
Why all the squabble about anything being unConstitutional if it’s all just a bunch of garbage?”
You are the one who brought up the issue of “decisions based on foreign law are wrong.” If anyone is making the argument that anything based on foreign law is automatically bad, it is you. Please try to keep up, will you? Or at least be consistant?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about the world, little dude. Don’t waste your time here, there are too many evil un-American liberals. Go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh. He is a clown and an idioot, but he will make you feel better about all of the total crap you already believe.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good call, bullish.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good call Ash
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is interesting to note the responses to my reply to “Alexander”, coming from hitekrednech and bullishfrog. One has to wonder if they know that even the lioness corrects her cubs, or are they totally unaware that most animals do?
If Alexander feels he is prepared to post and express his opinions, then he should also be prepared to handle whatever “blowback” will undoubtedly be forthchoming.
Some may believe that because “Alexander” claims to be a young person, he should be treated any differently. I am not of that mindset. It was not the way I was raised, nor who I am. Some of us were raised with the recognition that our intellectual development and actions had to meet standards appropriate to our age group, and we recognized the necessity of meeting them, as well as the limitations that were imposed to by our lack of knowledge, understanding, and experience. Failing in either meant that we would be taken to task for either failing to achieve the expected level, and corrected when, in the sophomoric belief that we knew more than we did, we spoke about what we did not yet understand. It was not considere ‘cute’ at all.
Perhaps hitekredneck and bullishfrog were raised, or have trained themselves differently. And, unfortunately it shows. Perhaps they have come to believe that life is all about “I and me”, and “fun and frolic”. That does appear to have become fashionable in some minds and quarters. That, some of us consider very unfortunate. Some of us view life differently.
Life, to some of us, is ‘duty and obligation’. Duty to self, community, state and country. And, in looking at duties to the higher ones, we do not approach them, and the issues that arise at each level, nor do we base are decisions at those levels with the sole or even primary standard as “What’s in it for me?” Others may believe differently.
As to the manners of “Alexander”. Perhaps some may excuse such language as the individual used. Others of us do not. To allow it, even in a young person, is to encourage the user to continue in such a manner. That is not doing that person any favors as it encourages continued petulance on the part of the individual.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “Perhaps hitekredneck and bullishfrog were raised, or have trained themselves differently. And, unfortunately it shows. Perhaps they have come to believe that life is all about “I and me”, and “fun and frolic”.”
Here again RL concludes, that if one is not a liberal, then one must be about “I and me” and “fun and frolic”.
For, as we all know, only liberals are caring and serious individuals.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres and Alexander:
The only name calling I have seen in the whole exchange between the two came from the 14 year old.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog responds with: “Here again RL concludes, that if one is not a liberal, then one must be about “I and me” and “fun and frolic”.”
And here again we have the term ‘liberal’ being used, and we must again question as to what the individual means by it. Is he speaking of ‘political liberal’ and ‘political liberalism’ If so, perhaps the question again needs to be asked of the individual? What is it he believes constitutes ‘political liberalism’? What does he believe is its opposite, and of what is the significance of both in political thought?
We know that, the individual must some concept in his mind of what he believes it means, and that is what my questions are after. They are certainly not posed as either ‘rhetorical’ or ‘trick questions’, but in attempt to understand what is the individuals definition, and what he means when he uses it.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL continues to ask for a definition of “liberal” whenever the word is used. RL knows full well what the word signifies. What he would like is for someone to define it for him so that he, the ultimate authority on the term, can shoot it down. I will not play his game.
Perhaps this ultimate authority can provide his definition so we can all learn from him.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
from brilyunt bobbie…
” To the first I would answer the following. No, only with those who base their entire position on “Me and I” (selfishness or self-centeredness), at the core of their political or other philosophies. That, if you are a young person, need to look at that first when approaching broader issues. ”
uh little buddy bobbie…
You always seem to be posting in the third person.
Is that to keep people from noticing the “you” as the central character in your little poorly written plays?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog responds with: “RL continues to ask for a definition of “liberal” whenever the word is used. RL knows full well what the word signifies. What he would like is for someone to define it for him so that he, the ultimate authority on the term, can shoot it down. I will not play his game.”
Here again is the classic evasion. “RL knows full well what the word signifies”. What I asked was “What does HE think it means”, not what it signifies.
With such a response, we can only conclude one of two things. Either that he has not bothered to find out what it means or that he is either unable, or afraid to put forth his own meaning. Possibly for fear of his being challenged?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Scott
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis,
You’re losing track of your argument.
“Following that little bit of logic, why not just throw the Constitution out the window?
After all, if everything contained in that document is based on ‘foreign law’, what good is it anyway?
Why all the squabble about anything being unConstitutional if it’s all just a bunch of garbage?”
You are the one who brought up the issue of “decisions based on foreign law are wrong.” If anyone is making the argument that anything based on foreign law is automatically bad, it is you. Please try to keep up, will you? Or at least be consistant? ”
scott, you have gotten on the stupid track again.
I’ll throw the switch to get you back to normal.
The Supreme Court decides cases based on the United States Constitution, NOT on current foreign law.
Recent decisions have cited ‘foreign law’ as the basis for their decision.
They were 5-4 decisions and that would indicate to any intelligent rational person that 5 out of 9 justices do not understand their Constitutional Duties.
In short, political hacks with their own personal political agenda and NOT legitimate Justices.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres: I notice that you are admonished for writing in the 3rd person by one who writes as a fictitious non-person (in keeping with the fictitious logic he displays in post 190) Interesting! (even if pathetic).
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 states: ‘The only name calling I have seen in the whole exchange between the two came from the 14 year old.”
If “Alexander” is 14, as Classof52 states, then it is commendable that he is already concerned with public affairs, and that is to be encouraged, but in expanding his knowledge and understanding of the field. Not in repeating what others have said.
And, as far as correction, we all get corrected throughout life. One of the best lessons I learned was in college, and learned it from a professor, and repeated several times in print, that for the edification of others. Permit me to repeat it once again.
Having read a single book on a particul author and his political philosophy, I began to dispute the position of the professor as to what that author had really said. Being sophomoric, I began my statement with the following words: “I don’t think……” Being an educated individual, he permitted me to finish my entire statement. Then he made the following comment. “Mr. Laitres, the truth would have been better served had you placed a period after the third word, and stopped right there.” Now, some may consider that a brutal response, it certainly was, at least as a challenge to my sophomoric pomposity but, was he right? He was absolutely right, and for that single response I am eternally grateful as I consider it one of the most important lessons I have ever learned and, if we are honest about it, one that we should all learn. And, the sooner the better. Learning it later in life, after we have been living and reinforcing our convictions and pre-conceptions, will certainly make it more difficult, if not impossible to learn and apply.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
from 112 ” Perhaps Alexander birthed himself, changed his own diapers, and paid for all his schooling himself. He undoubtedly also built the roads he travels on, built the sidewalks he walks on, and also defended himself from enemies, foreign and domestic. ”
——- A decidedly RUDE response to a new poster.——–
from 173 ” While I may not be as old as you, and I probably will learn a lot in the next few years, I know that your stupid remark of giving birth to myself and all that other stuff is only a way to hide from what I said. I realize the need for taxes to provide roads and schools and other stuff for the public good. What good is done by stealing from the people that earn money and giving it to illegal aliens and lazy people? ”
—— A good response to the blatant abuse of the new poster. —-
from 185 (classless)
” The only name calling I have seen in the whole exchange between the two came from the 14 year old. ”
So, a 14 year old can play word games with the self exalted old fogies and win at their own game?
I’m impressed!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little gene.
He still thinks i don’t exist.
I am who I say I am little buddy.
As a victim of identity theft, I made me disappear from most data banks.
I also paid a good deal of money to make it stay that way.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 states: “Mr. Laitres: I notice that you are admonished for writing in the 3rd person ..”
That is true, and intentional on my part. It is really an attempt to discuss ideas and concepts as opposed to ‘personalities’. Having found myself doing the exact opposite, even in private conversations, and being something that I personally consider a “fault” on my part, writing in the 3rd person will (hopefully) assist me in changing my ways, both in one-on-one and public discourse such as this forum.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You really wrote this bobbie?
