Liberalism = Mental Disorder

[Black Jesus]

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Looking at government as some 'benevolent creature' is why the fuck every atrocity throughout history has been allowed to happen.

Abortion
A woman has the right to decide what happens with her body.

Abortion is for bitches too fucking stupid to get a $2 birth control shot. What about the baby's right to lift, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Affirmative Action
Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites.

Keyphrase there, in the past.

Death Penalty
The death penalty should be abolished. It is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual' punishment.

Sorry but if you torture, molest, and cook little girls, it's not cruel and unusual to shoot you by firing squad.

Global Warming/Climate Change
Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).

Global warming is caused by leaving a fucking Ice Age. That's why temperatures were rising before we started using carbon based fuels, and why temperatures have gone down over the past 15 years.

Gun Control
The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but only allows for the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military.

When a gaggle of naggets is beating down my door, the first thing I reach for is the telephone so the cops can show up 20 minutes after I'm dead.

Immigration
Support legal immigration. Support amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (undocumented immigrants). Also believe that undocumented immigrants have a right to:
-- all educational and health benefits that citizens receive (financial aid, welfare, social security and medicaid), regardless of legal status.

You people are fucking nuts. Let's have open border's so Mexico's civil war will further spill over.

Private Property
Government has the right to use eminent domain (seizure of private property by the government--with compensation to the owner) to accomplish a public end

You have to be joking.

Religion & Government
Support the separation of church and state.

Contrary to popular belief, the 1st amendment does not say anything about separation of church and state.

Same-sex Marriage
Marriage is the union of people who love each other. It should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, to ensure equal rights for all.

Marriage is a religious institution.

Social Security
The Social Security system should be protected at all costs.

Bankrupt communist program must be protected while country defaults.

Taxes
Higher taxes (primarily for the wealthy) and a larger government are necessary to address inequity/injustice in society (government should help the poor and needy using tax dollars from the rich).

Steal my hardearned money to give to brats on welfare smoking crack.

United Nations (UN)
The UN promotes peace and human rights.

The UN has done the exact opposite in nearly everything it has ever done. It keeps nations in the political and economic shitter so corporations can strip them of their natural resources.

War on Terror/Terrorism
Global warming, not terrorism, poses the greatest threat to the U.S., according to Democrats in Congress.

I don't even

Welfare
Support welfare, including long-term welfare. Welfare is a safety net which provides for the needs of the poor.

Shut the fuck up.

[Reiker000]

You people are fucking nuts

I don't even

Shut the fuck up.

Brilliantly structured arguments.

[Black Jesus]

The obvious absurdity of the positions were not worthy of my time to shoot down.

[Black Jesus]

It wasn't meant to be funny, it was to expose the stupidity of liberal positions. It's not a laughing matter, its a tragedy.

[Diggles]

(1:41:37 PM) Punda: instead of this false democracy bu llshit where the peoples vote means nothing
(1:41:45 PM) Punda: just make it mean nothing
(1:42:02 PM) Punda: we dont know whats best for us anyway and neither does the president, hes just one of us
(1:42:10 PM) Punda: get 3 fuckers from europe
(1:42:14 PM) Punda: to dictate our lives
(1:42:20 PM) Punda: council of the wise

[Alarti0001]

The obvious absurdity of the positions were not worthy of my time to shoot down.

Lucky;s new forum account?

[Black Jesus]

I will use the conservative points to illustrate why they are better on these same issues.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

DUh

Abortion
Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. An unborn baby, as a living human being, has separate rights from those of the mother. Oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

DUh

Affirmative Action
Individuals should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability.

DUh

Death Penalty
The death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime of murder; it is neither ‘cruel' nor ‘unusual.' Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.

DUh

Global Warming
Change in global temperature is natural over long periods of time. Science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature. Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions will do nothing to help the environment and will cause significant price increases for all. Many reputable scientists support this theory.

DUh

Gun Control
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Individuals have the right to defend themselves. There are too many gun control laws – additional laws will not lower gun crime rates. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

DUh

Immigration
Support legal immigration only. Oppose amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (illegal immigrants). Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally do not have the same rights as those who obey the law and enter legally.

DUh

Private Property
Respect ownership and private property rights. Eminent domain (seizure of private property by the government--with compensation to the owner) in most cases is wrong. Eminent domain should not be used for private development.

DUh

Religion & Government
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution.

DUh (I just said that)

Same-sex Marriage
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

DUh, ty Merriam & Websters definition for thousands of years.

Social Security
The Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Major changes to the current system are urgently needed. In its current state, the Social Security system is not financially sustainable. It will collapse if nothing is done to address the problems.

Socialism doesn't work?? DUh

Taxes
Lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all. Support lower taxes and a smaller government.

DUh

United Nations (UN)
The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission to promote world peace and human rights. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses taking place in many Human Rights Council member states (and the UN's failure to stop them) prove this point.

DUh

War on Terror/Terrorism
Terrorism poses one of the greatest threats to the U.S.

Stupid in general, but I can accept this over the global warming bullshit.

Welfare
Oppose long-term welfare. Opportunities should be provided to make it possible for those in need to become self-reliant.

DUh

[Alarti0001]

I will use the conservative points to illustrate why they are better on these same issues.



Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp


Derp (I just said that)



Derp, ty Merriam & Websters definition for thousands of years.



Socialism doesn't work?? Derp


Derp


Derp


Stupid in general, but I can accept this over the global warming bullshit.



Derp

FTFY

Also, support your opinion with facts...
In summary, Derp

[Alarti0001]

Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/faq.htm this first merrian & websters dicitonary was in 1847.... hardly thousands of years.

[Black Jesus]

FTFY

Also, support your opinion with facts...
In summary, Derp

The truths are self-evident.

[Black Jesus]

Also derp works just fine there.

