malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>:|buckeye/jalison wrote:
>:|(BJ): "WOW!!!!!!!! Malcolm got banned from Internet Infidels
>:|discussion Board. LOL I guess that is why he is back here "
>:|
>:|Correct. Some moderators (claim to) consider the phrase "what do you
>:|mean 'we', paleface" racist. Isn't it obvious it means "I don't
>:|include myself in your 'we "? I found instances where moderators,
>:|participating in discussions, had used the phrase that way. I
>:|suggested, since we're going to be speaking in code, and since, to the
>:|lords of IIDB, "you're a racist" means "I don't agree with your
>:|market-oriented social policy recommendations", we let "you're a
>:|child molester" mean "I don't agree with your socialist social
>:|policy", "moderation would be nice" mean "biased moderators suck ***
>:|outta dead dogs" and "Please try be civil" mean "**** you". They
>:|didn't appreciate the suggestion. I learned a bit, arguing with
>:|participants there. Sometimes a Christian would stumble upon IIDB and
>:|say something like "atheists are socialists". Some strident
>:|participant would promptly assert that there is no connection between
>:|atheism an socialism, and then others would soon establish such a
>:|connection (semi-empiricaly) by claiming that OF COURSE atheists are
>:|socialists because atheists are smart and socialism is smart policy
>:|(or some such idiotic argument).
>:|
Bull**** "I'm a victim" crap above I see.
>:|Discussion deleted (various. Readers may backtrack). .
>:|
>:|(BJ): "MARKS RULE:
>:|See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (explaining that
>:|“[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
>:|explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding
>:|of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who
>:|concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”).http://
>:|www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1444.01A"
>:|
>:|Then school vouchers are constititional, since Justice O'Connor agreed
>:|with Justice Thomas that if individual choices of individual parents
>:|determne which schools receive tax sup****t, there is no
>:|"establishment" clause violation.Justice O'Connor wrote the separate
>:|concurring opinion because the policy at issue in Mitchell v. Helms
>:|was not a voucher; the level of funding was determined by enrolment.
Dude, you're in love with Mitchell v Helms.
You have enver understood it not matter how many people told you that you
were in error over it's im****tance and meaning.
You have cited Mitchell v Helms almost from the day it was handed down as
if it were im****tant and meaningful. In that citing you have always cited
Thomas
Mitchell v Helms establishes no new law, sets no precendece since it was a
plurality ruling and the controlling opinion in Mitchell v Helms is not
Thomas but rahter O'Connor, which is excatly waht you have been told over
and over and over again.
Had O'Connor not "trumpted" Thomas, the opposite would have been true,
i.e.
it would have been a major case setting making new law, setting new
precedence. Thoman's opinion was a brad change of direction, however,
O'Connor gutted that to the narrowest possible meaning and it is her
opinion that controls in Mitchell v Helms
Get over it dude
Failed Exam: Study Shows Lower Math Scores In Catholic Schools
http://blog.au.org/2008/03/13/failed-exam-study-shows-lower-math-scores-in-catholic-schools/
[EXCERPT]
Voucher boosters have promised a lot. Study after study has shown that
they
have failed to deliver.
It has been a rough couple of months for advocates of private and
religious
school vouchers.
First, voters in Utah – the reddest red state in the nation – went to the
polls and trounced a voucher scheme that misguided legislators had tried
to
foist on them.
Then, a researcher examining Wisconsin’s voucher program for children in
Milwaukee determined that students in the plan are doing no better
academically than their public-school counterparts. The finding is similar
to other studies that have been released over the years.
Now comes a real shocker: A researcher has determined that students
attending Catholic elementary schools make no more progress in reading
than
similar students in public schools, and they do even worse in math.
[END EXCERPT]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