” RLaitres
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm PM This User Report this comment
Classof52 states: “Mr. Laitres: I notice that you are admonished for writing in the 3rd person ..”
That is true, and intentional on my part. It is really an attempt to discuss ideas and concepts as opposed to ‘personalities’. Having found myself doing the exact opposite, even in private conversations, and being something that I personally consider a “fault” on my part, writing in the 3rd person will (hopefully) assist me in changing my ways, both in one-on-one and public discourse such as this forum. ”
I think that you are trying to hide behind the third person image and will escape the ridicule for you baseless positions.
As far as Alexander goes, as I said before bobbie, the ‘kid’ is smarter than you, so be very careful.
And you might want to talk to little gene, apparently he knows the ‘kid’ personally, or knows who he is to state that he is 14.
I assume ‘kid’ because of what he has posted. I do not assume that he anything other than what he says.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“The Supreme Court decides cases based on the United States Constitution, NOT on current foreign law.
Recent decisions have cited ‘foreign law’ as the basis for their decision.
They were 5-4 decisions and that would indicate to any intelligent rational person that 5 out of 9 justices do not understand their Constitutional Duties.
In short, political hacks with their own personal political agenda and NOT legitimate Justices.”
Frankly Willis, if you told me the sky was blue, I’d want to go out and check. You have been demonstrably wrong on so many issues that I cannot take you as a credible source on what color your hair is, never mind what the justices of the Supreme Court based their ruling on. I seriously don’t think you would recognize a legal ruling if it bit you on the nose.
But okay, let’s play this one more time. You have a claim on the table – that “recent” decisions have cited “foreign law” as the basis for the outcome.
What decisions? Cite the cases you are referring to. In other words, support your claim. You have never failed to fail to do this in the past, and I do not expect this time to be any different. You could not produce Bill Hugenberg’s letter referencing the ACLU, and I do not expect you to be able to produce a single citation from the US Supreme Court that is based on foreign law. You will no doubt repeat the timeless, yet stunningly incorrect mantra that somehow I am responsible for proving you wrong. Sorry, but your claim, your burden of proof. As AP would say, you made a “statement of fact” so back it up.
We’ll all be waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: ” We’ll all be waiting. And waiting. And waiting.”
And waiting.
Give it up Scott. You know what they say about repeating the same actions but expecting a different result.
There are only a couple of people remaining who respond to the garbage of WLJ, but this allows him to continue to spew his vitriol and hatred. I say let’s let the fab four or five talk among themselves in what looks like a kind of mutual mental masturbation society (The MMMS, a new acronym for WLJ and cohorts).
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My refusal to play RL’s game where he wants me to define the word “liberal”, he writes: “Either that he has not bothered to find out what it means or that he is either unable, or afraid to put forth his own meaning. Possibly for fear of his being challenged?”
Of course, RL does not like folks to use labels. Instead, he chooses a different description of those on the other side of his political spectrum. He writes of them as people who “… believe that life is all about “I and me”, and “fun and frolic”.”
RL, the absolute definition of a liberal, writes in fog but is as transparent as a clear window pane.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
But I don’t expect a different result. I expect the same result - that Willis will once again back down and go off making more claims he can’t support. For some odd reason, I enjoy watching him dance around and trying to throw the burden of proof around like a hot potato. I don’t think anyone could demonstrate the complete inanity of his arguments better than he can by refusing to actually make his arguments. I have seen many creationists who, in their quest to slay the dragon that is evolution, drive more people away from creationism simply because the stupidity of the defense became too much. Willis is similar. I’m trying to see how long before the rest of the MMMS (good acronym!) disowns him simply becasue he is too damaging to their cause.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little fellers.
Originally posted Oct 1, 3003.
” American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.
Sandra Day O’Connor
“The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark,” O’Connor said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The 73-year-old justice and some of her high court colleagues have made similar appeals to foreign law, not only in speeches and interviews, but in some of their legal opinions. Her most recent public remarks came at a dinner Tuesday sponsored by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.
The occasion was the center’s presentation to her of its World Justice Award.
O’Connor told the audience, according to the Atlanta paper, the U.S. judicial system generally gives a favorable impression worldwide, “but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out.”
She cited two recent Supreme Court cases that illustrate the increased willingness of U.S. courts to take international law into account in its decisions.
In 2002, she said, the high court regarded world opinion when it ruled executing the mentally retarded to be unconstitutional.
American diplomats, O’Connor added, filed a court brief in that case about the difficulties their foreign missions faced because of U.S. death penalty practices.
More recently, the Supreme Court relied partly on European Court decisions in its decision to overturn the Texas anti-sodomy law.
“I suspect,” O’Connor said, according to the Atlanta daily, “that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.”
Doing so, she added, “may not only enrich our own country’s decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression.”
In July, O’Connor made a rare television news show appearance with Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in which they were asked whether the U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today, will continue to be relevant in an age of globalism.
Speaking with ABC News’ “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos, Breyer took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in a dissent in the Texas sodomy ruling, contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution.
Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.
“We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it’s trite but it’s true – is growing together,” Breyer said. “Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”
In his dissent in the Texas case, Scalia said: “The court’s discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is … meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.
Scalia’s scathing critique of the 6-3 sodomy ruling was unusual in its bluntness.
“Today’s opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct,” he wrote. Later he concluded: “This court has taken sides in the culture war.”
The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O’Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a “living Constitution” subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.
Any thing else you folks that are totally inept when it comes to internet searches need to find out?
Or are you now going to cry and whine that I failed to live down to your level?
As I said earlier, 5 of 9 people then on the court needed a serious lesson in Constitutional law.
They are only political appointees with their own political agenda and should never have made it to the Supreme Court due to their judicial activism.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You will probably not notice that this was not posted until 95 years in the future, but I will point out that this was a typo, NOT a misuse of the wrong word in the wrong context.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog again evades a straigt and direct question with his response, beginning with: “My refusal to play RL’s game where he wants me to define the word “liberal”..” That is again an evasion and, while he may be engaged in a ‘game’, some of us are not.
The end of his post is also telling: ” the absolute definition of a liberal, writes in fog but is as transparent as a clear window pane.” Interesting but it consists of but a value judgment, not any serious addressing of the question.
Perhaps we can let it go as it is obvious that not only has he no concept whatever, not even a reasonable one, of the meaning of the term “political liberal.” Sadder yet, it appears that he is not at all interested in learning the meaning, preferring instead to remain in his “comfort zone”, and what he ‘believes’ it to mean to him. That is his right to do, but he also needs to recognize that any of his positions (past, present and future), those based on what is obviously his own designer definition, are also invalidated.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the illustrious ruth vader dimsbulb and her rather lengthy tome, reminiscent of little bobbie fame…
” Supreme Court of the United States
Home About the Supreme Court Docket Oral Arguments Merits Briefs Bar Admissions Court Rules
Case Handling Guides Opinions Orders Visiting the Court Public Information Jobs Links
“A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”:
The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication
Constitutional Court of South Africa
February 7, 2006
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States”
(a whole bunch clipped because I wanted to clip it)…
” While the Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution reversed the Dred Scott judgment, U.S. jurists and political actors today divide sharply on the propriety of looking beyond our nation’s borders, particularly on matters touching fundamental human rights. Some have expressed spirited opposition. Justice Scalia counsels: The Court “should cease putting forth foreigners’ views as part of the reasoned basis of its decisions. To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry.”
Another trenchant critic, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, commented not long ago: “To cite foreign law as authority is to flirt with the discredited . . . idea of a universal natural law; or to suppose fantastically that the world’s judges constitute a single, elite community of wisdom and conscience.” Judge Posner’s view rests, in part, on the concern that U.S. judges do not comprehend the social, historical, political, and institutional background from which foreign opinions emerge. Nor do we even understand the language in which laws and judgments, outside the common law realm, are written.
Judge Posner is right, of course, to this extent: Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.”
Need more little boys?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey bullishfrog?
Yer making little bobbie upset with you and he’s covering his monitor with spittle again.