[Ephirith]

This is already a very successful troll account, keep it up Jesus

[Yanomamo]

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

[Lexical]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." -First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[Black Jesus]

Yea, that doesn't say separation of church and state.

Liberals try to twist that to get the 10 commandments removed from courthouses and shit.

[Black Jesus]

Or like sayin kids can't pray in school

[Vandy]

First fucker to show up at my door trying to take my guns will only receive the bullets.

[Ahldagor]

what kind of prayer is acceptable? human sacrifice on a football field before a game? because that's gotta be accepted by all acounts of logical reasoning my friend. and jesus would have been palestinian and likely froze to death if he were born into a manger in winter. c'mon, work harder my friend, you know what hard work will do for you.

[Reiker000]

Yea, that doesn't say separation of church and state.

Liberals try to twist that to get the 10 commandments removed from courthouses and shit.

Right, but your point wasn't about "separation of church and state" (although the first amendment basically eludes to that). Your argument was:

Marriage is a religious institution.

Defining marriage as a religious institution completely undermines the first amendment.

I feel like I'm back in 2008 or whatever having to explain this 2 ppl again.

[Lexical]

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time.--Introduction of religious education into the public schools, one of Justice Rutledge's ''great drives,''106 has also occasioned a substantial amount of litigation in the Court. In its first two encounters, the Court voided one program and upheld another, in which the similarities were at least as significant as the differences. Both cases involved ''released time'' programs, the establishing of a period during which pupils in public schools were to be allowed, upon parental request, to receive religious instruction. In the first, the religious classes were conducted during regular school hours in the school building by outside teachers furnished by a religious council representing the various faiths, subject to the approval or supervision of the superintendent of schools. Attendance reports were kept and reported to the school authorities in the same way as for other classes, and pupils not attending the religious instruction classes were required to continue their regular studies. ''The operation of the State's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment. . . .''107 The case was also noteworthy because of the Court's express rejection of the contention ''that historically the First Amendment was intended to forbid only government preference of one religion over another, not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions.''108

Four years later, the Court upheld a different released-time program.109 In this one, schools released pupils during school hours, on written request of their parents, so that they might leave the school building and go to religious centers for religious instruction or devotional exercises. The churches reported to the schools the names of children released from the public schools who did not report for religious instruction; children not released remained in the classrooms for regular studies. The Court found the differences between this program and the program struck down in McCollum to be constitutionally significant. Unlike McCollum, where ''the classrooms were used for religious instruction and force of the public school was used to promote that instruction,'' religious instruction was conducted off school premises and ''the public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules.''110 We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,'' Justice Douglas wrote for the Court. ''When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.''111

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading.--Upon recommendation of the state governing board, a local New York school required each class to begin each school day by reading aloud the following prayer in the presence of the teacher: ''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.'' Students who wished to do so could remain silent or leave the room. Said the Court: ''We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York had adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. . . . [W]e think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''112 ''Neither the fact that the prayer may be nondenominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause. . . . The Establishment Clause . . . does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.''113

Following the prayer decision came two cases in which parents and their school age children challenged the validity under the Establishment Clause of requirements that each school day begin with readings of selections from the Bible. Scripture reading, like prayers, the Court found, was a religious exercise. ''Given that finding the exercises and the law requiring them are in violation of the Establishment Clause.''114 Rejected were contentions by the State that the object of the programs was the promotion of secular purposes, such as the expounding of moral values, the contradiction of the materialistic trends of the times, the perpetuation of traditional institutions, and the teaching of literature115 and that to forbid the particular exercises was to choose a ''religion of secularism'' in their place.116 Though the ''place of religion in our society is an exalted one,'' the Establishment Clause, the Court continued, prescribed that in ''the relationship between man and religion,'' the State must be ''firmly committed to a position of neutrality.''117

In Wallace v. Jaffree,118 the Court held invalid an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer.'' Because the only evidence in the record indicated that the words ''or prayer'' had been added to the existing statute by amendment for the sole purpose of returning voluntary prayer to the public schools, the Court found that the first prong of the Lemon test had been violated, i.e. that the statute was invalid as being entirely motivated by a purpose of advancing religion. The Court characterized the legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools as ''quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday,''119 and both Justices Powell and O'Connor in concurring opinions suggested that other state statutes authorizing moments of silence might pass constitutional muster.120

The school prayer decisions served as precedent for the Court's holding in Lee v. Weisman121 that a school-sponsored invocation at a high school commencement violated the Establishment Clause. The Court rebuffed a request to reexamine the Lemon test, finding ''[t]he government involvement with religious activity in this case [to be] pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.'' State officials not only determined that an invocation and benediction should be given, but also selected the religious participant and provided him with guidelines for the content of nonsectarian prayers. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, viewed this state participation as coercive in the elementary and secondary school setting.122 The state ''in effect required participation in a religious exercise,'' since the option of not attending ''one of life's most significant occasions'' was no real choice. ''At a minimum,'' the Court concluded, the Establishment Clause ''guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.''

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Restriction.--In Epperson v. Arkansas,123 the Court struck down a state statute which made it unlawful for any teacher in any state-supported educational institution ''to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,'' or ''to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches'' this theory. Agreeing that control of the curriculum of the public schools was largely in the control of local officials, the Court nonetheless held that the motivation of the statute was a fundamentalist belief in the literal reading of the Book of Genesis and that this motivation and result required the voiding of the law. ''The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First . . . Amendment to the Constitution.''124

Similarly invalidated as having the improper purpose of advancing religion was a Louisiana statute mandating balanced treatment of ''creation-science'' and ''evolution-science'' in the public schools. ''The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana legislature,'' the Court found in Edwards v. Aguillard, ''was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.''125 The Court viewed as a ''sham'' the stated purpose of protecting academic freedom, and concluded instead that the legislature's purpose was to narrow the science curriculum in order to discredit evolution ''by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creation science.''126

While the greater number of establishment cases have involved educational facilities, in other areas as well there have been contentions that legislative policies have been laws ''respecting'' the establishment of religion.

