tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5646887053432822962..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: All over America, in every public school, teachers should lead students in prayer for the kids wounded and killed at Chardon High.mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28696096620478654532012-03-03T08:27:34.044-05:002012-03-03T08:27:34.044-05:00Trish,
I agree wholeheartedly. Gramsci explains o...Trish,<br /><br />I agree wholeheartedly. Gramsci explains our cultural rot. They are in our institutions.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49359756052673997272012-03-02T09:40:32.526-05:002012-03-02T09:40:32.526-05:00Out of our minds?
What an immaterial deduction!
F...Out of our minds? <br />What an immaterial deduction!<br />Funny how even your insults betray your inane cosmology. <br />Truly funny stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63057912631360223602012-03-02T08:01:33.322-05:002012-03-02T08:01:33.322-05:00Dont get me wrong here. I am all for the 2nd amend...Dont get me wrong here. I am all for the 2nd amendment. And at this point in time, any law reversing that would absolutely leave weapons only in the hands of the criminals.<br /><br />What I was trying to say was, why were guns originally created? For war. To kill. You cant say that for things like knives. Because they serve(d) dual purposes, not strictly for killing.<br /><br />I think when people snap and go on a killing spree, whether its a kid or an adult, something more is going on than feelings of 'being on TV' or entitlement..there are some serious mental problems at work. But blaming society, music (which was a trend in the 60s-80s), movies or whatever form of entertainment is painting the problem with way too big of a brush.<br />I've personally seen, as we all have, plenty of those kids who always would get punked on regularly. But never came to school filling their classmates full of bullets. It makes me wonder, if certain people are easily susceptible to mental breakdowns from an outside source, as in another individual, then I'd think it would be only a matter of time til SOMETHING drives them off the deep end. And as adolescents with raging hormones, not mature enough to fully control emotions, those people might snap at a younger age.<br /><br />I dont know. I'm not a psychiatristMulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16237199335504138362012-03-02T07:32:48.001-05:002012-03-02T07:32:48.001-05:00Anonymous #2:
I think you're right. The only...Anonymous #2:<br /><br />I think you're right. The only good explanation for widdle Crusader and Trish is that they are, quite literally, out of their minds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18298194083777113292012-02-29T18:13:40.947-05:002012-02-29T18:13:40.947-05:00Anonymous vs Anonymous reminds me of Spy vs Spy!
...Anonymous vs Anonymous reminds me of <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/302357/spy-vs-spy.jpg" rel="nofollow">Spy vs Spy</a>!<br /><br />Just kidding...<br /><br /><i>Life is harsh, that is why God gave laughter to humans!</i>Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25255510719002718412012-02-29T17:01:04.638-05:002012-02-29T17:01:04.638-05:00"But perhaps lost in the chaos is the irony t..."<i>But perhaps lost in the chaos is the irony that in American public schools – people are not allowed to pray.</i>"<br /><br />When your news source contains a blatant lie like this, it really doesn't do much for your credibility when you weigh in on a subject.<br /><br />The right of students and teachers to pray, to wear religious symbols, to display their religious iconography on a personal basis in school has been upheld numerous times, and the ACLU has fought for those rights time and again.<br /><br />But you probably didn't know that. Since ignorance is your stock in trade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62859942178026880052012-02-29T16:57:38.846-05:002012-02-29T16:57:38.846-05:00"They've marched through our institutions..."<i>They've marched through our institutions.</i>"<br /><br />Paranoid much?<br /><br />Those Godless practicing Christian and Jewish members of the Supreme Court have certainly been advancing a Communist agenda. or maybe they think that the Constitution works a different way than you do for a reason other than those found in your fevered conspiracy fantasies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68737472111215352552012-02-29T16:55:28.147-05:002012-02-29T16:55:28.147-05:00"Anonymous is a lawyer who works for the fede..."<i>Anonymous is a lawyer who works for the federal government. At least that's what he says. He's also a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Christian bigot.</i>"<br /><br />Most of the comments you have been fighting with haven't been me. Or did you think that all Anonymous posters were the same person?<br /><br />As it happens, you have no idea what my personal faith is. The only thing you know is that I value the separation of church and state like the majority of people, and the majority of Christians in this country.<br /><br />"<i>Does that surprise anyone? Our government is chock full of people who think we're "douchebags" and that's why our rights our so often curtailed.</i>"<br /><br />You really know nothing at all about the people who work for the government do you? All you have are paranoid conspiracy fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17373914251089430492012-02-29T16:51:27.398-05:002012-02-29T16:51:27.398-05:00"Anonymous' response to anyone pointing o..."<i>Anonymous' response to anyone pointing out that the separation of church is not in the Constitution is to admit that most of the crap he talks about isn't there either: judicial review, etc.</i>"<br /><br />Two-hundred years of judicial precedent clarifying and explaining how the text of the Constitution applies.<br /><br />"<i>What a defense!</i>"<br /><br />Maybe one of these days you'll grow up and understand how government works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58528490851173486692012-02-29T16:49:59.037-05:002012-02-29T16:49:59.037-05:00"Oh Anonymous, it's good to see that you&..."<i>Oh Anonymous, it's good to see that you're finally admitting that most of the crap you come up with is not in the Constitution.</i>"<br /><br />It is. You just don't understand how judicial precedent works.