Soon his minions will be on your case for picking on their leader.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “Sadder yet, it appears that he is not at all interested in learning the meaning, preferring instead to remain in his “comfort zone””
On the contrary oh master of the universe. I asked you earlier for your definition so I can learn from the master. Why will you not post your absolute and final definition so the entire board can learn. Why are you being so evasive?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, the furthest thing in my mind is to upset the master of the universe. I am looking forward to his 19th century definition of the word liberal so he can prove that he ain’t one.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh that’s easy.
If he posts his definition, others will evaluate the definition and express their own, extremely inept and poorly thought out opinions of his definition.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, golly, here’s more fellers.
” The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision
STEVEN G. CALABRESI
Northwestern University - School of Law
STEPHANIE DOTSON ZIMDAHL
Northwestern University April 2005
Abstract:
The legitimacy of citation to foreign sources of law generated comment in all three of the Supreme Court opinions written in Simmons v. Roper, the landmark case that recently struck down the juvenile death penalty. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion and Justice O’Connor’s dissent in Simmons, both argued that foreign sources of law can in fact be relevant to issues before the Court, even though they ultimately reached different conclusions as to the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty. In addition, Justice Scalia’s dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, forcefully declared, as Justice Scalia has repeatedly done in previous Eighth Amendment cases, that international law and opinion is not relevant to the Court’s constitutional adjudications, even when it is used simply to provide evidence of the validity of the Court’s opinion.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared unconstitutional state laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy, in part, by considering decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, brought the issue of the Supreme Court’s consideration to center stage. But, Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Simmons stands to move the debate to an even higher level of attention and importance. By citing foreign sources of law as further support for the Court’s own views of what punishments violate the Eighth Amendment, the Simmons Court showed what may be at stake in the outcome of this debate between the six liberal justices and the three conservatives led by Justice Scalia. The depth of the support for citing foreign sources of law suggests that the movement to do this is just beginning and will only gather force over time. In the wake of Simmons, the debate on the Court is no longer over whether to cite foreign sources of law but over when and how to cite them. This portends a sea change in the Court’s doctrine.
Two months prior to the Court’s decision in Simmons, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer met at American University to debate The Relevance of Foreign Law for American Constitutional Adjudication, thus showing again how important this issue is to the nine sitting Supreme Court justices. In addition to Justice Breyer’s public support for citing foreign sources of law in U.S. Supreme Court decisions and Justice Scalia’s deep-seated opposition to the practice, other Justices have also made public statements about the legitimacy of citation to such sources. In a 2004 speech at Georgetown Law School, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went out of her way to voice approval of citation to foreign sources of law in U.S. courts, noting that it can be a help in our search for a more peaceful world, and stating that international law is no longer a specialty … it is vital if judges are to faithfully discharge their duties. Justice O’Connor also said that while ultimately we must bear responsibility for interpreting our own laws, there is much to learn from other distinguished jurists who have given thought to the same difficult issues that we face here. At a recent national convention of the American Constitution Society, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the Justices are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives, and she told the group of judges, lawyers, and students, that we are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with, and learn from others. Justice Ginsburg’s support for looking to foreign sources of law was also apparent in her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, where she noted that the Court’s observation that race-conscious programs must have a logical end point accords with the international understanding of the office of affirmative action and where she cited the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a convention the United States ratified in 1994.
“.
Learned anything yet little fellers?
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
uhoh…
More stuff…
” Since 1977 and especially in the last five years, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy have cited foreign decisions to buttress their views:
* In a 1999 death penalty case, Breyer, citing judicial decisions from Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Court of Human Rights said, “A growing number of courts outside the United States … have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders ultimate execution inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel.”
* In a 2002 case that ruled that mentally retarded people convicted of murder could not be given a death sentence, Stevens contended that “within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved,” citing a legal brief from the European Union as his authority.
* Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.
Referring to the two men seeking to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional, Kennedy wrote, “The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.”
For his critics, Kennedy’s argument seemed to amount to: If it’s good enough for Europe, it ought to be good enough for the United States.
Deep divide
Kennedy’s opinion underscored the divide between liberals and conservatives on two of the most contentious issues in American society, sexual mores and capital punishment. Liberals see the United States as lagging behind Europe in its views. Conservatives are quite happy that America marches to the beat of its own drummer on these issues. ”
Are you up to date and informed yet little boys?
There is a lot more if you ever get smart enough to use the internet as a research tool instead of a place to find porn and spout liberal garbage.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog, I wouldn’t count on a 19th century definition, more like a 14th century definition when neither the word or the philosophy didn’t even exist.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. laitres,
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, but I had some business down at 4th and Rood, and it took substantially longer than I thought it would. So you think me a conspiracy buff, eh? That is some pretty weird thinking, considering the fact that your conspiracy was against the government. I’m not sure what they will say about it. However that comes out, it will take awhile. Those people are nothing if they are not methodical. Takes forever to do a simple interview. Anyway, I tried to provide a list of definitions for the words that were used in the conspiracy. You may not accept them, but that doesn’t mean others won’t. You and your buddies saying things like that isn’t really very funny, and of course, where the rubber meets the road, those kinds of threats are taken very seriously. Now, I’m not trying to tell you what to do, of course, but if it were me, I’d be very careful to avoid that sort of thing in the future. Anyway, at this point it is none of my concern anymore. So here’s wishing you a happy 4th of July. America, OOH RAH!!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No so sure about that Willis. One of our bloggers in the liberal club wrote not long ago that Jesus was a liberal.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - I don’t have any problem with our Constitution or the Supreme Court (except that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito should be impeached for high treason) - you’re the one who brought up the “foreign law” nonsense.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s another little tidbit from the Salt Lake City Tribune, July 3, 2008
” Lowry: Ever-moralizing Kennedy is the worst justice on nation’s top court
Rich Lowry
Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT
Why did the Founders bother toiling in the summer heat of Philadelphia in 1787 writing a Constitution when they could have relied on the consciences of Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy instead?
Kennedy is the Supreme Court’s most important swing vote and its worst justice. Whatever else you think of them, a Justice Scalia or Ginsburg has a consistent judicial philosophy, while Kennedy expects the nation to bend to his moral whimsy. With apologies to Louis XIV, Kennedy might as well declare ”la constitution, c’est moi!”
In a 2005 interview, Kennedy said of the court, ”You know, in any given year, we may make more important decisions than the legislative branch does - precluding foreign affairs, perhaps.” (He was wise to include the ”perhaps,” in light of the recent Guantanamo Bay decision.) He went on to note how judges need ”an understanding that you have an opportunity to shape the destiny of the country.”
So much for the country’s destiny being shaped by a free people acting through their representative institutions, within certain constraints it enshrines in the Constitution. That wouldn’t allow nearly enough room for what Jeffrey Rosen, in a devastating profile of the justice in The New Republic, calls Kennedy’s ‘’self-dramatizing moralism.”
On any politically charged case, we are supposed to wait with bated breath while the famously agonizing Kennedy decides which side he is going to bless with his coveted fifth vote. In so doing, Kennedy believes he is, in Rosen’s description, creating ”a national consensus about American values that will usher in what he calls ‘the golden age of peace.’ ” Observers less besotted with Justice Kennedy than Justice Kennedy might put it differently: making it up as he goes along.
Two years ago, Kennedy joined the majority in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that urged the president to obtain congressional approval for the system of military tribunals at Gitmo. President Bush did, but Kennedy wrote the 5-4 majority decision in this year’s Boumediene v. Bush striking down the system anyway.
Kennedy quoted the World War II-era Eisentrager decision - upholding the military trial of German detainees - to show that there were greater practical difficulties back then with judicial interference in military detentions. He left unremarked that the Eisentrager decision unmistakably says - a mere paragraph after his citation! - that the Constitution does not apply extraterritorially: ”No decision of this Court supports such a view. None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at it.”
Indeed, Kennedy blew through some 200 years of precedent with nary a backward glance. Just another day at the Kennedy Court.
