Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
You're going to 'report' me for failing to rebut what I consider an arcane, nitpicking & pointless claim made by inquest?
Feel free, by all means.
If there's any justice, you'll run into the little known abusing abuse rule, and be chastised for your own hypocrisy.
What kind of an oligarchy you got goin' on there?
There are many dry towns and communities across the United States. I suppose if I were to do some research, I could look up the various ordinances to find out the background and reasons for their decisions. Why? Would that make a difference to you?
Why do I have this feeling that no matter my response, it would be unacceptable to you? Tell me that you didn't just ask me to waste my time answering your question. Tell me that there would be some answer that you would find acceptable.
Fine. Then use that one.
I see. So the states are not bound by this? They may support their own state religion?
Legally speaking the original States that had them could make a good case to that effect. But seeing that all States must have a republican form of government, I think they would be denied that power by a USSC opinion. Supporting a State religion infringes on the rights of other State citizens. As Utah found out in its fight for Statehood.
You have a poor memory. You lost the argument.
Whatever.
Golly, tpaine, I guess I'll just have to take that chance.
One last time. inquest made an excellent point in his post #230 that no one but you would consider "arcane, nitpicking & pointless".
Address it or go down with your sinking ship, the USS Troll. I'm getting tired of you clogging up these threads with wild unsupported claims that serve no purpose other than to pi$$ people off.
As an aside, there is something about the use of that phrase that just doesn't rub well. I know what it is, as do all free men, but will let it pass for now.
Golly, tpaine, I guess I'll just have to take that chance.
I encourage you to do so.
One last time. inquest made an excellent point in his post #230 that no one but you would consider "arcane, nitpicking & pointless". Address it or go down with your sinking ship, the USS Troll.
You think its so great, rephrase the argument in your own words, [quoting mine in context] & I'll address it.
I'm getting tired of you clogging up these threads with wild unsupported claims that serve no purpose other than to pi$$ people off.
Tough. -- You can't counter my facts & logic, so you characterize my arguments as wild & unsupported. Poor little fella, you're getting all frustrated & emotional.
"Supporting a State religion infringes on the rights of other State citizens."
Right. And supporting a National religion infringes on the rights of other citizens. So you're saying the 1st amendment wasn't necessary.
The "context" of your quote is from #198. Anyone can go read it, and then read what I said about it at #230. Feel free to provide any additional context to your statement that you think is somehow necessary.
But if you fail to address it at all, then it'll be clear who's fleeing the field, and it won't be me.
So you're saying the 1st amendment wasn't necessary.
247 posted on 10/31/2004 9:18:07 AM
PST by robertpaulsen
______________________________________
I didn't say that. Why are you assuming I did?
Let's not. What is it about "should be allowed" that "just doesn't rub well".
For crying out loud, you're the one who said, "a proprietor should have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking or non-smoking".
Or maybe you're saying that he should have the choice, but only when it comes to smoking? That "fascism" (your word) in other areas of the proprietor's business is OK with you as long as it doesn't regulate smoking?
It's just fine the way it is. Answer it, troll.
I considered your claim arcane, nitpicking & pointless.
You think its such a great point, rephrase the argument in more detail [quoting mine in context] & I'll address it in kind.
Answer it, troll.
Look paulsen, I know you're trying to get this thread sent to the backroom, or even deleted, so don't expect me to rise to your baiting.
That's like saying that all our rights are in force except on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. Heh.
Okay, let's take another example:
Pretend for a moment that we live in a town of 100 people out in the badlands of New Mexico, era 1830.
Everybody wears guns because of the abundance of transient gun runts, thieves, robbers, bullies, etc., passing through town. We have not had a really bad shoot out for years on end. That is because nobody wants to get shot back at and die an instant death. (Excuse the grammar.)
Guns are as common as boots. Noboby pays attention to them any more than they would pay attention to someone picking their nose.
Some parents even let their kids wear guns or tote rifles, becoming adept and responsible in their use, care and handling.
One day somebody got drunk drinking my beer and accidentally shot himself in the foot and wasn't able to plow his field that fall.
His wife, really, really pissed because they wouldn't have the money to buy that fancy piano she always wanted, decided that enough is enough, ran for sheriff, won, and promptly posted a sign at the city limits and all over town that totin' guns in the street and in the beer halls and casinos was no longer allowed. Check your guns at the door from now on.
Soon thereafter, a band of cattle rustlers, rusty, crusty, and armed to the teeth passed through town one sunny day and immediately noticed that nobody was armed.
Well, you can imagine what happened if you've read enough phony western books or have a rack of old time western movies stashed next to your VCR.
The townsfolk counted their dead, replaced the windows at the bank, and voted to outlaw guns completely. Yup. That would work. It was a compelling state interest to coral all those guns that kept killing people, don'tcha know.
The town population began to dwindle, the undertaker was getting richer, and the cemetery was full, but few there was who could draw any correlation between the mortality rate and the absence of guns. Well, one of the residents decided that the town was going crazy and decided to wear his guns anyway lest the town decided to outlaw boot-wearing and nose-picking at some point.
Of course, he was arrested and thrown in jail. The law, you know. Strangely enough, he was the only free man in town, though he was the only one in jail.
Well, if supporting a State religion infringes on the rights of other State citizens, then surely supporting a National religion would infringe on the rights of other citizens.
Do you agree?
Now you posted that even though the state has the power to form a state religion, "I think they would be denied that power by a USSC opinion."
Did you not say that?
Then it logically follows that if the National government has the power, they too would be denied that power by a USSC opinion.
Don't you agree?
So, why have the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment? Hell, according to you, anybody who forms a church will be overrridden by the USSC anyways.
The only logical answer is that the 1st amendment, all of it, only applied to the federal government. The states were free to form their own religion, and did. States that had their own religion in 1789 were admitted to the Union. They maintained these religions until the early 1800's, and disbanded them on their own.
Today, the 1st amendment, all of it, applies to the states, Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion notwithstanding.
But not incorrect, interestingly enough. And since you agreed to address it, it can't be that pointless.
You think its such a great point, rephrase the argument in more detail [quoting mine in context] & I'll address it in kind.
I'm not going to try to read your mind. It's up to you to request the specific detail that you think is missing from #230, and to provide the context to your statement that you think is necessary. But of course, you're not going to do that, because all you're really doing is looking for excuses to stall.
I responded again because you made like you were finally going to address the statement. But if you don't, then as before, you can babble to yourself, since you'll have effectively abandoned the argument.
Never heard of the "Blue Laws", huh?
As to your gun-totin' Wild West fantasy, bear in mind that some of these towns required visitors to check their guns at the Sheriff's office. So much for "everybody wears guns".
But, we do digress, don't we? And, my oh my, you're getting way behind in your answers to me.
In your post #240, you said, "Before I address your other points ...". Well, now it's time.
Any comments on my post #242 to you?
Plus, I insist on an answer to my post #251 to you. What did you mean by, "As an aside, there is something about the use of that phrase that just doesn't rub well. I know what it is, as do all free men, but will let it pass for now"?
--- all you're really doing is looking for excuses to stall.
Dream on.
I responded again because you made like you were finally going to address the statement.
But if you don't, then as before, you can babble to yourself, since you'll have effectively abandoned the argument
I've seen no effective argument from you. Clarify your statement, or see it ignored. The choice is yours.
It's no problem for me if you want to ignore the very clear statement at #230. It'll only further prove your tendency to run away from the consequences of your own words.
But if you're really going to insist that it isn't clear, then you're free to ask a specific question about it. You won't, of course, because you're just blowing smoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.