Access of Religious Groups to Public Property.--Although government may not promote religion through its educational facilities, it may not bar student religious groups from meeting on public school property if it makes those facilities available to nonreligious student groups. To allow religious groups equal access to a public college's facilities would further a secular purpose, would not constitute an impermissible benefit to religion, and would pose little hazard of entanglement.127 These principles apply to public secondary schools as well as to institutions of higher learning.128 In 1990 the Court upheld application of the Equal Access Act129 to prevent a secondary school from denying access to school premises to a student religious club while granting access to such other ''noncurriculum'' related student groups as a scuba diving club, a chess club, and a service club.130

Similarly, public schools may not rely on the Establishment Clause as grounds to discriminate against religious groups in after-hours use of school property otherwise available for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes;Supp.6 public colleges may not exclude student religious organizations from benefits otherwise provided to a full spectrum of student ''news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications media groups;''Supp.7 and a state that creates a traditional public forum for citizen speeches and unattended displays on a plaza at its state capitol cannot, on Establishment Clause grounds, deny access for a religious display.Supp.8 These cases make clear that the Establishment Clause does not necessarily trump the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech; in regulating private speech in a public forum, government may not justify discrimination against religious viewpoints as necessary to avoid creating an ''establishment'' of religion.

Footnotes

[Footnote 106] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63 (Justice Rutledge dissenting) (quoted supra p.977, n.41).

[Footnote 107] Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 209-10 (1948).

[Footnote 108] Id. at 211.

[Footnote 109] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). Justices Black, Frankfurter, and Jackson dissented. Id. at 315, 320, 323.

[Footnote 110] Id. at 315. See also Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 261-63 (1963) (Justice Brennan concurring) (suggesting that the important distinction was that ''the McCollum program placed the religious instruction in the public school classroom in precisely the position of authority held by the regular teachers of secular subjects, while the Zorach program did not'').

[Footnote 111] Id. at 313-14. These cases predated formulation of the Lemon three-part test for religious establishment, and the status of that test--as well as the constitutional status of released-time programs--is unclear. The degree of official and church cooperation may well not rise to a problem of excessive entanglement, but quaere, what is the secular purpose and secular effect of such programs? Some guidance may be provided by Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985), and Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), striking down programs using public school teachers for instruction of parochial school students in parochial school facilities, but these were 5-4 decisions and the Court's membership has since changed.

[Footnote 112] Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424, 425 (1962).

[Footnote 113] Id. at 430. Justice Black for the Court rejected the idea that the prohibition of religious services in public schools evidenced ``a hostility toward religion or toward prayer.'' Id. at 434. Rather, such an application of the First Amendment protected religion from the coercive hand of government and government from control by a religious sect. Dissenting alone, Justice Stewart could not ``see how an `official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.'' Id. at 444, 445.

[Footnote 114] Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963). ''[T]he States are requiring the selection and reading at the opening of the school day of verses from the Holy Bible and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the students in unison. These exercises are prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students who are required by law to attend school. They are held in the school buildings under the supervision and with the participation of teachers employed in those schools. None of these factors, other than compulsory school attendance, was present in the program upheld in Zorach v. Clauson.'' Id.

[Footnote 115] Id. at 223-24. The Court thought the exercises were clearly religious.

[Footnote 116] Id. at 225. ''We agree of course that the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.''

[Footnote 117] Id. 226. Justice Brennan contributed a lengthy concurrence in which he attempted to rationalize the decisions of the Court on the religion clauses and to delineate the principles applicable. He concluded that what the establishment clause foreclosed ''are those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends, where secular means would suffice.'' Id. at 230, 295. Justice Stewart again dissented alone, feeling that the claims presented were essentially free exercise contentions which were not supported by proof of coercion or of punitive official action for nonparticipation.

[Footnote 118] 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

[Footnote 119] Id. at 59.

[Footnote 120] Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion is notable for its effort to synthesize and refine the Court's Establishment and Free Exercise tests (see also the Justice's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly), and Justice Rehnquist's dissent for its effort to redirect Establishment Clause analysis by abandoning the tripartite test, discarding any requirement that government be neutral between religion and ''irreligion,'' and confining the scope to a prohibition on establishing a national church or otherwise favoring one religious group over another.

[Footnote 121] 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992).

[Footnote 122] The Court distinguished Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983), holding that the opening of a state legislative session with a prayer by a state-paid chaplain does not offend the Establishment Clause. The Marsh Court had distinguished Abington on the basis that state legislators, as adults, are ''presumably not readily susceptible to 'religious indoctrination' or 'peer pressure,''' and the Lee Court reiterated this distinction. 112 S. Ct. at 2660.

[Footnote 123] 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

[Footnote 124] Id. at 109.

[Footnote 125] 483 U.S. 578, 591 (1987).

[Footnote 126] 483 U.S. at 589. The Court's conclusion was premised on its finding that ''the term 'creation science,' as used by the legislature . . . embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.'' Id. at at 592.

[Footnote 127] Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 270-75 (1981).

[Footnote 128] Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). The Court had noted in Widmar that university students ''are less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the University's policy is one of neutrality toward religion,'' 454 U.S. at 274 n.14. The Mergens plurality ignored this distinction, suggesting that the secondary school's neutrality was also evident to its students. 496 U.S. at 252.

[Footnote 129] Pub. L. 98-377, title VIII, 98 Stat. 1302 (1984); 20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4071-74.

[Footnote 130] There was no opinion of the Court on Establishment Clause issues, a plurality of four led by Justice O'Connor applying the three- part Lemon test, and concurring Justices Kennedy and Scalia proposing a less stringent test under which ''neutral'' accommodations of religion would be permissible as long as they do not in effect establish a state religion, and as long as there is no coercion of students to participate in a religious activity. Id. at 2377.

