Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Besides that, Mao has nothing on God's death toll, now does he? Now there's a real pro!

God has nothing of government's death toll.

Democide should ring a bell.

I leave you with the word of GOD to ponder, Neo ... from Romans 13: 1-4 (International Version)

13 Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God’s permission. The existing authorities have been established by God, 2 so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For the authorities are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to live without being afraid of the authorities? Then do what is right, and you will receive their approval. 4 For they are God’s servants, working for your good.

But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for it is not without reason that they bear the sword. Indeed, they are God’s servants to administer punishment to anyone who does wrong.

a reply to: introvert

Word.

I truly feel I understand the situation surrounding this matter more clearly now; thank you Introvert!

a reply to: Gryphon66

So tell me what is the difference between the church and state?

Absolutely not a GD thing.

New boss same as the old boss.

The new boss is 'cooler'.

a reply to: neo96

Wait, what?

As an atheist, do I get a say in that?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

So tell me what is the difference between the church and state?

Absolutely not a GD thing.

New boss same as the old boss.

The new boss is 'cooler'.

and yet you seem to support one wholeheartedly (or at least until not long ago... cant say ive kept up with your nonsense)
do you really believe that?

without the chuch the state is far more powerless in its ability to manipulate and is more subject to the will of an educated populace

and one of them provides a tangible return on the tithe/tax that is demanded
(i feel your pain....taxed by the church....taxed by the state..... youre getting double taxed!)

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

So tell me what is the difference between the church and state?

Absolutely not a GD thing.

New boss same as the old boss.

The new boss is 'cooler'.

There's absolutely none, if you believe that biblical claptrap.

Thankfully, I don't.

However, that's one of the things that make our Constitution great and unique in human history ... it DOES establish a clear separation between Church and State ... and that wall may even be restored to some extent, considering recent events.

(You do realize that Scalia wrote in Heller that:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

and further ...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

a reply to: fartlordsupreme

and yet you seem to support one wholeheartedly (or at least until not long ago... cant say ive kept up with your nonsense) do you really believe that?

Well lets see we have 'preachers' called polticians prostelizing the masses to convert to their beliefs.

We have the halls of government set up like the church.

The state makes us give 'offerings' to it although it's gets called 'taxes'.

It has waged endless war since it was created.

It legislates morality. Hell we have our very own 'Ten commandments' called the Bill of Rights.

Where's the difference ?

a reply to: fartlordsupreme

What hypocrisy ?

See the first amendment.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Someone needs to explain to me how Religion and posters became the topic.

Other than the obvious fact they're red herring fallacies.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned.

www.nizkor.org...

The topic was about Scalia.

Now religion.

Ok yeah whatever then.

STAY ON TOPIC!!!

I don't know how else to put it....discuss the topic and not each other.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.

COME ON GUY"S

We had a really good thread going here.

I am learning and making my own opinion here.

Let's show other's we are here to speak our minds, and maybe to teach.

Let's be honest. With good links, and good thoughts.

originally posted by: Kapriti

It is possible that Obama will "go for broke" and attempt to appoint someone completely unacceptable to the Republicans and force the issue with the collusion of the Republican establishment (who are simply the other side of the same coin with the Democratic Party establishment).

Is that a serious question? From where I'm sitting, it's impossible that he won't. This is Obama we're talking about.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary said Obama would make a great Supreme Court Justice.

Wouldn't that be something? Obama nominates judges that he knows won't be confirmed. Obama endorses Hillary, Hillary wins, and Obama ends up on the SCOTUS for the rest of his life.

Chilling thought. Now I'm gonna have nightmares.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary said Obama would make a great Supreme Court Justice.

Wouldn't that be something? Obama nominates judges that he knows won't be confirmed. Obama endorses Hillary, Hillary wins, and Obama ends up on the SCOTUS for the rest of his life.

You think if congress rejects Obama's referrals that they will magically accept him when Hillary refers Obama?


You guys are ludicrous.

It wouldn't be any more ludicrous than it was when Roberts mysteriously flipped for the Obamacare mandate.....supposedly surprising everyone (I'll bet there was someone who wasn't all that surprised).

Scalia was a pig and an afront to any kind of democracyl I will piss on his grave.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

The longest it's ever taken to confirm is 120 days and Mike Lee's office is saying Republicans will block anyone that Obama nominates?

Do they really think that strategy is going to win them the election? They're setting themselves up for an unprecedented level of obstructionism.

The system was DESIGNED for what you call "obstructionism" as a last resort. That is why the branches are separate but equal.

However, I don't think the Republicans can afford to do it because realistically, Obama, the Democrats and the media are going to make damn sure something comes up that swings things in Obama's favor.