House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

ziggy wrote: As to "great sex", Sam, the worst I ever had was still great.

I don't doubt that a bit.

Just like a scrap of food is to a hungry dog.

.

That's a good one, Sam.

Sheik: Whether a Muslim, a communist, a fascist, or a Nazi, the right to free speech is the right to free speech. It ought not be precluded by a high GPA or the vote of your fellow classmates.

From a streetcorner, not from a school podium as part of an organized program.

Can I show porn as part of my speech? Free speech and all. Perhaps Mary Carey was my inspiration for getting to the valedictorian slot.

You like the idea of censoring graduation speeches, but surely you'd hate it if someone considering censoring certain research processes, wouldn't you? I know that you would have sided with Scopes in Tennessee--why do you want the censorship that tried to silence Scopes extend to a graduation speaker? Both are instances in which an individual wishes to say something and yet big brother wishes to silence them.

You mean like the government does now? Try and get a permit to do research on anything on the controlled substances list.

The government already DOES stifle research.

Sorry. Sheik. Try again.

Aaron: The girl wasn't leading a program Terry, she was giving a speech and she still has her 1st amendment rights, both to free speech and to her freedom to exercise her religion.

By what few accounts I could find, there was a statement that god was her savior (an OK thing to say) and a call for others to turn to god (NOT an OK thing to say).

That is proselytizing and not cricket as part of a school function.

The school ain't talking (lawsuit still pending, I think). We'll see if I was wrong.

Willy: The working words are, YOU OWN. If you believe in Liberty then the answer has to be yes. If a person chooses not to serve blacks, it is their property and they should have every right to determine how the property is used and who can and can't be on or in it, No matter how disgusting you or I find their attitude.

So you believed in segregation, willy? You think it should be legal?

Don't tell me I know nothing about liberty.

At least I want it for someone more than myself.

Again if you believe in liberty, the answer is yes. You have every right to speak your mind, just as I have every right not to listen to you or to walk away.

On a streetcorner, yes. In front of a captive audience waiting to see their kids graduate and assembled with MY taxes. No.

By the way, you know if it was a muslim leading a muslim prayer, you would come unglued.

Sam C. And Graduation Speeches by Honor Students ..... are prayers, ...... HUH?

TRC, you are one pathetic dude, you are.

And another fact-filled and meaningful post from Sammy C.

We'll see when the case goes to court.

I don't know why I waste my time here.

If the girl does not win this lawsuit then justice was not served. There is no doubt for anyone with the ability to comprehend the constitution, her rights were denied.

TerryRC,

Taxpayer dollars also go to sidewalks and street corners. So should free speech be forbidden there as well?

As for stifling research, you made my point. You surely don't like that the government will not issue permits for research on controlled substances, do you?

Freedom of speech, inquiry, expression, are all what make America great. No question or issue should be considered forbidden to talk about, whether it is in a graduation speech or a science lab. And just as you would like the ability to investigate controlled substances without government interference, and then have a back and forth with other learned ladies and gentlemen on the matter, students of all persuasions, including Christians, Muslims, and Atheists, either ought to speak as they wish or not speak at all. The very idea of giving someone a "speech" and then policing its content is so very ludicrous it is almost a pardoy of itself.

Imagine how infuriated you would be if you were invited to come do a presentation on evolutionary biology but were forbidden from saying the name Charles Darwin, under threat of a lawsuit.

2 more things, Terry. If Mary Carey really was your inspiration, I don't see the harm in crediting her. Two of my classmates in High School wore "Will Work for Weed" shirts at the academic night honors, as they were both 4.0 students headed to MIT. No kidding. And I don't recall the school punishing them, and I am glad.

Second, I find it fascinating that you and others like Charles Schumer of NY compare the Christian faith to pornography. If Cato were to liken Islam to porn you would call him a bigot.

SheikBen wrote: If Cato were to liken Islam to porn you would call him a bigot.

.

Taxpayer dollars also go to sidewalks and street corners. So should free speech be forbidden there as well?

That is another red herring.

The Courts have not said that religious speech by the general public- including public prayers or appeals to join one faith or another- can be restricted on sidewalks and street corners. But they have said that school events wherein there is an effectively captive audience cannot be used for religious indoctrination- by either school officials or students.

Do you not see, or do you just not want to see, the difference?

Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

The only thing I've seen from any of the decisions posted is that a school administrator cannot lead or instruct a student to lead a prayer. No one has posted anything that would place the limit TC mentions on this girl.

TerryRC wrote:
Willy: The working words are, YOU OWN. If you believe in Liberty then the answer has to be yes. If a person chooses not to serve blacks, it is their property and they should have every right to determine how the property is used and who can and can't be on or in it, No matter how disgusting you or I find their attitude.