[Footnote 6 (1996 Supplement)] Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). The Court explained that there was ''no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion,'' and that the three-part Lemon test would not have been violated. Id. at 395. Concurring opinions by Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, and by Justice Kennedy, criticized the Court's reference to Lemon. ''Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again,'' Justice Scalia lamented. Id. at 398.

[Footnote 7 (1996 Supplement)] Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995).

[Footnote 8 (1996 Supplement)] Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995).

[Lexical]

tl;dr: eat a dick

[Doors]

I agree with black jesus.

[Autotune]

should do away with government recognition of marriage and make everyone have civil unions.

and problem solved, next...

[Black Jesus]

Right, but your point wasn't about "separation of church and state" (although the first amendment basically eludes to that). Your argument was:

The 1st amendment does not elude to separation of church and state, in the way that it has been attempted to be justified (and for the most part failed), whatsoever.

Defining marriage as a religious institution completely undermines the first amendment.

I feel like I'm back in 2008 or whatever having to explain this 2 ppl again.

It does not undermine my argument, you are not thinking very hard.

[dredge]

Black Jesus is a bad Internet Troll.
Pretty obvious man. You need to try harder next time.

[hatelore]

I agree with black jesus.

[Black Jesus]

I will put it to you this way, I have argued forever that marriage shouldn't be federally recognized (although the states are free to do as they please). Not because of the fictitious entity of separation of church and state, that would almost so far as to mean you couldn't be married and a public servant, but because it does respect an establishment of religion (namely the Judaism if we want to get into the origins). To this end I would say the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by your beloved Bill Clinton, is also unconstitutional.

[Black Jesus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_te mple_20.jpg/450px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_te mple_20.jpg

[Doors]

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time.--Introduction of religious education into the public schools, one of Justice Rutledge's ''great drives,''106 has also occasioned a substantial amount of litigation in the Court. In its first two encounters, the Court voided one program and upheld another, in which the similarities were at least as significant as the differences. Both cases involved ''released time'' programs, the establishing of a period during which pupils in public schools were to be allowed, upon parental request, to receive religious instruction. In the first, the religious classes were conducted during regular school hours in the school building by outside teachers furnished by a religious council representing the various faiths, subject to the approval or supervision of the superintendent of schools. Attendance reports were kept and reported to the school authorities in the same way as for other classes, and pupils not attending the religious instruction classes were required to continue their regular studies. ''The operation of the State's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment. . . .''107 The case was also noteworthy because of the Court's express rejection of the contention ''that historically the First Amendment was intended to forbid only government preference of one religion over another, not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions.''108

Four years later, the Court upheld a different released-time program.109 In this one, schools released pupils during school hours, on written request of their parents, so that they might leave the school building and go to religious centers for religious instruction or devotional exercises. The churches reported to the schools the names of children released from the public schools who did not report for religious instruction; children not released remained in the classrooms for regular studies. The Court found the differences between this program and the program struck down in McCollum to be constitutionally significant. Unlike McCollum, where ''the classrooms were used for religious instruction and force of the public school was used to promote that instruction,'' religious instruction was conducted off school premises and ''the public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules.''110 We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,'' Justice Douglas wrote for the Court. ''When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.''111

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading.--Upon recommendation of the state governing board, a local New York school required each class to begin each school day by reading aloud the following prayer in the presence of the teacher: ''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.'' Students who wished to do so could remain silent or leave the room. Said the Court: ''We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York had adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. . . . [W]e think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''112 ''Neither the fact that the prayer may be nondenominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause. . . . The Establishment Clause . . . does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.''113

Following the prayer decision came two cases in which parents and their school age children challenged the validity under the Establishment Clause of requirements that each school day begin with readings of selections from the Bible. Scripture reading, like prayers, the Court found, was a religious exercise. ''Given that finding the exercises and the law requiring them are in violation of the Establishment Clause.''114 Rejected were contentions by the State that the object of the programs was the promotion of secular purposes, such as the expounding of moral values, the contradiction of the materialistic trends of the times, the perpetuation of traditional institutions, and the teaching of literature115 and that to forbid the particular exercises was to choose a ''religion of secularism'' in their place.116 Though the ''place of religion in our society is an exalted one,'' the Establishment Clause, the Court continued, prescribed that in ''the relationship between man and religion,'' the State must be ''firmly committed to a position of neutrality.''117

In Wallace v. Jaffree,118 the Court held invalid an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer.'' Because the only evidence in the record indicated that the words ''or prayer'' had been added to the existing statute by amendment for the sole purpose of returning voluntary prayer to the public schools, the Court found that the first prong of the Lemon test had been violated, i.e. that the statute was invalid as being entirely motivated by a purpose of advancing religion. The Court characterized the legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools as ''quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday,''119 and both Justices Powell and O'Connor in concurring opinions suggested that other state statutes authorizing moments of silence might pass constitutional muster.120

The school prayer decisions served as precedent for the Court's holding in Lee v. Weisman121 that a school-sponsored invocation at a high school commencement violated the Establishment Clause. The Court rebuffed a request to reexamine the Lemon test, finding ''[t]he government involvement with religious activity in this case [to be] pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.'' State officials not only determined that an invocation and benediction should be given, but also selected the religious participant and provided him with guidelines for the content of nonsectarian prayers. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, viewed this state participation as coercive in the elementary and secondary school setting.122 The state ''in effect required participation in a religious exercise,'' since the option of not attending ''one of life's most significant occasions'' was no real choice. ''At a minimum,'' the Court concluded, the Establishment Clause ''guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.''

Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Restriction.--In Epperson v. Arkansas,123 the Court struck down a state statute which made it unlawful for any teacher in any state-supported educational institution ''to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,'' or ''to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches'' this theory. Agreeing that control of the curriculum of the public schools was largely in the control of local officials, the Court nonetheless held that the motivation of the statute was a fundamentalist belief in the literal reading of the Book of Genesis and that this motivation and result required the voiding of the law. ''The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First . . . Amendment to the Constitution.''124

Similarly invalidated as having the improper purpose of advancing religion was a Louisiana statute mandating balanced treatment of ''creation-science'' and ''evolution-science'' in the public schools. ''The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana legislature,'' the Court found in Edwards v. Aguillard, ''was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.''125 The Court viewed as a ''sham'' the stated purpose of protecting academic freedom, and concluded instead that the legislature's purpose was to narrow the science curriculum in order to discredit evolution ''by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creation science.''126

While the greater number of establishment cases have involved educational facilities, in other areas as well there have been contentions that legislative policies have been laws ''respecting'' the establishment of religion.

Access of Religious Groups to Public Property.--Although government may not promote religion through its educational facilities, it may not bar student religious groups from meeting on public school property if it makes those facilities available to nonreligious student groups. To allow religious groups equal access to a public college's facilities would further a secular purpose, would not constitute an impermissible benefit to religion, and would pose little hazard of entanglement.127 These principles apply to public secondary schools as well as to institutions of higher learning.128 In 1990 the Court upheld application of the Equal Access Act129 to prevent a secondary school from denying access to school premises to a student religious club while granting access to such other ''noncurriculum'' related student groups as a scuba diving club, a chess club, and a service club.130

Similarly, public schools may not rely on the Establishment Clause as grounds to discriminate against religious groups in after-hours use of school property otherwise available for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes;Supp.6 public colleges may not exclude student religious organizations from benefits otherwise provided to a full spectrum of student ''news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications media groups;''Supp.7 and a state that creates a traditional public forum for citizen speeches and unattended displays on a plaza at its state capitol cannot, on Establishment Clause grounds, deny access for a religious display.Supp.8 These cases make clear that the Establishment Clause does not necessarily trump the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech; in regulating private speech in a public forum, government may not justify discrimination against religious viewpoints as necessary to avoid creating an ''establishment'' of religion.

Footnotes

[Footnote 106] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63 (Justice Rutledge dissenting) (quoted supra p.977, n.41).

[Footnote 107] Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 209-10 (1948).

[Footnote 108] Id. at 211.

[Footnote 109] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). Justices Black, Frankfurter, and Jackson dissented. Id. at 315, 320, 323.

[Footnote 110] Id. at 315. See also Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 261-63 (1963) (Justice Brennan concurring) (suggesting that the important distinction was that ''the McCollum program placed the religious instruction in the public school classroom in precisely the position of authority held by the regular teachers of secular subjects, while the Zorach program did not'').

[Footnote 111] Id. at 313-14. These cases predated formulation of the Lemon three-part test for religious establishment, and the status of that test--as well as the constitutional status of released-time programs--is unclear. The degree of official and church cooperation may well not rise to a problem of excessive entanglement, but quaere, what is the secular purpose and secular effect of such programs? Some guidance may be provided by Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985), and Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), striking down programs using public school teachers for instruction of parochial school students in parochial school facilities, but these were 5-4 decisions and the Court's membership has since changed.

[Footnote 112] Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424, 425 (1962).

[Footnote 113] Id. at 430. Justice Black for the Court rejected the idea that the prohibition of religious services in public schools evidenced ``a hostility toward religion or toward prayer.'' Id. at 434. Rather, such an application of the First Amendment protected religion from the coercive hand of government and government from control by a religious sect. Dissenting alone, Justice Stewart could not ``see how an `official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.'' Id. at 444, 445.

[Footnote 114] Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963). ''[T]he States are requiring the selection and reading at the opening of the school day of verses from the Holy Bible and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the students in unison. These exercises are prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students who are required by law to attend school. They are held in the school buildings under the supervision and with the participation of teachers employed in those schools. None of these factors, other than compulsory school attendance, was present in the program upheld in Zorach v. Clauson.'' Id.

[Footnote 115] Id. at 223-24. The Court thought the exercises were clearly religious.

[Footnote 116] Id. at 225. ''We agree of course that the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.''

[Footnote 117] Id. 226. Justice Brennan contributed a lengthy concurrence in which he attempted to rationalize the decisions of the Court on the religion clauses and to delineate the principles applicable. He concluded that what the establishment clause foreclosed ''are those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends, where secular means would suffice.'' Id. at 230, 295. Justice Stewart again dissented alone, feeling that the claims presented were essentially free exercise contentions which were not supported by proof of coercion or of punitive official action for nonparticipation.

[Footnote 118] 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

[Footnote 119] Id. at 59.

[Footnote 120] Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion is notable for its effort to synthesize and refine the Court's Establishment and Free Exercise tests (see also the Justice's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly), and Justice Rehnquist's dissent for its effort to redirect Establishment Clause analysis by abandoning the tripartite test, discarding any requirement that government be neutral between religion and ''irreligion,'' and confining the scope to a prohibition on establishing a national church or otherwise favoring one religious group over another.

[Footnote 121] 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992).

[Footnote 122] The Court distinguished Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983), holding that the opening of a state legislative session with a prayer by a state-paid chaplain does not offend the Establishment Clause. The Marsh Court had distinguished Abington on the basis that state legislators, as adults, are ''presumably not readily susceptible to 'religious indoctrination' or 'peer pressure,''' and the Lee Court reiterated this distinction. 112 S. Ct. at 2660.

[Footnote 123] 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

[Footnote 124] Id. at 109.

[Footnote 125] 483 U.S. 578, 591 (1987).

[Footnote 126] 483 U.S. at 589. The Court's conclusion was premised on its finding that ''the term 'creation science,' as used by the legislature . . . embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.'' Id. at at 592.

[Footnote 127] Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 270-75 (1981).