It should be no surprise how Kennedy construes the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ”cruel and unusual punishments.” It is warrant for the court to exercise its ”independent judgment” of ”the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” as Kennedy put it in this term’s 5-4 Kennedy v. Louisiana decision forbidding capital punishment in cases of child rape.
The signature of a Kennedy opinion is vaporous moralizing, whatever side he comes down on. In the 1992 Casey decision upholding Roe v. Wade, he waxed poetic about ”the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of life.” In the 2007 Carhart decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, he waxed again, this time about ”respect for human life find[ing] an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child.”
Evidently, Kennedy goes about his job unburdened by the fact that his views on existence or on the mother-child bond have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution. But so it goes, as long as the Supreme Court is divided between four liberals, four conservatives and one self-important man who can’t differentiate between his inner compass and the nation’s fundamental law.
Kennedy fashions himself an instructor to the nation. And he is - in the arbitrary ways of judicial lawlessness.
The signature of a Kennedy opinion is vaporous moralizing, whatever side he comes down on.”
———————————–
In short, a rabid judicial activist with no concept of what is actually contained in the Constitution he is suppose to ‘interpret’.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
to everybody posting, i plan on being gone for tomorrow, so rl, i’ll answer your points (such as they are) afterwords…to all here, i wish you, your families and loved ones a safe and happy fourth…even to those whom i disagree most vehemently…good day ladies and sirs
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander,
You just keep on thinking for yourself. It’s been a long time since I was your age, but I know what my reaction would have been to some adult thinking they have the authority to tell me to go to some other forum. I would have done exactly the opposite. After all, they are not your parents, and you do have freedom of speech, so who are they to tell you to go away. I wonder how they would like it if you told them where to go? I guess there always is some adult out there trying to push young people around. You’ve ask some really good questions, but they won’t ever admit that, so keep up the good work.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting AP:
“Alexander,
You just keep on thinking for yourself.”
HA! Good one. I’m sure you mean start thinking for himself.
Hey, I didn’t really mean to tell the kid to go away but I suppose I did. I just don’t see him getting much of value here. Neither we liberals nor you liberal-bashers set a very good example. We snipe, we nit-pick, we confuse. Since the boy likes Rush Limbaugh so much I just thought he would be happier, you know, listening to the jerk instead of floundering about here.
But if you want to stay anyway Alexander, sure! Don’t let me or anyone else stop you!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hite and everyone else too — Happy Fourth of July!
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, please define what you mean by “liberal”
Nah, just kidding.
A happy 4th to you and everyone else here.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow. My world makes no sense anymore. Willis actually backed up his claim.
Sort of, anyway. While his claim was the decisions were “based on” foreign law, while the articles he cited merely said the foreign law was “taken into consideration” as part of the decision. It’s a small point, and one I won’t belabor.
None of which, in any case, changes the situation at all. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court is taking foreign law into consideration on Constitutionality questions, which I honestly agree that they shouldn’t, this does not invalidate any other rulings, such as the relevant ones in the invocation issue.
Nice try, Willis. Seriously. At least you’re trying to address the constitutionality issue instead of completely ignoring it and attacking the messengers. Of course, your argument boils down to simply disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision-making process and retroactively claiming that all past decisions are somehow invalid by default. It doesn’t work that way, and like it or not, the Court’s decision stands until overturned, and the decision clearly indicates that the council prayer is unconstitutional.
I stand impressed that you made a claim and supported it.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish — you had me going for a minute there! :]
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some of you may recall that when the US Supreme Court decision granted Habeas Corpus rights to Gitmo detainees, I wrote a statement that was widely challenged. Basically what I said was, if habeas rights applied to detainees in Gitmo (foreign soil), then those same rights would apply to detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq or anywhere else in the world. What followed that statement was a host of opinions that ran the gambit from that’s very unlikely, to you are just trying to create a situation that will never happen, to so what. Well, guess what folks, today a court appointed attorney representing a detainee in Afghanistan filed a habeas brief in federal court, right here in the good ole USA. Now, that detainee, along with all evidence and witnesses will have to be flown, you guessed it, right here to the good ole USA. Of course there is the option that I mentioned at the time, that is to drop all charges and release him back to the American killing zone of his choice. But here is the up-side, if he kills another American or two or three, we’ll all get to witness whether the high court can spare one justice to deliver the death message to his wife, parents, and children. Now who was it said the law is an ass.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - The Constitution charges the Supreme Court with the responsibility of interpreting said document, but makes absolutely no reference as to what criteria or “laws” the Supremes must use to help them accomplish their task.
Willis’ diatribe against “foreign laws” is simply one more arrow in his quiver of right-wing “red herring” issues. In the end, it’s meaningless nonsense.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I don’t see how it follows that the detainee, all evidence and witnesses have to be flown here.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of Federal habeas corpus this is just asking a federal court to review the legality of the detainee’s incarceration.
I did not find any evidence that this meant a judge even had to honor the brief; nor that it means a trial/appeal needs to occur on U.S. soil even if the judge does decide to consider the situation.
If I am mistaken, which I could be, can you point out some evidence? No rush and I am not trying to be a smart-ass; I really do want to understand more about this procedure especially if there is something I am missing.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: As usual AP displays his ignorance of the issues. The Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees came about specifically because as the justices pointed out, the U.S. has absolute control in Guantanamo. It is comparable to one of our embassys in a foreign country which is considered a sovereign piece of the U.S. Afghanistan is certain to be viewed differently. Merely filing a brief for habeas corpus does not ensure that habeas corpus will be granted. The motion will have to pass several legal hurdles.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not being a Constitutional lawyer, or even an attorney, but rather one familiar with history. There are certain things that have come through in that study, in particular in the study of the various courts, and how their role and function was seen throughout American history. That then moves beyond the Court itself, but to the area of how various courts have viewed their roles, how they have affected American jurisprudence and society, for good or ill. And, in the following, we will seek to address only one of those issues, “habeus corpus”.
Habeus corpus, being part of the Constitution, no agency or branch of government may suspend it, even the Supreme Court, except under the direst of national emergencies. The Supreme Court itself, being established and granted its authority under that same Constitution must therefore exercise extreme care that, if it suspends another provision of the Constitution for insufficient cause, it not only voids that which it suspends, but may compromise, surrender, or void its own authority in doing so.
Habeus corpus has, at times been interpreted in different ways. Some have maintained that, if invoked, it means to produce ‘the physical body’; i.e. the person itself. There is however, another interpretation. That is to ‘produce the body’, but the ‘body of evidence’. Depending upon what is submitted to a court in its brief, the government must either produce one, the other or both, depending upon the decision of the court.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
OK, class you opened the can of worms. First, can you please tell me what detention facility CONTROLLED by the armed forces of America is not under complete US control? And what court could find it otherwise? Are the detainees controlling the facility? Fact is the writ was filed by an Afghan detainee according to news reports. Make a commitment here, class of 52? Do you think the court will find that the facility is under US control? Yes or No? If a writ is issued, and it stands every bit a chance of being issued as if the whole proceeding was about a US citizen in a Denver jail. Same constitutional right applies. What is the next step in the process? A hearing to decide if the individual is being constitutional held in custody. Now, if you know anything at all about what you are talking about, you know that the government now has to “unzip their pants” and present the evidence that they have against that individual. Now we have this little rule in our law, that states that a defendant (read detainee) has the right to face their accuser. In this case, that would be the US Government as well as perhaps the Afghan citizen or the US Soldier making the complaint. The detainees attorney is allowed to challenge evidence presented by the government. The real life consequences of this is that the perpetrator and his attorney are now privy to who the snitch was. They are also privy to all evidence as well as who the witnesses are. And all of this must take place within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Now you can bet that the Federal government will try to make some kind of arrangements where these people are not brought to our country, and they will try to make some kind of arrangements for protecting the identity of the snitches, and the identity of the soldier’s family (who is a witness against the detainee) There can also bet that there will be a liberal, court appointed attorney who will stand in front of a newspaper reporter and probably a TV camera and make a statement that will sound something like this: “The Supreme Court has ruled that Habeas Corpus applies and therefore the request for all these special provisions must be denied. It is ridiculous for the government to contend that a Soldier or his family could be in danger from radical Jihadists here in the US. (never mind that Abu Nedal went after Lt. Col. Oliver North and his family, in Virginia) There is no such thing as second class constitutional rights, and if any person in the world has one constitutional right, in this case, Habeas Corpus rights, then they must be entitled to all constitutional rights.” End of speech. Then precedent kicks in. After all, the court has already ruled that they are entitled to A constitutional right. Enter the “equal protection clause”. Bingo. What has now been created is a foreign national, armed enemy combatant with American blood up to his elbows, that has all the rights of a US citizen, and none of the duties and responsibilities. Hell, who knows, they will probably let the SOB vote in our elections. Then begins the debate of whether an Iraqi has the constitutional right to press charges against a US Soldier for alleged crimes committed against his property or person, when the state of Iraq was under US control, before the provisional government was formed. After that the worms just come spilling out all over. Not likely, you say? Well, that was what was held before the high court decision, and that was what was held in this forum before the brief for Habeas was filed on behalf of an Afghan detainee. The law of unintended consequences applies.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
“The Constitution charges the Supreme Court with the responsibility of interpreting said document, but makes absolutely no reference as to what criteria or “laws” the Supremes must use to help them accomplish their task.”