So you believed in segregation, willy? You think it should be legal?

Don't tell me I know nothing about liberty.

At least I want it for someone more than myself.

Again if you believe in liberty, the answer is yes. You have every right to speak your mind, just as I have every right not to listen to you or to walk away.

On a streetcorner, yes. In front of a captive audience waiting to see their kids graduate and assembled with MY taxes. No.

By the way, you know if it was a muslim leading a muslim prayer, you would come unglued.

This issue we are discussing is not segragation. We are discussing what a private citizen does with property they own. It is nothing less than tyranny for the government a person to use their property for something to which they disagree. If I have a resturant and choose not to serve blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals, that issue falls between me and them, not me and the government. It is my choice and me that suffers the consequences for my actions.

As far as the muslim ont he street corner goes, you are worng, I would not come ungluded. They have just as much right there as I do. I have the right to walk away if I don't want to hear them, just as they have the right to walk away if they don't want to hear what I have to say.

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

That hasn't stopped you from crying about corporations when the courts have clearly ruled they have the same rights as individuals.

Seems you're in need of a little self healing yourself whiner.

Sheik: Taxpayer dollars also go to sidewalks and street corners. So should free speech be forbidden there as well?

No. Praying around the flagpole AT school is OK, also. Praying to a captive audience at an OFFICIAL SCHOOL PROGRAM, giving it the appearance of school sanction - not OK. Surely you are subtle enough to see the difference.

As for stifling research, you made my point. You surely don't like that the government will not issue permits for research on controlled substances, do you?

You made an argument that was really off topic and I countered it by saying what you propose is already happening. I tolerate it. Other countries are doing the research and it just puts us farther behind in the sciences.

I'm confident that the right-wingers will reap what they sow. Too bad they'll punish the rest of us, also.

None of this is really topical, though. You are comparing science to religion.

Freedom of speech, inquiry, expression, are all what make America great. No question or issue should be considered forbidden to talk about, whether it is in a graduation speech or a science lab. And just as you would like the ability to investigate controlled substances without government interference, and then have a back and forth with other learned ladies and gentlemen on the matter, students of all persuasions, including Christians, Muslims, and Atheists, either ought to speak as they wish or not speak at all. The very idea of giving someone a "speech" and then policing its content is so very ludicrous it is almost a pardoy of itself.

Speeches should be on topic. I don't see where praying is a necessary part of a speech. Also, I'm not asking the government to pay for my research. You are asking the government to pay for this girls proselytizing. See the difference?

Imagine how infuriated you would be if you were invited to come do a presentation on evolutionary biology but were forbidden from saying the name Charles Darwin, under threat of a lawsuit.

Had it kind of happen - not the lawsuit, but being banned from mentioning evolution. That is why I don't get invited to do bug talks for many fundamentalist school groups.

Also, you are comparing religion to science, again.

Second, I find it fascinating that you and others like Charles Schumer of NY compare the Christian faith to pornography. If Cato were to liken Islam to porn you would call him a bigot.

Really? But comparing science to religion is all kinds of "open-minded"?

Don't read too much into it. I was merely bringing an extreme example of free speech rights. Aren't we talking about freedom of speech?

At least I'm not talking about bringing back segregation.

Aaron: If the girl does not win this lawsuit then justice was not served. There is no doubt for anyone with the ability to comprehend the constitution, her rights were denied.

Sez you. I feel so bad that this girl wasn't allowed to use a school as a pulpit. Doesn't she have a church to do that in?

The only thing I've seen from any of the decisions posted is that a school administrator cannot lead or instruct a student to lead a prayer. No one has posted anything that would place the limit TC mentions on this girl.

You just refuse to read:

As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs,

It is there in black and white. Students (and teachers and faculty) can't lead prayers in class or "official" school settings.

Get it?

willy: This issue we are discussing is not segragation. We are discussing what a private citizen does with property they own. It is nothing less than tyranny for the government a person to use their property for something to which they disagree. If I have a resturant and choose not to serve blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals, that issue falls between me and them, not me and the government. It is my choice and me that suffers the consequences for my actions.

You are talking about segregation, particularly if you get together with like-minded individuals. Also, others have to pay for your actions. You don't live in a vacuum, Willy. If you and your fellows refuse to do business with a minority, you will drive them out of town - de facto segregation. You can call that freedom, if you like. I don't believe most would agree.

As far as the muslim ont he street corner goes, you are worng, I would not come ungluded. They have just as much right there as I do. I have the right to walk away if I don't want to hear them, just as they have the right to walk away if they don't want to hear what I have to say.

You can't read any better than Aaron. I was referring to a muslim leading a prayer at, say, the Sissonville High graduation.

You would flip.

Well, back to my freedom-hating ways...