[Footnote 128] Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). The Court had noted in Widmar that university students ''are less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the University's policy is one of neutrality toward religion,'' 454 U.S. at 274 n.14. The Mergens plurality ignored this distinction, suggesting that the secondary school's neutrality was also evident to its students. 496 U.S. at 252.

[Footnote 129] Pub. L. 98-377, title VIII, 98 Stat. 1302 (1984); 20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4071-74.

[Footnote 130] There was no opinion of the Court on Establishment Clause issues, a plurality of four led by Justice O'Connor applying the three- part Lemon test, and concurring Justices Kennedy and Scalia proposing a less stringent test under which ''neutral'' accommodations of religion would be permissible as long as they do not in effect establish a state religion, and as long as there is no coercion of students to participate in a religious activity. Id. at 2377.

[Footnote 6 (1996 Supplement)] Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). The Court explained that there was ''no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion,'' and that the three-part Lemon test would not have been violated. Id. at 395. Concurring opinions by Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, and by Justice Kennedy, criticized the Court's reference to Lemon. ''Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again,'' Justice Scalia lamented. Id. at 398.

[Footnote 7 (1996 Supplement)] Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995).

[Footnote 8 (1996 Supplement)] Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995).

Nobody is reading that sry.

[Black Jesus]

Those crazy kids over at the OWS website, at one point gave us a list of humorous demands that included these deep-seated liberal fantasies.

Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment
Free college education
Open borders migration
Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all


The liberal politician’s equivalent of this list would be:

Extending unemployment benefits ad nauseam
Student loan forgiveness
Illegal immigration amnesty (DREAM Act)
Postponement
of foreclosures

All currently under consideration by the Obama administration.

[agdros]

Have you ever read a philosophy book or taken a philosophy course?

Politicians don't give a fuck about which side of the fence they are on. They will run on a platform to support world wide genocide if that is what their constituent group (voters) wants. Politicians want power and money. That is it.

If you look at the agendas for each political party going back to the beginning of this country, they have traded and swapped sides of the fence as needed to retain their power. Best example is that Lincoln was a Republican. He freed the slaves. Now Republicans are bigots and racists.

The OWL is a pure mob mentality group. The majority of their members just want to be part of something bigger than themselves and could easily be persuaded to commit mass suicide at the direction of a lunatic.

People believe they have the opportunity to vote for representatives who are share similar morals and beliefs. This is completely false. We are not a democracy. The United States is a representative republic. And because those representatives only serve themselves our government is completely disfucktional and useless.

I could go on.. but there isn't much point.

[HeallunRumblebelly]

Have you ever read a philosophy book or taken a philosophy course?

Politicians don't give a fuck about which side of the fence they are on. They will run on a platform to support world wide genocide if that is what their constituent group (voters) wants. Politicians want power and money. That is it.

If you look at the agendas for each political party going back to the beginning of this country, they have traded and swapped sides of the fence as needed to retain their power. Best example is that Lincoln was a Republican. He freed the slaves. Now Republicans are bigots and racists.

The OWL is a pure mob mentality group. The majority of their members just want to be part of something bigger than themselves and could easily be persuaded to commit mass suicide at the direction of a lunatic.

People believe they have the opportunity to vote for representatives who are share similar morals and beliefs. This is completely false. We are not a democracy. The United States is a representative republic. And because those representatives only serve themselves our government is completely disfucktional and useless.

I could go on.. but there isn't much point.

Eh, that was more of a gradual shift and had more to do with southern dixiecrats than the party itself.

Look back further, to washington (+hamilton) + adams presidencies, then the following jefferson presidency. Jefferson busted Federalist balls and then once president removed almost nothing (except i think alien and sedition acts?). Libertarian idol was a motherfucking turncoat, above quote is exact. Founding fathers wanted more economic independence...for themselves...

[Splorf22]

FYI, Liberalism means 'for liberty'. It originally meant libertarianism, and then progressives stole our word despite not matching its meaning at all.

[Toehammer]

Now Republicans are bigots and racists.

:rolleyes: this is so bad and wrong. Would be as dumb as someone saying that all Democrats are queers and pussies. Of course some are, some aren't. True "non-racism" is seeing different races, but treating each one identically. Politically speaking, Democrats see skin color far more than Republicans. But they are only doing this to get their votes.

Anything in all of politics is just who can get the most votes, most effectively, in the easiest way possible. I don't know why any of you buy into the pro-liberal media, or pro-conservative Fox news bullshit. Bottom line: grow up, stop believing the crap you hear and develop your own opinion. Really, 99% of people's opinions probably stem from the environment they grew up in and the people around them.

Horrible troll thread.

[Alawen]

:rolleyes: this is so bad and wrong. Would be as dumb as someone saying that all Democrats are queers and pussies. Of course some are, some aren't. True "non-racism" is seeing different races, but treating each one identically. Politically speaking, Democrats see skin color far more than Republicans. But they are only doing this to get their votes.

Anything in all of politics is just who can get the most votes, most effectively, in the easiest way possible. I don't know why any of you buy into the pro-liberal media, or pro-conservative Fox news bullshit. Bottom line: grow up, stop believing the crap you hear and develop your own opinion. Really, 99% of people's opinions probably stem from the environment they grew up in and the people around them.

Horrible troll thread.

True non-racism would be realizing that race is a purely social construct with no biological basis and ignoring it.

[Lexical]

True non-racism would be realizing that race is a purely social construct with no biological basis and ignoring it.

True non-racism would be realizing that white people are generally stupid.

[azeth]

young

[Raavak]

The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but only allows for the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military.
militia != National Guard
militia is all able bodied men (and women)

[FoxxHound]

http://i.imgur.com/sr86e.gif

[Strifer]

War and Peace length shit

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to type that up for this community. I'm sure someone has been touched by this post.

A forceful touching akin to Jerry Sandusky.