I agree, and after some thought I can see where considering similar laws and situations in foreign countries might positively influence a question of Constitutionality. I can see Willis’ side too, though. A question of Constitutionality should be based primarily on the Constitution. None of the examples Willis cited said they did anything other than that, but so many people see things in black and white that any hint that foreign laws are being considered throws the whole decision into doubt.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
In the interest of completion, I should point out that the Supreme Court was charged with the interpretation of the Constitution in 1802 after the Marbury vs. Madison case. It’s not part of the Constitution itself, but it’s been the duty of the Court almost as long as the Constitution has been around. The founding fathers were still in charge and they made the decision.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As mentioned before, A.P. displays his ignorance about the issues in the latest Supreme Court ruling on the Guantanamo detainees. He digs himself deeper in the mire with his nonsensical statements in 228.
Here is what the more sensible commentators are saying:
“So apparently Boumediene applies directly only to Gitmo prisoners, because of the “territory” consideration. The US has a long-term lease at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But apparently it doesn’t apply wherever in the world that the US military has detention facilities.
The US has 700 bases in 120 countries around the world, and enjoys nefarious relationships with dozens of others (such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Many of these countries are not known as champions for human rights. Are any US detainees on any of these bases now empowered to petition a US court for a writ of habeas corpus, and appeal to the Supreme Court when they don’t get it? Apparently not.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon5.html
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - Thanks, your points are well taken. I’d forgotten all about the Marbury v Madison case, but as a student I was more interested in English Constitutional History than our own. I must admit that if I had lived during the time of the revolution I most probably would have sided with the Tories.
As for your comment, “so many people see things in black and white that any hint that foreign laws are being considered throws the whole decision into doubt,” I agree with that as well. Xenophobes like Willis and A-P will always be suspicious of anything that looks or sounds “foreign.” To them, anything “American” is always superior, even when facts prove them wrong. That is the curse of being forever “provincial.”
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
At the risk of practicing “armchair psychology,” I’ve seen a lot of people like that. I’ve spent a lot of time on discussion boards debating evolution with creationists, and the most common motivation is a black and white view of the bible - it’s either all true or none of it can be trusted. It seems to be a common characteristic. I’m not saying Willis and AP are creationists, but there are similarities in how they seem to see things. One way or the other.
Like they say, there are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary, and those that don’t.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - It’s understandable why so many people view the world in black and white terms - it’s easier than having to actually think. It’s like one of my “Christian” friends told me once, “You’re either a believer, or your not - it’s as simple as that.” This is the kind of mindset which make religious fundamentalists so dangerous to our country and the world.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott stated: “I’m not saying Willis and AP are creationists, but there are similarities in how they seem to see things. One way or the other.”
That is what is at times called in some quarters, and ‘absolutist’ type of mentality, where one thought, concept or view, must take up all the space, and where nothing else is allowed to enter, or even intrude.
Such a mentality has been recognized for quite some time, and the danger is that one absolute can be replaced with any other. It is not the thought, concept or view that is important, it is the absoluteness itself. Even the NAZI Party recognized it in their approach. If they wanted an absolute devotee to their fascist philosophy, they looked for an absolute believer in some other cause or philosophy. They then replaced one with the other, their own.
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
This sounds almost like the beginnings of a civil conversation. I will reciprocate. In your previous post #226, you said ” The Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees came about specifically because as the justices pointed out, the U.S. has absolute control in Guantanamo.”
Absolute: possessing unlimited power
Control: to exercise power over something
Does the power of life and death constitute absolute control? If it does not, then I do not know what does. Would you agree that the US military governed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva convention, and the rules of land warfare represent a legal arm of the United States Government? In time of war (read whether declared or not when US troops are engaged in an armed conflict under actual combat conditions), does an officer, or the senior person in command have the legal authority to summarily execute a US soldier for failure to obey a lawful order, and would such authority constitute absolute control?
sovereign; self-governing and not ruled by any other state
In Iraq when US forces took Baghdad, and were hunting Saddam Hussein and other government officials, would you say that the legal authority to govern was assumed by the US government? Did they not impose curfews with accompanying shoot to kill orders, and impose these curfews upon the civilian population by force? Would you agree that at that moment in time, the sovereign nation of the United States of America had absolute control, and therefore sovereignty over the Iraqi nation and the Iraqi populace? Can you tell me under those definitions why the Supreme Courts decision would not apply? Under current US law and under the laws of most states, if an arrest is proven to be illegal, then any detention that follows is also illegal. Fruit of a poison tree, if you will. If an Iraqi detainee was detained (read arrest, held against their will, moved from one place to another under restraint), at a point in time when the US government was in absolute control and Iraq was not ruled by any other state other than the US military, would the Supreme Courts decision apply?
This is the can of worms, and there will be others, and each one will have to be dealt with independently. And considering the equal protection clause we will be dealing with foreign enemy combatants, who for all practical purposes have exactly the same constitutional rights as a US citizen in a court of law. In your post, it appears that you believe that the Supreme Court can grant constitutional rights to non-citizens based upon their location, rather than based upon the definitions specifically enumerated by the court in their decision. Such a line in the sand, under the law does not exist. Granting a single constitutional right, I believe is not in the judicial power or discretion of the court, for to do so would be to deny all other constitutional rights and protections without due process, and I believe this point could and would be argued. As I see it, the Supreme Court has created a new category. Something in between citizen and foreign national. A category of people that it holds to be partial citizens, or at least persons entitled to partial constitutional rights based upon their status of being under the absolute control of the US government. I do not believe that any location factor ruling would stand under challenge. The sad part of all of this is that there were already rules to be followed and rights granted under the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ and the rules of land warfare. The high courts excursion into the jurisdiction of these existing rules, I see as folly and I concur with Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion where he stated his belief that the United States would live to regret that days work.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 6:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott RE 23: I had not heard that one. That’s funny.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 6:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oops: that should be 233
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 7:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
I am Alexanders mother.
You posted several assaults against my so that I personally take issue with.
To quote you.
“ashhugger
Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm PM This User Report this comment
Quoting AP:
“Alexander,
You just keep on thinking for yourself.”
HA! Good one. I’m sure you mean start thinking for himself.
Hey, I didn’t really mean to tell the kid to go away but I suppose I did. I just don’t see him getting much of value here. Neither we liberals nor you liberal-bashers set a very good example. We snipe, we nit-pick, we confuse. Since the boy likes Rush Limbaugh so much I just thought he would be happier, you know, listening to the jerk instead of floundering about here.
But if you want to stay anyway Alexander, sure! Don’t let me or anyone else stop you! ”
My son stated that “Rush Limbaugh says words mean things”.
That is a FACT! Words do mean things.
Then you had the audacity to declare that my son has the equilivant of a “man crush” on Mr. Limbaugh simply because he quoted one the gentlemans sayings.
I have read a lot about “comprehension” from several of the more liberal posters on this website, and you are the leader in failing to comprehend what is written by those with whom you have a disagreement.
