As for the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn, sure it is violation of privacy, trespassing, and hate crime, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism has to be violent. Otherwise it's just protest. The KKK lynched people. Burning a cross on the lawn was a bit of a "we're out to get you" message to make people tremble in their boots wondering when th
I suppose some people feel the same way about the use of "gay" as an adjective as others feel about using the n-word or the b-word. Depending on who is using the word, the connotation changes. You may have good, decent intentions when you use it, but not everyone does. Remember when you were in school (we are roughly the same age, so I assume this would hold true for you--but I could be wrong)...if you really hated something you'd say, "that's sooo gay." The implication was that if
people who sit outside abortion clinics yelling threats and obcenities at workers terrorists? How about those KKK members who burn crosses and march around in their hoods I would argue that yes, both groups are terrorist--the abortion clinic case is touchy, but when you factor in the killing of abortion
Considering that the Arabs fought four wars with the goal of completely destroying Israel, I would argue that the "unruly" Arabs came first. Then came some of them, newly renamed as Palestinians (a term previously used to refer to Jews), and remained "unruly". I think to argue that Arab attacks on Israel from Gaza a
The fact that it is hard for the PA to control its own people is a problem for Israel. It is in fact the reason why Israel kept the areas occupied for so long. Which came first, the occupation or, as you imply, the "unruly" Palestinians? It's a chicken and the egg situation, and it is pretty hard to deny that the occupation plays into the "unrul
Interesting article, DBB. Terrorism is an act of violence with a political motive or goal, perpetrated against innocent persons, and is staged to be played before and audience whose reaction of fear and terror is the desired result DBB--is this your definition, or the textbooks? Very well t
I think they do. Ok, as long as you think that they do, that's fine. As someone who is not a huge fan of the war in Iraq (and someone who has been called a liberal on many occassions), I would have to tell you that I have not heard any of my liberal colleagues rail against the military action i
If people like col had their way, these people would still live under the Taliban Island Dog--I think that you would find that most people who opposed the war in Iraq did not necessarily oppose the war in Afghanistan. I think you meshed two fundamentally different standpoints.
If this ruling states that saying the pledge is unconstitutional, doesn't that make it illegal? This ruling denied the dismal of the case presented to declare that mandating the reciting of the pledge in California public schools is unconstitutional. Not exactly the same as making the pledge un
"Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned There seems to be an awful lot of confusion about what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Children, of their own accord, are still within their rights to pray in sch
I'll ask again, as I did over on Modman's thread: how about "under ~~a~~ God"? There's no offense in that statement, unless you're in the atheist minority. There is if you don't believe in God at all. <T
IMO, it is because most of those posting here have been either Moderates or Conservative in their views. It is when both extremes of Liberal and Conservative start in, is when everything goes out the window. I'll have you know that many around here consider me to be one of those extreme liberals <img s
I'm confused. You asked someone to do you a favor by buying your wife a cake and offered to pay them for it, and then decided that you didn't want to pay them for it because they ate more (after they graciously invited you into their home for a party and, I assume, feed you dinner and gave you drinks)? Seems to me awfully silly to fall out over $14 even if you are right...but I just don't see you as being particularly right.
If it isn't "protected" speech, shades, wouldn't that be the eventuality involved? You've got me stumped Baker. Your point is well taken--I need to do some more research.
LW--I agree with you on the assault stuff, but I am not agruing that Robertson assaulted Chavez...My point is simply that there are some categories of speech that are not protected and a good lawyer (which I am not) could most likely argue that Robertson is in unprotected terrority due to "inciting unlawful acts." shades
And if you don't like my attidude then ignore my replies. Sorry, but I'm not here to please the almighty universe. Just myself. You're not changing my mind either. Consider it done. It's no fun debating with someone who doesn't understand the art of give and take and civility.
Sorry, but if you're backing this then it's "your" interpretation as well. The only way it could not be is if you disagreed with it. Is that an argument? I didn't come up with the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The courts did in Everson vs. the Board of Education. It's not my work--it's
And since this threat is coming from outside the US, it rolls back to one thing. The threat wasn't coming from outside the US--last time I checked Pat Robertson was here, in America. (Are we even talking about the same thing?) <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 clas
kay. And this would be "your" interpretation, not mine. And like you do not agree with mine...."I" do not agree with yours. Great. Notice I didn't say "you're wrong!"--also, it's not my interpretation, it's the courts interpretation <TD class="
Chiprj: There aren't enough insightfuls--for your commments here and on other similar threads.
To me that would be as impressive as scoring a "14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans." From the KKK. Interesting--so you are comparing knowledge of American history with knowledge of KKK history?
Oh really? Then why are most "roads" now at 65mph? That is clearly against the federal mandate of 55 now ain't it? And the federal money bit was already addressed by me in my comment about pell grants and the feds telling me how to live my life. They should have "some" say in the schools, but a very limited one. Otherwise why have state governments in the first place which
Link And to be honest, I have been looking for over an hour and can find "no" reports of any deaths at the superdome. Look harder, like the link above, which cites at least 10-12 deaths at the Superdome and four rapes.
Then you'd be wrong in your assumption shades If I had a dollar for every time you wrote that. There are several categories of unprotected speech in this country. One of them is "Inciting unlawful conduct." I would wager a bet that murder is still unlawful.
Sorry but you're wrong. "No law respecting an "establishment" of religion". That means they (the government) can't start their own religion which btw is what happened in Britain and made our founders write this in the first place. It does NOT mean "from" religion! Only from a state run/ owned religion!
JoeUser Forums