Take your political rants to people who would give a shit. Four days from election and if someone legitimately changes their mind at this point from reading a post on a forum for a thirteen year old video game emulated server titled "Rants, Flames and NSFW" then aptly go to your local zoo and hug a Tiger, hug it tight and until it mauls you to death.

KONY 2012 GUYS ITS TIME FOR CHANGE.

[Hasbinlulz]

True non-racism would be realizing that race is a purely social construct with no biological basis and ignoring it.
Oh you poor optimist.

[Alawen]

True non-racism would be realizing that white people are generally stupid.

I don't find white people to be particularly stupid or intelligent, fat or slim, interesting or dull, educated or ignorant, or anything else is particular. I find them to be people, full of both admirable qualities and despicable flaws. I find them to be people, just like all the rest.

I met a woman on the bus tonight. We had a nice talk. When she got off at her stop, I had a smile on my face and so did she. She has dark skin. I have light skin. Neither of those things mattered.

[Alawen]

Oh you poor optimist.

It's true, I am. I weep when things are beautiful, too. My world is filled with magic and wonder.

[HeallunRumblebelly]

It's true, I am. I weep when things are beautiful, too. My world is filled with magic and wonder.

Alawen, you used to be filled with such anger. What happened :|

[Hasbinlulz]

I think he might have finally gotten laid?

[Lexical]

I don't find white people to be particularly stupid or intelligent, fat or slim, interesting or dull, educated or ignorant, or anything else is particular. I find them to be people, full of both admirable qualities and despicable flaws. I find them to be people, just like all the rest.

I met a woman on the bus tonight. We had a nice talk. When she got off at her stop, I had a smile on my face and so did she. She has dark skin. I have light skin. Neither of those things mattered.

Don't you hate it when you make a sarcastic joke and someone tries to argue with you about the intellectual merits of it?

[Diggles]

http://i.imgur.com/wq1h9.gif

[Alawen]

Alawen, you used to be filled with such anger. What happened :|

I only play pissed off on rants and flames and I haven't really been able to get worked up about anything lately. Life is just too overwhelmingly grand.

[Alawen]

Don't you hate it when you make a sarcastic joke and someone tries to argue with you about the intellectual merits of it?

My apologies. It's hard to remember who are the genuine bigots and who sarcastically emulates them for effect even when I can decipher which is which.

[Lexical]

My apologies. It's hard to remember who are the genuine bigots and who sarcastically emulates them for effect even when I can decipher which is which.

clever girl >.>

[Tecmos Deception]

FYI, Liberalism means 'for liberty'. It originally meant libertarianism, and then progressives stole our word despite not matching its meaning at all.

As if I weren't fond enough of you enough already for being a sweet chanter and being in a guild designed to have fun by being challenged, you're a freaking libertarian too? :)

[Ephirith]

2016: America elects libertarian president and libertarians control majorities in the house and senate.

2017: Federal government disbands, CDC, FEMA, EPA, USDA, FDIC, the Fed, and various other regulatory programs and agencies. Shortly thereafter ends any sort of regulation of international trade.

2018: Ends medicare, social security, and veterans administration. Government fully privatizes education and healthcare, ends state and federal grants for college education and infrastructure, and reaffirms at-will employment by abolishing minimum wage laws, child labor laws, worker safety laws, and laws prohibiting various forms of discrimination. (The free market has the best answers for people with disabilities). These issues are the realm of tort law!

2019: Government dramatically lowers taxes and reforms the tax code, budget deficit is being paid off. Administration cuts military spending by 90%, closes bases overseas, and adopts a non-interventionist foreign policy.

2020: Libertarians revel in libertarian paradise, re-elect administration.

2021: Progressive governments/economies in the European Union, continue spending heavily on education investment and government subsidies of renewable energy. For a long time renewable energy sources are not competitive in a free market, but these governments, acting outside market influence, exercise centralized planning.

2022: A spike in consumption in the now unregulated United States in the last decade, along with the exponential growth of energy use in China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil has depleted fossil fuel reserves more quickly than expected and prices start to skyrocket.

2023: The price of petroleum strangles the US economy as private entities scramble to develop efficient infrastructure and now-competitive renewable energy. Meanwhile, Europe is able to sustain a boom in manufacturing and general economic well-being due to dramatically lower energy costs and efficient urban planning/mass transit.

2024: Velious is released on p99.

2025: The thriving European economy pulls further ahead of the United States than it already was in 2012, in nearly every metric for human development and welfare.

2026: Ron Paul admits he hates ******s and then dies. In his hand is a worn-out copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged; some of the pages are stuck together.

That is how I feel about libertarianism.

[Hasbinlulz]

http://i.imgur.com/wq1h9.gif
More of this please.

[Orruar]

2016: America elects libertarian president and libertarians control majorities in the house and senate.

.... stuff

That is how I feel about libertarianism.

So your main argument against libertarianism is that it will make us so productive that we'll run out of fossil fuels sooner? That's quite the damning criticism.

Also, what makes you think that we'd choose fossil fuels over other sources of energy? Keep in mind that part of libertarian idealogy is the removal of all subsidies, including those to oil companies.

[Daldolma]

2025: The thriving European economy pulls further ahead of the United States than it already was in 2012, in nearly every metric for human development and welfare.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Exactly 2 of 45 European countries (min population: 35,000) rank higher than the US in Human Development Index.

y u hate amurrica?

[Ephirith]

Also, what makes you think that we'd choose fossil fuels over other sources of energy? Keep in mind that part of libertarian idealogy is the removal of all subsidies, including those to oil companies.

You probably shouldn't take what I said all that seriously, but to answer your question: fossil fuels are so amazingly efficient as a source of energy that in an unfettered market it is almost impossible for many renewable sources to compete.

You might say-- well, when prices for rapidly-depleting fossil fuels start to bloat, and forward-thinking corporations take notice, then the market will facilitate renewable energy supplementation.

