Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 26th, 2011, 11:45 AM   #91
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1319658008' post='364104

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319657895' post='364101']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657540' post='364093']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319657412' post='364089']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657258' post='364088']

Part of the price Americans pay for living under a judiciocracy
Certainly preferable to the Iranian-style theocracy you prefer.




The similarities are striking - a handful of people wearing black robes make imperious decisions, influenced by their personal moral views, that rule the lives of millions

[/quote]



Yes, they do need a new wardrobe, maybe something like this:





[/quote]





I don't think your SCOTUS could carry that off



Something more American would be more appropriate, perhaps baseball caps worn back-to front and saggy pants down to their knees?

[/quote]



Yeah probably. Probably, those clown outfits are copyrighted or something anyway.

[/quote]





What looks right in Westminster would look silly in Washington DC
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 11:47 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,453
Skrekk's overuse of "imaginary friend" is nothing less than flaming. He's allowed to do it.



Best to ignore it.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 11:48 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319658190' post='364106

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319658008' post='364104']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319657895' post='364101']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657540' post='364093']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319657412' post='364089']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657258' post='364088']

Part of the price Americans pay for living under a judiciocracy
Certainly preferable to the Iranian-style theocracy you prefer.




The similarities are striking - a handful of people wearing black robes make imperious decisions, influenced by their personal moral views, that rule the lives of millions

[/quote]



Yes, they do need a new wardrobe, maybe something like this:





[/quote]





I don't think your SCOTUS could carry that off



Something more American would be more appropriate, perhaps baseball caps worn back-to front and saggy pants down to their knees?

[/quote]



Yeah probably. Probably, those clown outfits are copyrighted or something anyway.

[/quote]





What looks right in Westminster would look silly in Washington DC

[/quote]



Yeah, but it's probably pointless to tell the Lords how right silly they look.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 11:48 AM   #94
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Skrekk's overuse of "imaginary friend" is nothing less than flaming. He's allowed to do it.



Best to ignore it.




Sites that know how to moderate would ban such blatant trollism



Oh wait that only applies to provocative comments about homosexuals!
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:03 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
This conversation shows how vital our bill of rights and court system is to prevent the sort of creeping Christofascism wingnuts are prone to.



Or perhaps Hank and Gary are right, and we should return to the era when a Catholic priest who set foot in Massachusetts faced the death penalty. Many innocent children could have been saved from sexual abuse if we still had that statute.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:05 PM   #96
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1319658330' post='364110

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319658190' post='364106']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319658008' post='364104']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319657895' post='364101']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657540' post='364093']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319657412' post='364089']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1319657258' post='364088']

Part of the price Americans pay for living under a judiciocracy
Certainly preferable to the Iranian-style theocracy you prefer.




The similarities are striking - a handful of people wearing black robes make imperious decisions, influenced by their personal moral views, that rule the lives of millions

[/quote]



Yes, they do need a new wardrobe, maybe something like this:





[/quote]





I don't think your SCOTUS could carry that off



Something more American would be more appropriate, perhaps baseball caps worn back-to front and saggy pants down to their knees?

[/quote]



Yeah probably. Probably, those clown outfits are copyrighted or something anyway.

[/quote]





What looks right in Westminster would look silly in Washington DC

[/quote]



Yeah, but it's probably pointless to tell the Lords how right silly they look.

[/quote]





I doubt whether they would be very interested in the views of an American
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:07 PM   #97
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
This conversation shows how vital our bill of rights and court system is to prevent the sort of creeping Christofascism wingnuts are prone to.



Or perhaps Hank and Gary are right, and we should return to the era when a Catholic priest who set foot in Massachusetts faced the death penalty. Many innocent children could have been saved from sexual abuse if we still had that statute.




More childish retorts and the usual hysterical shriek lexicon



In fact there are no direct links between the First Amendment, killing Catholic priests and abusing children
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:10 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Very funny too that it's the Christofascists who advocate group prayer in public schools, given what their own bible babble commands:

Quote:
Matthew 6:5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


IT, you're the sort of hypocrite your Jesus was talking about.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:12 PM   #99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319657740' post='364096

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319655423' post='364076']

[quote name='Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319655008' post='364074']That God is the source of authority for the United States of America is the only thing that protects you against the government.
Hmmm......it seems your imaginary friend didn't protect blacks from legal slavery or legal rape, or the other ravages of institutionalized racism. Or is it perhaps that your imaginary friend actually endorses those things in your bible? Strange that your "final authority" wouldn't have prevented such an abomination.



Perhaps you can ask your imaginary friend to do something about that horrible Citizens United decision, rather than leaving the people to deal with that problem.



Interesting too that the author of the document containing a reference to a "creator" - which you mistakenly think has legal weight - didn't believe in the divinity of your Jesus or a god which interacted in the affairs of men. Apparently Jefferson didn't have the same imaginary friend you do.
This subject does not speak to you, and you are a highly disrespectful individual. I'm not sure how one receives an 'excellent' reputation around here, but I expect it is not a very high standard.

[/quote]

Yes, I'm very disrespectful of anyone who wants to use our secular government to impose their sharia laws on me.



I'll ask again - why didn't your imaginary friend protect blacks from legal slavery or legal rape? Or isn't he the real "final authority" on such matters? Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit about blacks or about slavery?

[/quote]



Men rape. Men enslave. And men are in charge of your unimpeachable Supreme Court. And it was men in charge of that court who disregarded the Natural Laws of God written plainly into the Declaration of Independence when they authored the Dred Scott Decision, which decision held that blacks were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore could not sue in the federal courts. Had that decision worked in Scott's favor, blacks would have been protected under the Constitution, an instrument under the authority of God. But it was the blatant disregard of the plain language of the Declaration of Independence, by men who, like you, judge the truth based upon what they prefer the truth to be rather than what the truth actually is, that held that God's authority would not protect this class of individual.



In his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote:



1) In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.



2) The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: It begins by declaring that, 'when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'

It then proceeds to say: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.




Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men high in literary acquirements high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.



3) What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word 'citizen' and the word 'people.'




Elsewhere in that opinion, Taney wrote, "The Negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect." So these atrocities to which you refer were acts of men, not God. A respect for God and the Laws of God from the Declaration of Independence, correctly interpreted, would have allowed slaves the right to defend themselves and sue for grievances in the federal courts. And look back and see what I wrote earlier. I did not write that God would protect us against the government. No, I wrote that the 'respect for God' is what protects us from the government. That respect for God demonstrates by the government's respect for the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, outlined in the Declaration of Independence.



And if anyone should ever try to imagine that the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation are invalid under the Constitution, then try to imagine why Justice Taney would have chosen to reason his decision around the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and even mention the Articles of Confederation in that decision.



No, God does not do these things about which you speak, men of their God-given free will do these things. Remember, God gives you free will. If you abuse that freedom, that reflects on you, not God.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 12:18 PM   #100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Very funny too that it's the Christofascists who advocate group prayer in public schools, given what their own bible babble commands:

Quote:
Matthew 6:5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


IT, you're the sort of hypocrite your Jesus was talking about.


Before anyone says this about me, I will go ahead and steal their thunder. I am a hypocrite. Only people who hold themselves to no standards higher than those imposed by their own wants, needs and desires, are not hypocrites. I will never accuse an atheist of being a hypocrite.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.