TerryRC wrote:
You are talking about segregation, particularly if you get together with like-minded individuals. Also, others have to pay for your actions. You don't live in a vacuum, Willy. If you and your fellows refuse to do business with a minority, you will drive them out of town - de facto segregation. You can call that freedom, if you like. I don't believe most would agree.

As I said, I bought the property, I signed the prommisory note, I pay taxes on the property, if I run a business, I'm the one that is responsbile for the financial success of the business, I will darn will decide who does and doesn't come on the property. If I choose to limit whom I will and won't service or sell to, that is my business alone and I will face any consequences my decisions. If it costs me business, so be it, it is my choice and my responsibility. You nor no other "do gooder" has the right to tell me or force me, using the force of law, to service, sell, or rent to anyone I choose not to.

TerryRC wrote: You can't read any better than Aaron. I was referring to a muslim leading a prayer at, say, the Sissonville High graduation.

You would flip.

And you can't write because here is exactly what you said:

"On a streetcorner, yes. In front of a captive audience waiting to see their kids graduate and assembled with MY taxes. No.

By the way, you know if it was a muslim leading a muslim prayer, you would come unglued".

Be it a street corner or the podium at graduation in a public school, if that is what the idividual chose to speak, I have no right to silence them, neither do you.

If you are going to pick and choose what can and can't say at a public gathering in a public place, paid for with tax dollars and if you want to silence religious speach, then I have every right to silence humanist speach.

TerryRC wrote:Well, back to my freedom-hating ways...

You have no idea what liberty is. To you liberty is allowing what you agree with and silencing everything else.

TerryRC wrote:Aaron: If the girl does not win this lawsuit then justice was not served. There is no doubt for anyone with the ability to comprehend the constitution, her rights were denied.

Sez you. I feel so bad that this girl wasn't allowed to use a school as a pulpit. Doesn't she have a church to do that in?

I guess you’ve said in the past that we shouldn’t violate individuals rights, you were fibbing as you don't seem to have a problem with stripping this girl of her 1st amendment rights.

TerryRC wrote:Aaron:The only thing I've seen from any of the decisions posted is that a school administrator cannot lead or instruct a student to lead a prayer. No one has posted anything that would place the limit TC mentions on this girl.

You just refuse to read:

As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs,

It is there in black and white. Students (and teachers and faculty) can't lead prayers in class or "official" school settings.

Get it?

I do. You dont.

You are letting your deep intense hatred for religion blind you and as a result, you support robbing this girl of her 1st amendment rights. There is no way this girl thanking God, Jesus or the tooth ferry can be interpreted as a school sanctioned leading of a prayer. That's a stretch even for you.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

So when the Dred Scott decision upheld the idea that slaves were property rather than humans with constitutional protections, was the Supreme Court the "best authority on how to implement the Constitution.?"

That hasn't stopped you from crying about corporations when the courts have clearly ruled they have the same rights as individuals.

In the only case you've cited so far, that is not what the Court said.

If you are going to pick and choose what can and can't say at a public gathering in a public place, paid for with tax dollars and if you want to silence religious speach, then I have every right to silence humanist speach.

OK. Then go to Court and do so. It's the American way.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

So when the Dred Scott decision upheld the idea that slaves were property rather than humans with constitutional protections, was the Supreme Court the "best authority on how to implement the Constitution.?"

What would have been a better way? To fight a civil war over it?

ziggy wrote:

That hasn't stopped you from crying about corporations when the courts have clearly ruled they have the same rights as individuals.

In the only case you've cited so far, that is not what the Court said.

That is exactly what came out of the case I cited, like it or not and as a result, GM has the same constitutional rights you do because, as you say, the court is the best authority for saying so.

So stop crying.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

So when the Dred Scott decision upheld the idea that slaves were property rather than humans with constitutional protections, was the Supreme Court the "best authority on how to implement the Constitution.?"

What would have been a better way? To fight a civil war over it?

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

Yes by the way, I know what the revisionists say, but that the facts.

Willy: As I said, I bought the property, I signed the prommisory note, I pay taxes on the property, if I run a business, I'm the one that is responsbile for the financial success of the business, I will darn will decide who does and doesn't come on the property. If I choose to limit whom I will and won't service or sell to, that is my business alone and I will face any consequences my decisions. If it costs me business, so be it, it is my choice and my responsibility. You nor no other "do gooder" has the right to tell me or force me, using the force of law, to service, sell, or rent to anyone I choose not to.

You do not have unlimited rights with that property. You can't just "do what you want". You can't just put a garbage burning plant on it, for instance, without permissions.

You want yourself and others to have the right to refuse goods and services, creating a de facto segregation. You want to do an end run around the law.

You refuse to address that.