Meanwhile, China and the European Union have seen massive, proactive investments in hydro-electric power, renewable energy, and efficient means of moving people (Mass transit... centralized, efficient urban planning). Which economies do you think would be better suited to weather this transition when it happens?

People already understate the massive amount of assfucking we took in 2007 when gas prices went nuts, hammered disposable incomes and logistical costs, and created conditions of fiscal stress that facilitated the financial crash and recession.

[Ephirith]

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Exactly 2 of 45 European countries (min population: 35,000) rank higher than the US in Human Development Index.

y u hate amurrica?

The USA HDI is distorted by our country's absurd amount of wealth, which is one component of the figure. The figure used to represent wealth in the HDI doesn't adequately account for our horrendous levels of income inequality. Wealth in the USA is concentrated among an oligarchy like you just don't see in many other western nations. Look at the figures for education index and life expectancy index by themselves-- they are a bit less flattering. And to add a little context to the HDI's income figure, look at the GINI coefficient.

[Orruar]

You probably shouldn't take what I said all that seriously, but to answer your question: fossil fuels are so amazingly efficient as a source of energy that in an unfettered market it is almost impossible for many renewable sources to compete.

You might say-- well, when prices for rapidly-depleting fossil fuels start to bloat, and forward-thinking corporations take notice, then the market will facilitate renewable energy supplementation.

Meanwhile, China and the European Union have seen massive, proactive investments in hydro-electric power, renewable energy, and efficient means of moving people (Mass transit... centralized, efficient urban planning). Which economies do you think would be better suited to weather this transition when it happens?

People already understate the massive amount of assfucking we took in 2007 when gas prices went nuts, hammered disposable incomes and logistical costs, and created conditions of fiscal stress that facilitated the financial crash and recession.


You are correct that the day will come when it is more expensive to extract fossil fuels from the Earth's crust than to produce energy using other means. When that happens, we can switch over. It's not like building solar cells or wind farms or nuclear plants is some kind of super long term project that requires 50 years of planning. Well, except for nuclear plants. But those only take about 5 years to actually build after 30 years of government red tape. In a libertarian society, we'd rid ourselves of those 30 years. And keep in mind that the transition is something that will be gradual and fairly predictable. It's not like there's some giant oil tank out there and one day we'll find it has run dry.

Which economy would be best to weather the transition? I'd say the one that hasn't hobbled itself for decades waiting for the transition. If fossil fuels are wildly more efficient as you state, then any economy focusing on other sources of energy will be dramatically less productive. Also, we aren't really sure yet what will be the most efficient non-carbon energy source. For all we know, there will be some breakthrough in solar panels in 10 years that will render all other energy sources worthless. Those countries who had invested so many resources into wind farms and other power sources would then be less able to take advantage of the new technology.

[Daldolma]

The USA HDI is distorted by our country's absurd amount of wealth, which is one component of the figure. The figure used to represent wealth in the HDI doesn't adequately account for our horrendous levels of income inequality. Wealth in the USA is concentrated among an oligarchy like you just don't see in many other western nations. Look at the figures for education index and life expectancy index by themselves-- they are a bit less flattering. And to add a little context to the HDI's income figure, look at the GINI coefficient.

We're #5 in education index, behind just Norway and Ireland from Europe. We're actually higher in education index than income index, where we're 10th, ahead of all of Europe but Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Norway.

[Black Jesus]

every1 complain american education so bad but then u look at euro grade scales and 40% is a C I'm like wut fukn idiots

[Black Jesus]

yea dude lol America behind Ireland, theyre euros with that 40% grade scale I was talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(education)#Ireland

[Hasbinlulz]

40%
Yeah dude, coz 40% is 40% no matter if it's 40% of 10 or 40% of 100, it's stil 40% rabble rabble!!

[Hasbinlulz]

Black Jesus, I will gladly trade you 40% of my $10 for 35% of your $100.

[Fyreant]

Contrary to popular belief, the 1st amendment does not say anything about separation of church and state.

Marriage is a religious institution.

Most of the things you said are pretty debatable, but not really worth the trouble of debating with someone speaking with such bias and eagerness to just pretend any argument you make is solid. But I figured these two were worth responding, since there is really no debate.

Contrary to what you think is an awesome revelation, the words "separation of church and state" not existing in the 1st amendment does not change the sentiment. Anyone who says the constitution says those words specifically, aren't lying or spinning to suit an agenda. They simply do not realize that the words exist as a reference. Thomas Jefferson said, "...thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" in his famous letter to Danbury Baptist, in reference to the language which IS in the 1st amendment "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is where the "separation" phrase come from and why it's used in reference.

To the other point, one good way to figure out if what you're saying is solid or just unfounded bias is simply to apply your logic in all scenarios. First, let's suppose religion actually is a required constant in all marriages. Then you must consider what that has to do with denying homosexual marriage. "Oh, well the Bible doesn't like the gay." Ok, well, do laws prohibit adulterers from remarrying? Do they prevent divorce despite a commitment til death? Must you be a virgin to marry? If your brother dies with no children, must you take his widow and give her children so that his line may carry on? If you don't, will you be laughed at for having one shoe? Oh the Bible is a funny little book.

Fact is, marriage has nothing to do with religion except by the choosing of the participants. A straight male can get married in a courthouse, no inclusion of religious parties, or religious text. That man can then cheat on his wife, kill his wife to be with his mistress, go to jail for his crime, and get remarried while sitting on death row. There is no religion or sanctity required. There's not really any avenue of this religion vs. gay marriage debate that holds any water when you apply it equally to all scenarios of marriage.

[Hasbinlulz]

WHAT THE FUCK IS ALL THIS LOGIC SHITTING UP A PERFECTLY GOOD TROLL THREAD?

[Brain]

(Only read 1st page)

Great post Black - glad there is at least one intelligent person here.

[Reiker000]

(Only read 1st page)

Great post Black - glad there is at least one intelligent person here.

lol