<br /><br />"<i>Free exercise of religion is actually in there, and you don't care. You've already told us that it can be violated at will, at any time, by any body of government.</i>"<br /><br />I didn't tell you that. The Supreme Court did. And this is not some sort of new or novel interpretation. There are limits to the ambit of the free exercise clause, and always have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55145921094314150052012-02-29T16:46:59.439-05:002012-02-29T16:46:59.439-05:00"If you want to see a lying sack of shit, jus..."<i>If you want to see a lying sack of shit, just look for people who say that the Constitution says "x" when it clearly says "y".</i>"<br /><br />Like you. You see, when they decided <i>Everson</i> and <i>Engel</i> and <i>Lemon</i> and the dozens of other cases on point, the Supreme Court explained exactly what constitutes "establishing" a church. It means more than just passing a law that says "this is a national church", because that leaves the door wide open to allowing the establishment of a national church through the backdoor.<br /><br />"<i>It's almost as if you're terrified that if we actually interpreted "Congress" to mean Congress, "law" to mean "law" and "establish" to mean establish, we'd be on some kind of slippery slope toward...constitutionality?</i>"<br /><br />Well, first off you'd be ignoring the 14th Amendment. Second, you'd have to define exactly what "law" and "establish" mean. Could a legislature, for example, pass a law taxing you to support a specific church without declaring it to be a national church? Could they use tax dollars to help build a church without declaring it to be a national church? Could the executive branch declare a national church by executive order? Once you have to start dealing with actual issues, saying "just read the words" falls apart.<br /><br />"<i>What would happen if we stripped away the layers and layers of bad case law and returned to the original Constitution?</i>"<br /><br />You'd have to establish all kinds of precedents again, because the words of the "original Constitution" are wholly inadequate to the task of addressing the actual cases and controversies that are brought before the courts. That's why we have a system of common law precedent - so that litigants know ahead of time how the Courts have interpreted portions of the document and can guide their decision making accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5440698844571041212012-02-29T16:46:40.542-05:002012-02-29T16:46:40.542-05:00"Exactly! And so, the argument that you have ..."<i>Exactly! And so, the argument that you have previously advanced, that the supreme court can't be wrong because they are the body charged with interpreting the Constitution, is baloney. They weren't really charged with that duty, they just took it for themselves.</i>"<br /><br />You see, this is where your lack of education on the Constitution comes into play. Read <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>. And don't tell me you don't have time, because (1) if you want to debate the Constitution, you should know the law, and (2) any half decent high school education in the U.S. should have included it. The specific words "judicial review" are not in the Constitution, but it is the only way to reasonably interpret the language that is there, which charges the Court with hearing all cases under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. In a common law system, that adds up to judicial review.<br /><br />"<i>That would be the right not to self-incriminate.</i>"<br /><br />The relevant portion of the 5th Amendment says this: "<i>No person shall . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .</i>" Using the "logic" you like to apply to other parts of the Constitution, this could easily mean that the police could force a confession out of you and then report it in trial, so long as you weren't required to be a witness. <i>All</i> Court decisions relating to the Constitution are interpretations of the document and serve to clarify and define what the text means.<br /><br />"<i>Uh, no it's not. Saying that which isn't in the Constitution is not in the Constitution is just truth-telling.</i>"<br /><br />No. It isn't. Because it willfully ignores how our government operates, and how it has operated for the last two-hundred plus years. Dozens of rights that you think you hold are nothing more than interpretations of the Constitution, a process that is necessary when applying the language of the document to the real world.<br /><br />"<i>Did you know that I have the right to say racist things on the job without being terminated by my employer? Oh wait, the Constitution doesn't actually say that? Well so what?!</i>"<br /><br />It doesn't say that because the limitations on action provided by the Constitution usually only apply to the government. And also because Congress, which is specifically charged with creating legislation concerning issues like this, has not weighed in on this issue.<br /><br />"<i>The Constitution doesn't actually say most things people like you have come to cherish as rights. Why is it that you can make up rights that aren't in the Constitution but I can't?</i>"<br /><br />I didn't. The body that is charged with defining those rights has. Either we have a government that functions or we don't. Pretending that judicial precedent isn't a reality is just willfully closing your eyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8484954339327481972012-02-29T13:06:49.488-05:002012-02-29T13:06:49.488-05:00Apparently "one-off" is atheist for &quo...Apparently "one-off" is atheist for "unprincipled exception"The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80373869143810666402012-02-29T12:56:58.697-05:002012-02-29T12:56:58.697-05:00PS Trish,
Do you have a blog? If so could you post...PS Trish,<br />Do you have a blog? If so could you post the link? If not: YOU SHOULD!!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33765755671882724742012-02-29T12:48:08.905-05:002012-02-29T12:48:08.905-05:00"But it's fun to see you froth at the mou..."But it's fun to see you froth at the mouth. It reveals your true character."<br /><br />Now he is hallucinating! <br />Go take your pills, Anon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39123500192643542622012-02-29T12:41:21.564-05:002012-02-29T12:41:21.564-05:00Mouse,
I love you too, Brother.