In short miss ashhugger/tonya, you are no lady and I do sincerely hope that you allow your children to read the inane comments that you make about others so they can make their own decisions on the type of person their mother really is.
Classof52. My son is not 14, but that is about the age of your mentality in your posts on here.
Intellectually, he far above most of the posters from both sides here.
I fully expect there to be a rash of negative comments lambasting my son, as well as myself in this forum, but you are almost to a person a bunch of childish, senile old goats with no life other than attacking each other to no avail. But you seem to enjoy it to the detriment of those who would choose to use the site for more intelligent discussions.
One other thing miss ashhugger/tonya. You stated that Mr. Limbaugh says hurtful things. NOT NEARLY AS HURTFUL as your attacks on Alexander.
Mr. Johnson questioned you on specifics, and you never answered. Is that because you know that you have been caught in a blatant exageration and have no facts to support your claim?
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Punctuation Bobbie…
” That is what is at times called in some quarters, and ‘absolutist’ type of mentality, where one thought, concept or view, must take up all the space, and where nothing else is allowed to enter, or even intrude.
”
That is what(comma) is at times(comma) In some quaters, AN(d removed, wrong word in the wrong place under current usage) ‘absolutist’ mentality (”type of” removed as extraneous verbage)…
Oh wait…
You already know all this stuff, you’re just too lazy to use it, or preoccupied with trying to show how utterly brilliant you truly are.
My apologies.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good morning, Willis. Happy Independence Day to you all!
In all of the ugliness of this thread, I would like to interject something that brightened my morning.
I woke up this morning, made coffee and looked out my front window. To my surprise and pleasure, at the edge of every yard within my vision, someone has placed small American flags
I don’t have a clue who placed them there, but I appreciate them all the same!
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, my punctuation and wording looks funky… smiley face isn’t where I placed it.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Happy July 4th! Let’s keep the troops deployed overseas, the firefighters working the fire lines, and all of the others who are in harms way serving us in our thoughts and/or prayers today.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To Alexander and his mother, I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to be so hurtful or to imply some of the things that you took my posts to mean, but I could see how it would leave that impression. My harshness was meant to be aimed at Rush Limbaugh, whom I personally despise. I have absolutely nothing against Alexander and again, I am truly sorry.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow Alexander’s mom — I just read your post overr again thoroughly. My apology still stands, but … wow.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To Alexander’s ‘mommy’: After examining your post, it is not surprising to see why your son is in this forum, attempting to ‘impress’ others with limited knowledge and posting in such an ill-mannereed way. He is, as is most often the case, but reflecting the values of the parent(s).
Perhaps, instead of ‘excusing’ his behavior, and chastising others for correcting him on this public board, look at yourself and see if perhaps you are the one who should be doing the ‘correcting’, without fostering it upon others then ‘whining’ when your ‘little darling’ is taken to task.
Today, it appears all too fashionable to demand of others that we tolerate any type of behavior, and in any environment, merely because ‘why, he is a child’. That has gone so far as to be noticeable in the general public. Where in the past what stuck out in publc was misbehavior, it is now ‘good behavior’.
Some, and it appears that you are among them, happen to believe that your son should be able to say or do anything, and that such should be excused or considered ‘cute’. It is actually a horendous thing for a child or young person to be taught, as it can only produce a self-indulgent and selfish individual who comes to believe that the world revolves around him/her.
From your post, “mommy dearest” it woud appear that Alexander is reflecting ‘your’ values, and may be reflective of what is really wrong in much of this country. We appear to have ‘parents’ attempting to raise children who have never grown up themselves, either emotionally or intellectually.
If Alexander wishes to post on this board, he has every right to do so. However, as this is a board mostly for adults attempting to discuss adult subjects, he needs to be taught to behave properly. If not, then perhaps he needs to find an ‘age approprite board’.
We have enough supposed ‘adults’ exhibiting childish behavior and thinking on this board, without having to put up with an ill-mannered, churlish, and petulant child, or his ‘mommy.’
So ‘mommy’, if you are of the mind that whatever your little ‘darlink’ posts should be ‘tolerated’ or found ‘cute’ by others, you may wish to tell your charge that while such behavior may be tolerated at home, others are not obliged to tolerate it. If he has to ‘run to mommy’, then perhaps he is neither intellectually nor emotionally prepared for it, as obviously (from your own post and name-calling) you are not.
So, prior to ever coming on this board again, and yourself engaging in such an ill-mannered and churlish manner such as name-calling and characterization of others, take the time to examine yourself, and what your are actually ‘teaching’ Alexander.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow. RL. That was the most hatred I have seen anyone spew on this board yet. I believe your personality can now be better understood.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, RL said some things I was thinking but wouldn’t have said out loud. It wasn’t near as hateful as Mom’s post to me, but I understand this; the bear protecting her cub.
I do hope we can all just stop it for now and enjoy this fine holiday.
Sue’s little story made me smile.
A happy and safe 4th to everyone!
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “Wow. RL. That was the most hatred I have seen anyone spew on this board yet. I believe your personality can now be better understood.”
Apparently bullishfrog has a different definition of ‘hatred’ than do most of us. Speaking the unvarnished truth, is not at all hatred. It is but the truth. My ‘personality’, as you like to call it, and thanks for the free psychoanalyis,(you must be of the Bill Frist and Dr. Phil schools), in particular in public forums, and in discussing public issues, does not lead me to be very tolerant of either BS or ‘emotionalism’.
Now, Alexander is supposedly a young person. And, as such allowances will have to be made. It is also commendable that he is already concerned public policy issues.
That does not translate into tolerating ill-manners from him, or anyone else, including ‘mommy’, and many supposed adults who engage on this forum, exhibiting any such behavior. Perhaps, you believe differently, it is your absolute right (one which I will defend for you) but some of us believe otherwise.
If Alexander wishes to ‘post’ in this forum, despite his age, that is his and “mommy’s” choice. However, and as I stated in my post to ‘mommy’, we are not obliged to tolerate ill-manners from him, or ‘mommy’ either, and Alexander may well be advised to spend his time in a more ‘age appropriate’ forum.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
In post 236 you are defining absolute control but I think you’re mixing apples and oranges. You state “In time of war (read whether declared or not when US troops are engaged in an armed conflict under actual combat conditions), does an officer, or the senior person in command have the legal authority to summarily execute a US soldier for failure to obey a lawful order, and would such authority constitute absolute control?”
Yes, by your definition it does define absolute control. Where I think you are mixing apples and oranges is the fact that the commander, or senior person in command, has absolute control over personnel assigned to his/her command. He/she DOES NOT have absolute control over the enemy combatants or local population. Summary execution of either of those two groups would constitute a violation of the UCMJ and thus become a capital offense that he/she could be tried for in a Courts Marshall and face the death penalty themself. Even if the enemy combatant is a POW the commander is governed by the Geneva Convention which procludes him/her from having absolute control.
Just my opinion of your statement. I am not a lawyer so I might be mistaken, but having served in the military, this is my understanding of the situation you presented.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AlexMom: Classof52. My son is not 14, but that is about the age of your mentality in your posts on here.
Intellectually, he far above most of the posters from both sides here.
Well I have not written a single word about Alexander’s Mom nor have I addressed her in any way. Yet I get this gratuitous insult in her very first communication to me. Is there anybody not yet convinced that insults and name calling are a way of life with these Limbaugh conservatives?
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class writes: “insults and name calling are a way of life with these Limbaugh conservatives?”
This was in reaction to Alexander’s Mom. I’m guessing that the insults to which Class refers are when she writes that some posters here as a “bunch of childish, senile old goats with no life”
So Class, when RL, in his disgusting posting, writes that Alex is an “ill-mannered, churlish, and petulant child”, that qualifies him too as a Limbaugh conservative?
Let me say this to you Class, with all respect. Liberals like to accuse conservatives of lacking compassion for others. RL has said that in so many words. But the way in which RL displayed his displeasure with Alexander’s Mom, sounds more like a Hitler than an Obama.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger posted: “Well, RL said some things I was thinking but wouldn’t have said out loud. It wasn’t near as hateful as Mom’s post to me, but I understand this; the bear protecting her cub.”
