You are correct, I will consider and analyze it. I take things for possibilities and not universal truths.
Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
You are correct, I will consider and analyze it. I take things for possibilities and not universal truths.
That is a little too "open-minded"; be careful, your brains might fall out.
The fact is that, in American politics there really are only two sides. If fact, the best discription is that american politics is a spectrum with egalitarian liberalism/quazi-socialism on the left end, and American conservatism/traditionalism on the right end.
In many other aspects of life, it is the same way; pro or con. To paraphrase the band Rush; not making a choice is also a choice.
same goes for you....dude.
I will choose freewill.
That is a little too "open-minded"; be careful, your brains might fall out.
QUOTE]
LOL. Maybe I just see things in a fluid manner rather than concrete.
Neil Peart is the greatest drummer EVER!!!
Fluid vs. concrete? Could you expand on that?
I really have a problem with the whole "open-minded" thing. I am not saying you do this, but that term is usually used by people who are not "open-minded" and refuse to acknowledge a well thought out point of view that goes against theirs. It indicates (to me) someone who is either too lazy, or incapable of making a good counter argument, so they fall back on that term and use it in an illogical ad homenem attack, as a "defense" of their point of view.
Except he needs more cowbell!
Hmm... let me think. I dabble in Taoism from time to time and I try to see the world as it is, the ins and outs. I guess in fluidity I mean there is no real one way to do things. I guess my personal religion you could take certain strong points from each one and combine it into your own philosophy rather than pick A, B, C, etc. Some points I agree with, some I disagree. I'm not trying to be a non conformist, I just feel everyones different. Whatever appeals to me I just kinda roll with it in a sense.
I see what you mean with people using agnosticism as a fall back crutch. I'm not saying that I think certain parts of a religion are right and wrong, I just like blazing my own path. By no means am I a religious entrepeneur and know everything about every religion, but I take in what I like and try to live by it.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
That is a little too "open-minded"; be careful, your brains might fall out.
The fact is that, in American politics there really are only two sides. If fact, the best discription is that american politics is a spectrum with egalitarian liberalism/quazi-socialism on the left end, and American conservatism/traditionalism on the right end.
In many other aspects of life, it is the same way; pro or con. To paraphrase the band Rush; not making a choice is also a choice.
That's just your opinion. It means nothing.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
That's just your opinion. It means nothing.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Where did James Madison get the notion that the words of the Constitution should be construed according to their "common acceptation?"
Art IV. Sect. 2 taken up.
Col. MASON was for opening a wide door for emigrants; but did not chuse to let foreigners and adventurers make laws for us & govern us. Citizenship for three years was not enough for ensuring that local knowledge which ought to be possessed by the Representative. This was the principal ground of his objection to so short a term. It might also happen that a rich foreign Nation, for example Great Britain, might send over her tools who might bribe their way into the Legislature for insidious purposes. He moved that "seven" years instead of "three," be inserted.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ded. the Motion, & on the question, all the States agreed to it except Connecticut.
Mr. SHERMAN moved to strike out the word "resident" and insert "inhabitant," as less liable to miscontruction.
Mr. MADISON 2ded. the motion, both were vague, but the latter least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business. Great disputes had been raised in Virga. concerning the meaning of residence as a qualification of Representatives which were determined more according to the affection or dislike to the man in question, than to any fixt interpretation of the word.
--The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/808.htm
Col. MASON was for opening a wide door for emigrants; but did not chuse to let foreigners and adventurers make laws for us & govern us. Citizenship for three years was not enough for ensuring that local knowledge which ought to be possessed by the Representative. This was the principal ground of his objection to so short a term. It might also happen that a rich foreign Nation, for example Great Britain, might send over her tools who might bribe their way into the Legislature for insidious purposes. He moved that "seven" years instead of "three," be inserted.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ded. the Motion, & on the question, all the States agreed to it except Connecticut.
Mr. SHERMAN moved to strike out the word "resident" and insert "inhabitant," as less liable to miscontruction.
Mr. MADISON 2ded. the motion, both were vague, but the latter least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business. Great disputes had been raised in Virga. concerning the meaning of residence as a qualification of Representatives which were determined more according to the affection or dislike to the man in question, than to any fixt interpretation of the word.
--The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/808.htm
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If I may be allowed to judge them with the perfect vision of hindsight, the dudes who framed the Constitution were exceedingly unwise, in the collective, to have included the no religion test clause.
Who can tell us why?
Who can tell us why?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's just your opinion, troll. It means nothing.
SilverSweetness
Active LVC Member
Mind Expansion
My My My...