I have read and heard stories of the signs that said "No Irish need apply". "Do-gooder"? Hardly. I refuse to let self-righteous bigots get by without pointing out the paucity and frequent hypocrisy of their arguments.

You want your freedom at the expense of others. Plain and simple.

And you can't write because here is exactly what you said:

And you take things out of context. I think you are fibbing. As much as you seem to hate muslims, if your local school had a person asking the graduation crowd to pray to Allah with them, you would flip.

If you are going to pick and choose what can and can't say at a public gathering in a public place, paid for with tax dollars and if you want to silence religious speach, then I have every right to silence humanist speach.

Speech. Speech. Speech. How did you graduate high school?

Give me an example of a "humanist" speech and explain how it is a "religion". Stop getting your talking points from right-wing demagogues.

You have no idea what liberty is. To you liberty is allowing what you agree with and silencing everything else.

Right. I have said that students can get together and pray at school. I'll even defend their right to do that.

Because, however, I don't want calls to prayer as part of a school function, I'm "silencing everything else".

You are SUCH a drama queen.

Aaron: I guess you’ve said in the past that we shouldn’t violate individuals rights, you were fibbing as you don't seem to have a problem with stripping this girl of her 1st amendment rights.

Seem my response to willy, directly above.

You are a drama queen, also.

BTW, the first amendment doesn't mean you can say ANYTHING, ANYWHERE.

If you don't believe me, go yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are letting your deep intense hatred for religion blind you and as a result, you support robbing this girl of her 1st amendment rights. There is no way this girl thanking God, Jesus or the tooth ferry can be interpreted as a school sanctioned leading of a prayer. That's a stretch even for you.

I don't hate religion. I hate pushy religionists that try and use force to make me live like they do. You can't even make accurate personal attacks.

TerryRC wrote:Willy: As I said, I bought the property, I signed the prommisory note, I pay taxes on the property, if I run a business, I'm the one that is responsbile for the financial success of the business, I will darn will decide who does and doesn't come on the property. If I choose to limit whom I will and won't service or sell to, that is my business alone and I will face any consequences my decisions. If it costs me business, so be it, it is my choice and my responsibility. You nor no other "do gooder" has the right to tell me or force me, using the force of law, to service, sell, or rent to anyone I choose not to.

You do not have unlimited rights with that property. You can't just "do what you want". You can't just put a garbage burning plant on it, for instance, without permissions.

You want yourself and others to have the right to refuse goods and services, creating a de facto segregation. You want to do an end run around the law.

You refuse to address that.

I have read and heard stories of the signs that said "No Irish need apply". "Do-gooder"? Hardly. I refuse to let self-righteous bigots get by without pointing out the paucity and frequent hypocrisy of their arguments.

You want your freedom at the expense of others. Plain and simple.

And you can't write because here is exactly what you said:

And you take things out of context. I think you are fibbing. As much as you seem to hate muslims, if your local school had a person asking the graduation crowd to pray to Allah with them, you would flip.

If you are going to pick and choose what can and can't say at a public gathering in a public place, paid for with tax dollars and if you want to silence religious speach, then I have every right to silence humanist speach.

Speech. Speech. Speech. How did you graduate high school?

Give me an example of a "humanist" speech and explain how it is a "religion". Stop getting your talking points from right-wing demagogues.

You have no idea what liberty is. To you liberty is allowing what you agree with and silencing everything else.

Right. I have said that students can get together and pray at school. I'll even defend their right to do that.

Because, however, I don't want calls to prayer as part of a school function, I'm "silencing everything else".

You are SUCH a drama queen.

John Quincy Adams once said - “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” The same applies to life. I will not be forced to be involved in policy to which I disagree. It may be unpopular with you, to which I don't care, but if I choose to invoke and give thanks to God in a public forum, I will. Believe me I'm not going to ask your permission to do so, either. Additionally, I work very hard to remove people from office who choose to limit my right to speak my mind.

The same is true with regard to whom I do business with. I will do it with whom I darn well please. If I don't want to sell or rent to homosexuals, an adultress couple, or an unmarried couple I won't. I don't much care what you, the Supreme Court, the State of West Virginia, or the leftist baffoons in Washington or Charleston think of it. Again, I work very hard to remove people from office who think they have some God given right to make me conform to their view of the world.

Finally, if calling me a liar makes you feel like a man, fine, you are a man. You are right I don't care for muslims. However, unlike I won't silence them because I don't care for their message.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

That hasn't stopped you from crying about corporations when the courts have clearly ruled they have the same rights as individuals.

In the only case you've cited so far, that is not what the Court said.

That is exactly what came out of the case I cited, ................

That is not what the Court said. It is just someone's spin on it which you have adopted and so it is now Aaronspin.