Most people would not say such things for fear of ‘offending’. However, some of us are not at all hesitant to speak the truth in a brutal and frank manner when required. That is a result of our upbringing.
I personally consider it great that, at the age of 14, Alexander is already concerened with issues of public policy. But, that may be because I was much of the same mind at his age. However, there appears to be a huge difference between us. I recognized that I was 13 or fourteen and realized that fact. So, this individuals efforts consisted mostly of ‘listening’ and asking questions, that in order to learn more.
The other difference was that, in our upbringing, we said or did something that was either improper or totally age inappropriate, and were subsequently corrected by some adult, be they related or not, we were asked one question ‘What were you doing there?’ The lesson was: ‘If you don’t know what you are doing or saying, you should do neither’. In other words, learn and know your boundaries. To put it another way, that expessed in a Clint Eastwood movie, “A man’s got to know his limitation.”
There certainly is something of an animal defending its cubs. But, the lioness not only defends her cubs, it also corrects them. Neglecting to do either can only spell disaster for the ‘cub’.
In this instance, what some of us saw was someone not only ‘defending’ her cub, but actually engaging in the same behavior as the ‘cub’ itself; i.e. name calling and broad characterization of others whom she does not know, thus encouraging her charge to do the same. She might instead have asked him what he was doing on this board in the first place. Doing so is probably not fashionable these days.
Alexander appears to have a very serious and inquisitive mind. That is to be encouraged, not only by the parent(s), but everyone. However, such a mind should expend it’s effort in growth, and not ‘flopping around’ spouting of things not yet understood. Nor should such a mind be indoctrinated, either by itself or others. We see the results of the latter in many in far too many, even in this forum.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, the only reason I really did not say what you did is because I am afraid of that momma bear
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wardenbf
Sir, you are correct. I must admit that I anticipated someone finding this flaw. I even counted on it. You see, this proves my point. The US troops up to and including the officer in command at Gitmo, are governed by the same regulations and entities you cited. There may be some disagreement as to whether the detainees at Gitmo have rights under the Geneva Convention, but most certainly those in charge are governed by these accords. The point is that the same conditions exist in Gitmo as existed in that point in time in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place in the world where US military forces are in control. There is no more total control at Gitmo, than there is at any of these other places, in the absence of any political or government power other than the US. And when, not if, this point is litigated, the only issue will be whether the existence of a “lease” possessed by the US government on the lands that constitute the Gitmo base, was an instrument derived under duress, and if held by a court to be so, then the status of the Gitmo base as a part of a sovereign will be in doubt, exactly as a base established under the right of conquest. It is my belief that this issue alone will be the deciding factor as to whether or not constitutional rights are limited to Gitmo detainees. If the high court holds that control factor, is the determining factor, then Katie bar the door.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 12:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
As always I am impressed by your graciousness. You are truly a lady, and I don’t think, I know, that your statement was misinterpreted.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger stated: “RL, the only reason I really did not say what you did is because I am afraid of that momma bear”
Such is understandable. When encountering such situations, I myself frequently hesitate. But, I then remind myself of what I learned long ago and which I truly believe. It is that courage is action in the face of fear. If there is not ‘fear’ or risk, then courage is not required.
That however must be placed in context. Others, besides fear, may have other considerations for remaining silent. Perhaps, being probably one of the most independent (much too much so) and self-critical people most people have ever encountered, when I believe there is some higher principle involved, I will act, not without thought, but I will act.
That is true, even when I have been repeatedly cautioned in the last 9 years I have been on the Western slope, that someday I may be found with a ‘bullet in my head’. While that is not a pleasant thought as the resulting pollution to the area would be something most cannot even fathom, I will still speak or act, as the situation demands.
One of my favorite quotes is from Franklin D. Roosevelt, one uttered in his first inaugural address. “…we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Fear, after all, is one of the most potent forces used to cause paralysis.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P what a kind thing to say. Thank you!
I am glad there is still a worthwhile discussion going on still in this thread (the habeas topic). I will rejoin this later in the weekend.
RL, nice post (257)
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: I’m guessing that the insults to which Class refers are when she writes that some posters here as a “bunch of childish, senile old goats with no life”
Did you not read what I wrote in the message just above yours?
I quoted her as saying that my mental age was about 14. That is about as plain an insult as I can imagine and unsolicited on my part. I stand by my characterization of Limbaugh conservatives. (they are prone to name calling and insulting people instead of dealing with the issues).
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
CLass, I am not suggesting that insults have not been thrown around. I’m just saying that insults happen on a bipartisan basis.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog.CLass, I am not suggesting that insults have not been thrown around. I’m just saying that insults happen on a bipartisan basis.
Not from me they don’t. I try very hard to refrain from personal attack and name calling (although some regard any disagreement as a personal attack-those hypersensitive souls I cannot be responsible for).
This, however, is a very personal thing. The insult was to me although I have never addressed her in any form.
With respect to the larger question my observations are that the level of personal insult-especially of the really obscene sort are very heavily weighted toward the conservatives on these forums, and especially from those who stlye themselves as Christians. Scott, who has the patience of Job, is always civil in his responses to WLJ, who never loses an opportunity to taunt, belittle or demean Scott (and the rest of us). Bipartisan?? Which threads have you been reading?
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My mother said she was on earlier and pointed out some things some of you should know. She also told me that I am now 14 years old. I guess this means I do the puberty and acne again? I have practice and now know what to expect.
My Dad told me to just ignore the mean nasty people on here and pay attention to the people who show courtesy and respect(His words, my decision of who that will turn out to be).
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I noticed that the conversation has returned to the issue of being civil to one another. Recently, I was taken to task for my responses to Class of 52. The message was “can’t, can’t we just all get along.” The answer to that is a resounding NO. And I would draw your attention to my post #226 above, which begins, “Class, This sounds almost like the beginnings of civil conversation. I will reciprocate…”. That post was never answered by 52. I have made numerous unilateral gestures, and for my efforts I get crapped on. So, please, if anyone out there would like to comment on the lack of civility, please direct your comments to Class of 52. That is where they rightfully belong.
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To anybody interested in this boring subject:
The last time I swallowed the bait like message 263, I got taunted for lying and failing to live up to my stated principles.
“Fool me once , shame on me. Fool me twice….”
Posted July 4th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
As usual, class, you got it bass ackwards. The saying is, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Posted July 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I don’t feel my response to your hypothetical situation proves your point. You are talking about a military organization being in charge of other military personnel. I pointed out that the only absolute control was over the military personnel. In Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. troops are part of a multi-national force. While we might be the biggest dog in the fight, we are not in absolute control. In Gitmo we, as a nation, are acting alone. Again, I feel this is comparing apples and oranges.
Posted July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
As a PS to my last comment I’d like to point out that we, along with about 95% of the other posters, are way off subject from the original letter of “ACLU is using local atheists”.
Posted July 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wardenbf
Oh, I get it. What you are saying is the US military, MP’s or otherwise at a military detention center in Iraq or Afghanistan, when there is no other provisional government, don’t have control over the detainees. Wow, that thought had just never occurred to me. The inmates are in charge of the prison. Do you think they will allow our troops to leave any time they want to? Give me a break. Cause it is damn sure one or the other. And just so there won’t be any misinterpretation, go back and read my original post. It provides for a point in time when there is no other government or authority present. What do you suppose are the circumstances under which these people are held? Do you think they get a phone call? Maybe you think during combat operations that there is a whole truck load of court appointed attorneys just waiting to talk to their clients? Maybe you are under the impression that the Red Crescent visit these boys the second or third day they are arrested? Do you recall the prison in Afghanistan where the detainees rioted? That was the one where John Walker Lind was being held. You know, the goat herders son, Jihad Johnny? Do you recall that US special forces called in numerous air strikes on that facility? At that point in time, I would say we were pretty much in total control, at least right after the air strikes. Try to remember that those people were in custody, by virtue of the fact that they were in the facility. Even during the riots, most of the prisoners killed were not armed. I know we have smart bombs, but they are not that smart. But you can bet that a court appointed attorney will point out the fact that there was no probable cause, as we know it, for their arrest and detention at that time. And even if there was, we didn’t know what half their names were, and no arrest warrant had been issued. We are not operating under common sense here, we are operating under legalese. Most of these men in Afghanistan were taken prisoner by US forces, or Northern Alliance forces, under arms, in a combat zone, in civilian clothing, with spare ammunition on their person. By the time their court appointed attorneys get through with it, the only thing they will have to worry about is a misdemeanor charge of hunting Americans without a license. Is that what we really want. 10% of the detainees released have either been recaptured or killed in Iraq, and as far as I am concerned that is 10% too many.
