Big Supreme Court decision Monday

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Poor Obozo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

I don't think it's his name he has a problem with . His comment is about the way he runs the Presidency . Just an educated guess on my part
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have.

Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.

Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).

In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.

If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.

Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).

In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.

If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?

Very Well Said!

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence

So you assume Jesus hates rich people ??
Am I wrong in assuming you make money off the market? That's freaking ironic .
This is all moot anyways. Obama is just going to overrule the Supreme Court
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

So you assume Jesus hates rich people ??
Am I wrong in assuming you make money off the market? That's freaking ironic .
This is all moot anyways. Obama is just going to overrule the Supreme Court
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You weren't paying attention in Sunday School were ya?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence

"could play the corporations are people card"

No one is sayng corporations are people. What they're saying, is that the owner of a small business isn't obligated to leave his religion at the door to his office.

"I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret."

When the Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of a law, they aren't supposed to be concerned with the inconvenient ramifications of their decision. The constitutionality is what matters.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When the Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of a law, they aren't supposed to be concerned with the inconvenient ramifications of their decision. The constitutionality is what matters.

Yes, that's how the Justices operate, with utter disregard for the ramifications of their decisions. They probably don't care about the constitutionality of precedents either.

-spence

[Raider Ronnie]

1st off the relative is a complete looser that I'm embarrassed to be related to.
2 kids both school drop outs.
1 working in DD, the other working in a tire shop.
Both kids have kids out of wedlock, both living (leaching) in the parents house basements, being boyfriend or girlfriend.
Great futures they have and all too eager to be on the handout train.
2nd, Barack Husein Obama IS A PIECE OF #^&#^&#^&#^& !
3Rd, Your #^&#^&#^&#^&ing right I'm full of hate.
Hate what this country is doing to my kids future that I've busted my ass to make better for them than I had, as most every prior generation of my family had done since coming over from Italy.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.