Why is it that I see all these arguments as pointless. It would seem to me that most important is the obvious fact that helping each other is the only way to survive. If we as a society do not begin working together on a grand scale we shall fail as a species. Why argue these various points which are unprovable, when we can agree that the world is trending towards the negative and we should be working towards the positive (greater good). What I simply mean to bring to light is that we need to work together in groups of hundreds or thousands to prepare for any major change that may occur to our planet. If we NOW focus instead on food sources, water sources, and shelter sources now, rather than AFTER a catastrophe, we shall all benefit. If we do not prepare then we will argue just as we do on this forum, through disaster all the way till death. Death due to lack of food, shelter, and water. Simple necessities. And yet we argue over stuff that is completely unprovable, totally unimportant (again on the grand scale). I suggest we get together with people from our respective areas and begin preparations for any and all contingencies. Heck what have we got to lose, for a small investment of money and time, we could be ready for anything. Counter arguments... none since my last bs rant come on what have you got people... "come together" "right now" ... and thats it...
My My My...
Why is it that I see all these arguments as pointless. It would seem to me that most important is the obvious fact that helping each other is the only way to survive. If we as a society do not begin working together on a grand scale we shall fail as a species. Why argue these various points which are unprovable, when we can agree that the world is trending towards the negative and we should be working towards the positive (greater good). What I simply mean to bring to light is that we need to work together in groups of hundreds or thousands to prepare for any major change that may occur to our planet. If we NOW focus instead on food sources, water sources, and shelter sources now, rather than AFTER a catastrophe, we shall all benefit. If we do not prepare then we will argue just as we do on this forum, through disaster all the way till death. Death due to lack of food, shelter, and water. Simple necessities. And yet we argue over stuff that is completely unprovable, totally unimportant (again on the grand scale). I suggest we get together with people from our respective areas and begin preparations for any and all contingencies. Heck what have we got to lose, for a small investment of money and time, we could be ready for anything. Counter arguments... none since my last bs rant come on what have you got people... "come together" "right now" ... and thats it...
SilverSweetness
Active LVC Member
oh yeah
I'm Sober...
No Drugs
No Alcohol
No Shiz
Just honest to goodness intelligence and concern for my fellow men women and children.
I'm Sober...
No Drugs
No Alcohol
No Shiz
Just honest to goodness intelligence and concern for my fellow men women and children.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If you believe that it's the government's job to take from the rich in order to accomplish this, then you are a socialist. Key words: "greater good," often used by the Marxist Hillary Clinton to justify social spending/tax programs designed to punish productivity and capitalism.
I believe in preparedness, but I believe it's each person's own responsibility to do so. Furthermore, there is no evidence of an impending catastrophe. You've been watching "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" too many times. The Bible clearly states that God will not destroy the Earth until all prophecies have been fulfilled. We have a long way to go.
SilverSweetness
Active LVC Member
cool man cool
I guess you are right about the movies but hey I like em'... But I feel we are closer to the point where all prophecies are fulfilled. If you happen to have a list we could check off I would like to see what it says, I'll go back to revelation and see what I can come up with but I think many smarter men than I have already put one together, If you know where a list is, lets have a fun time ticking off the ones we have seen already. Oh and I don't want the government to fund preparedness I want actual people to organize civil defense unions that would be ready in case of an emergency. I feel we have grown too complacent with our own safety, heck look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina... I bet if there had been pre-organization of civilians, there would have been alot less people in trouble down there for so long.
Peace
I guess you are right about the movies but hey I like em'... But I feel we are closer to the point where all prophecies are fulfilled. If you happen to have a list we could check off I would like to see what it says, I'll go back to revelation and see what I can come up with but I think many smarter men than I have already put one together, If you know where a list is, lets have a fun time ticking off the ones we have seen already. Oh and I don't want the government to fund preparedness I want actual people to organize civil defense unions that would be ready in case of an emergency. I feel we have grown too complacent with our own safety, heck look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina... I bet if there had been pre-organization of civilians, there would have been alot less people in trouble down there for so long.
Peace
Translation: The Framers were unwise because I don't like, and disagree with what they created.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Thanks for contributing. It's alway nice to hear from the gay community.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
That's the American way, dude. If you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Nope. It means the framers should have anticipated that many Americans would interpret it to mean that the government was to have general power over religion, because there was no reason to make an exception to power over religion unless there was a grant of general power over religion.
Yes, because that interpretation is in no what what they ment; the Framers obviously thought religion should be above the law.
That is a gross distortion. monetary redistubution is in no way the American way.