Posted July 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Oh, I get it. You are not capable of maintaining a civilized discussion!
To quote you from post 263 “I noticed that the conversation has returned to the issue of being civil to one another. Recently, I was taken to task for my responses to Class of 52. The message was “can’t, can’t we just all get along.” The answer to that is a resounding NO.”
I assumed you were refering to Class of 52, not everone who posts here.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please tell me which “original post” you want me to reread since your posts are quite prolific. My typing skills (two fingers with an occasional thumb)are not worth exercising if you feel the need to try and denigrate my posts. On the other hand, if you can keep your posts on subject (which we are both WAY off of) and civilized, I will continue coresponding with you.
Posted July 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I responded to your post because it was directed to me. My purpose was not to denigrate your post but rather to redirect it to the responsible party. By addressing your post to me. It appeared that you were holding me responsible for the uncivilized nature of comments on this forum. I thought in the interest of fairness you might want to know the history. I have tried repeatedly to make peace with Class of 52, only to have my gestures either ignored or thrown back in my face. My efforts have taken place over a considerable period of time, and I don’t wish to waste my time, on a fools errand, to document each one of these attempts for you, as you seem to have already made up your mind that I am responsible. And I suspect that your post is nothing more than a reflection of whose side you are on, rather than an attempt to reestablish civil conversation. You will need to research the archives to find out where this all began, as this is not a recent phenomenon. You seem to think your post calling for civil debate is the first of it’s kind. Let me assure you, it is not. I have done so repeatedly, but civil debate cannot be accomplished unilaterally. If it could be, then your post would have been unnecessary, and now you are faced with the option of not responding to someone you think has addressed you in an uncivilized manner. While this situation may be new to you, I can assure you that you are not a path-finder. Where you walk now is a well trod path. The difference is I leave the choice to you. I will not be posting any denigrating remarks to you or about you, which you may feel the need to respond to. The people you should have addressed your comment to gave me no such choice. If your assumption was, in post #263, that I was referring to the current situation with Class of 52, then you were correct. However, there have been multiple and repeated calls from various individuals including myself for civil discussion. You will notice that my post #263 was not addressed to you. It was addressed to all of those who have called for civil discussion. It was an attempt once again to direct them to the source that wishes to continue the uncivilized debate. You can’t come in, in the middle of an argument and take the last thing that was said, and then blame that speaker for the whole tone of the argument.
Posted July 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, the above post should have been addressed to Wardenbf
Posted July 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Thank you for your civilized response. There are a couple of statements in it I would like to address to clarify my standing.
You state “By addressing your post to me. It appeared that you were holding me responsible for the uncivilized nature of comments on this forum.” The only responses I hold you responsible for are the ones you write.
You state “My efforts have taken place over a considerable period of time, and I don’t wish to waste my time, on a fools errand, to document each one of these attempts for you, as you seem to have already made up your mind that I am responsible.” It is not my place or intention to place responsibility for anyone’s actions except my own. If someone insults you or is otherwise uncivilized towards you, it is up to you to respond in whatever manner you feel is justified. My point is that I don’t feel I ever responded to you in this manner.
You state “And I suspect that your post is nothing more than a reflection of whose side you are on, rather than an attempt to reestablish civil conversation.” I am on nobody’s side. I am posting on this site simply to gain a better perspective. There have been several things you have stated that I readily agree with. Conversely, you have stated several thing that I strongly disagree with. What people need to realize about myself is that I am not here to “win” an argument. Any discussion I am in that I learn something new (which is most of them), I have “won”.
You state “You seem to think your post calling for civil debate is the first of it’s kind. Let me assure you, it is not. I have done so repeatedly, but civil debate cannot be accomplished unilaterally.” It matters not to me if this is the first or the fiftieth call for civility. How you respond toward others is something I may not agree with, but I will not comment about. How you respond to my posts is what I wish to remain civil. I called you to task because I didn’t feel you did that. If I become uncivilized in my responses to you, I expect you will point it out.
You state “The people you should have addressed your comment to gave me no such choice. If your assumption was, in post #263, that I was referring to the current situation with Class of 52, then you were correct.” That was my assumption, but I would like to point out that you always have a choice. You may respond in kind to the treatment that was accorded you, or you can take the high road, but it is still your choice.
You state “You will notice that my post #263 was not addressed to you. It was addressed to all of those who have called for civil discussion.” Actually, it wasn’t addressed to anyone. I could be wrong, but my way of thinking is that it then applies to anyone reading your post.
I would like to close by stating I don’t have any hard feelings about this exchange. It appears to have been a misunderstanding about the rules. I have spelled out the rules I wish to follow. If we can agree upon the rules we can have rational and civil discussions. If we decide we can’t agree upon the rules, we will simply have to agree to disagree and continue on our own paths.
Posted July 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wardenbf: “If we decide we can’t agree upon the rules, we will simply have to agree to disagree and continue on our own paths.”
And indeed this is the conclusion I reached some time ago with AP. So my non-response to his messages is the most civil possible under the circumstances. I make no comments, so he has nothing with which he can disagree and he is not therefore tempted to respond with his usual range of unacceptable statements.
Posted July 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wardenbf,
What you provided with your post is an opportunity for Class of 52 to address me through a third party. While he stayed civil in this post, what he forgot to tell you was shortly after he declared that he wouldn’t be addressing me anymore, he addressed me at least three times directly. When I reminded him that he had made the decision not to address me personally, and had given his word not to do so, he started his campaign of whacking me through a third party, which continues. Now the choice I have is to totally ignore these put downs or to respond directly to him, both of which I have done. You will recall, on your first post, the dynamic trio were on you like ugly on an ape. I experienced the same thing. They consider this forum their own personal playground, and do their best to run off all new posters. For a very long time, I did not understand WLJ’s animosity for these three, but now I know the same thing WLJ knows. That they have no desire for civil conversation. Their agenda is to present their propaganda, and to denigrate anyone who dares to question it. And I dare.
Respectfully, our discussion on Habeas Corpus is difficult for me. Anything that potentially allows or empowers a terrorist to take a free shot at American troops is an emotional subject for me. Anything that denigrates our troops is an emotional subject for me. Class found this out when he posted on our “Memorial Salute to the Troops” forum his selected quote “Sacred cows make the best hamburger”. Proteus, AKA sugarfoot, aka GJBubba now, also discovered my weak point when he falsified an entire military career which he used daily to add credibility to his attacks against our troops. As I said before, there is a long history here. While it is true that I have over-reacted to some of their posts, it is also true that their degradation and deceit knows no bounds. How do you engage such a person in a civilized discussion? And if you don’t attempt to do so, you leave the door open for them to post their garbage with no challenge. If you do challenge, they accuse you of a personal attack, rather than answer your challenge, or disappear from the subject. Everyone knows they do it, but no one, including myself, has found a way to stop it. I have tried to expose their techniques and fight fire with fire, and I realize that the reason for my response to them is not clear to new posters, but I suppose that is a cross I will just have to bear, because I have no intention of abandoning this forum to their propaganda efforts. I agree that there was a misunderstanding between you and I. I recognize that the source of this misunderstanding is the fact that I never know who I am talking to, and am forever on the lookout for one of their alter-egos popping up. A review of this forum would make you aware that they have used that technique on numerous occasions to engage me in what I thought was a civil discussion, and then used that unguarded moment to publicly slam me. I hope this explanation will serve as an adequate apology if I have misjudged you.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.