(even though you...Mouse, <br />I love you too, Brother. <br />(even though you're an asshole and a declared enemy)<br /><br />Again, your insults me nothing to me. <br />My self worth is not connected to the rants of some angry paper pushing troll on a blog. In fact your prophanity laced attacks on myself and others does nothing but inspire a kind of resentment for the forces that drive you and a kind of pity for what is left of your individual mind/soul. <br /><br />"You see that your worldview is threatened by facts and logic, so you lash out in the only way you know how: with insults and excuses and macho posturing."<br />Project much, ye grand master baiter?<br /><br />I love the 'macho' line. I'll have to show/read that to the lads :PAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46150811810922066732012-02-29T12:29:49.524-05:002012-02-29T12:29:49.524-05:00Trish,
Thanks for the speedy and concise response...Trish,<br /><br />Thanks for the speedy and concise response. I concur completely. I refer to these movements broadly as 'internationalist', but a commie by any other name...<br />Forgive me, then, when I dig a little deeper.<br />When you say this is the end-game, do you mean they have reached a critical mass and are now pulling for even more and overt power? <br />This seems to be so to me. <br />And if that is the case do you see any end for this polarization of the elites vs. the commons as a sign of strife to come, or do you think that is still avoidable? . <br />Also, do you think the general populace of the USA is beginning to become aware of this Orwellian putsch?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35823429294797778282012-02-29T12:28:19.034-05:002012-02-29T12:28:19.034-05:00Widdle crusader:
I don't think you're a C...Widdle crusader:<br /><br />I don't think you're a Christian. You don't even try to follow Christ. <br /><br />You see that your worldview is threatened by facts and logic, so you lash out in the only way you know how: with insults and excuses and macho posturing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67315388126074394262012-02-29T12:24:33.334-05:002012-02-29T12:24:33.334-05:00The meaning that I perceive, whether or not you in...<i>The meaning that I perceive, whether or not you intended it this way, is that the person is a douchebag BECAUSE he's a Christian.</i><br /><br />Ahh, the traditional Christian martyr pose. Your perception is incorrect.<br /><br />All you guys have are insults, insults, and more insults. Nobody's addressing the argument.<br /><br />But it's fun to see you froth at the mouth. It reveals your true character.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50973603961530503932012-02-29T11:43:11.783-05:002012-02-29T11:43:11.783-05:00Sorry, that last comment was in response to Crusad...Sorry, that last comment was in response to CrusadeREX's question:<br /><br />"I wonder how this came to be?"<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90600402157804146482012-02-29T11:41:30.896-05:002012-02-29T11:41:30.896-05:00I would call it the Long March Through the Institu...I would call it the Long March Through the Institutions. <br /><br />Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Communist, recommended that progressives adopt a new strategy besides armed revolution. He told them that they should work their way into positions of power in all of society's institutions, then change the system from the inside.<br /><br />They have done it quite well. In later years, other socialist/communist/progressive types have echoed the call, and even used the same term: The Long March Through the Institutions. Rudi Dutschke, the unofficial leader of the officially leaderless German student movement of the later '60's, also used the term. <br /><br />They've marched through our institutions. This is the end game right here. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20712496140397088072012-02-29T11:32:53.055-05:002012-02-29T11:32:53.055-05:00Trish,
When you note :"Our government is cho...Trish,<br /><br />When you note :"Our government is chock full of people who think we're "douchebags" and that's why our rights our so often curtailed."<br />I wonder how this came to be? I ask this honestly and pose the question to you because your logic is like a breath of fresh air to this blog's commentary. I am genuinely interested in what you think is the root of this evil?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15879054101408651482012-02-29T11:27:22.603-05:002012-02-29T11:27:22.603-05:00Anonymous is a lawyer who works for the federal go...Anonymous is a lawyer who works for the federal government. At least that's what he says. He's also a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Christian bigot. <br /><br />Does that surprise anyone? Our government is chock full of people who think we're "douchebags" and that's why our rights our so often curtailed. <br /><br />For those of you who deny that anti-Christian bigotry exists: <br /><br />http://www.theblaze.com/stories/outrage-after-huffpo-contributor-calls-catholics-jesus-eaters/<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87669725151656067272012-02-29T11:15:50.159-05:002012-02-29T11:15:50.159-05:00@ Trish,
Exactly.@ Trish,<br />Exactly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57696888931579748582012-02-29T11:10:56.365-05:002012-02-29T11:10:56.365-05:00Thanks, Trish.
You have provided a civil and leve...Thanks, Trish. <br />You have provided a civil and level headed response to contrast my simple reciprocity. You have hit the nail on the head - once again! <br />Cheers!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.com