Comments on: From Burlington Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:19:20 +0000 Wouldn’t know, not on them.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:21:08 +0000 How’s Comcast by the way? I’m moving soon and will have to switch to them…

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:03:56 +0000 hahaha whoa, I was referring to someone else when I was talking about the liberal media. Last night at a bar I was discussing that topic with someone else. Don’t get all pressed. I’m not that concerned with ya! And…

“Was just making a comment; your wife apparently has bad taste, or a really thick skin, if she can put up with you.”

Sounds like an insult to me. More of the same from you. And yawn indeed–you’re making me sleepy. Let’s go back to talking about Dean!

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:51:53 +0000 No, I am fully aware of it. Just didn’t seem relevant.

Was just making a comment; your wife apparently has bad taste, or a really thick skin, if she can put up with you.

You didn’t need to make personal attacks upon me. You didn’t need to accuse me of slander when you new damned well my comparison between the ACLU’s goals, and Jim Crow laws, is a perfectly apt comparison.

You certainly didn’t need to go on your little “Yawn” kick. But you have nothing logical to provide it seems. Instead you have to attack me, or try to, rather than find something logical to say.

Further, I never once said the words “liberal media”, nor did you challenge me to point out liberal things said on major networks, as you claim on your journal.

Nor did I go through anything regarding Clinton, except to point out to others (not you) on this blog that, IF Bush is lying about Iraq’s having sought uranium and broken the cease-fire (UN Resolution 687 for those who look things up), and IF the policy of Regime Change in Iraq is a bad policy, then Clinton is just as guilty as Bush, because he said everything Bush has now said, back in 1998, and it is Clinton, not Bush, who created the national policy of Regime Change.

Now, as far as the rest goes… you can come up with some actual logical arguments, or not. It’s really up to you at this point. If you can’t handle a little logic, or the truth, then fess up to that.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:23:45 +0000 Me: Did you see I even mentioned our argument in my journal too…or were you too busy searching for something to shock me with!

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:09:48 +0000 HA. Nice, I’m hearing some sticks and stones…perhaps next to start threatening my wife or insulting her further…double yawn. Internet anonymity for “tough” guys. Glad to see that my posts infuriated you with such gusto that you had to find out a little more about me. But if you were going for shock value you fell short. I wouldn’t have put up my site if I had something to hide. Now what do YOU have to hide. :)

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:56:54 +0000 Robin has REALLY bad taste I see.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:49:22 +0000 yawn.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:42:40 +0000 No, J-Sin. I don’t watch FoxNews. And the continual “yawn” thing is really pathetic.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:20:27 +0000 Yawn. Isn’t there a FoxNews report for you to follow up on?

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:18:15 +0000 Any death that appears to have been a murder deserves investigation.

Making an innuendo, or a veiled accusation, that the death had anything to do with Britain’s politics goes a bit far right now. I’m sure the British police aren’t so inept as to fail to investigate that possibility, and it is THEIR place, not yours, to be bringing that up if and when it is substantiated by something other than your hatred of Bush and Blair.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:04:29 +0000 yawn…there were no accusations…perhaps an innuendo but no accusations. I just think it’s fishy and should raise some eyebrows at the very least.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:31:12 +0000 What’s there to be tolerated? We don’t even know what has happened yet; there is suspicion the body is his, but it hasn’t been confirmed. No coroner has run an autopsy to determine cause of death yet. We have no facts on how the person died, when he died, if it’s the person in question, who killed him, if it was connected to anything, if he might simply have been a mugging victim…

Now if it turns out he was assassinated, that’s something else altogether. But sensationalism in the matter is not going to help anything. And accusing Blair, or anyone in government, of doing so before we even have a cause of death or any facts, or even a confirmation of identity of the body, is RIDICULOUS.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:08:49 +0000 Is this going to be tolerated? Interesting that this happened while Blair was in the United States. Very sad and I feel for his family.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:53:11 +0000 Gotta agree with you there as well, Phlinn — stripping their citizenship after trial is one thing. If they’re worthy to be held as enemy combatants, however, they ought to be on trial for treason first.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:43:50 +0000 Yawn…nice threats.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:33:50 +0000 J-Sin,

You’ve already stooped to nasty insults. Calling my reasoned arguments “mudding out”, accusing me of slander for properly and logically comparing the ACLU’s position to Jim Crow laws, claiming I have no interest in a real debate.

I am the one who has been putting forth cogent points and inviting you to logically analyze and debate them. Instead, you demean them, throwing around insults. Calling my points “slanderous dribble” is nonsense.

Running away from an honest debate only proves you have no point. Ad hominem attacks, including the one claiming that I am a coward for posting anonymously, when you are the one running away and claiming I am not worthwhile to debate with rather than putting forth honest points of your own, are a disservice to everyone reading this.

Carlton ran away because I debunked his argumenst. Leave now and you concede as well.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:27:53 +0000 I have to agree with you Phlinn on the government removing citizenship without a trial. It defies all of which we’re supposedly fighting to protect. Ashcroft time after time has made a mockery of the Justice Department.

By: Phlinn Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:20:07 +0000 Regarding the above discussion about the Geneva convention(s) (There is more than one, and we haven’t agreed to some of them, but the POW treatment is one we have signed and which I will discuss) AFAIK do NOT protect any al-quaida or taliban inmates of Gitmo for 3 reasons. See for the exact text.

1. The geneva convention only applies to engagements between goverments who are both signatories, or between a signatory and someone who also respects the provisions. Afghanistan has never been a signatory. This is a minor issue, because the US usually treats regular POWs pretty well anyways to make surrender more appealing.

2. The convention also does not protect anyone who themselves violate the convention, even if they are a signatory. This is a stronger issue for why we aren’t too concerned with the strict rules of the convention.

3. It specifically designates as legal combatants people who wear uniforms, OPENLY carry arms, or otherwise identify themselves as soldiers, and does not provide ANY protections for other combatents. I assume this is intended to allow the execution of spies, but would certainly apply to members of a terrorist organization as well given the way they operate.

OTOH, I really despise any attempt to declare two of our own citizens to be an enemy combatant and thus remove their rights. Even if they have compelling evidence that they were terrorists, I refuse to grant the government the right to remove citizenship without a trial since it makes all the rights granted to citizens pointless.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:15:03 +0000 Me: See there you go again. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. Does it really make you feel that much better? I’m glad that you took the time to know me before you made such a nice comment like “this nation is the worse for your presence”. But don’t think you’re going to make me stoop to nasty insults. You’re acting extraordinarily immature and it demeans your argument rather than solidifying it. If you had any kind of gumbo you wouldn’t post anonymously while flinging these half-witted insults. I invited you to an email debate and you declined, which is fine, but as I said I consider this matter settled. Please move on and insult someone else, I have better things to do.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:04:52 +0000 J-Sin,

It has nothing to do with being slanderous. Slander is the willful printing of untruth so as to harm someone.

I state a fact. Jim Crow laws were discrimination, designed to deny people equal access to facilities on the basis of their race.

What the ACLU wishes to do is deny people equal access to facilities on the basis of religion. That is wrong and reprehensible and bears a stark resemblance to Jim Crow laws.

The “exercises” in question failed to address what is the key point; in no instance when people were presenting religion, did anyone request simply to present theirs side-by-side. Instead, they attacked presentation.

Intolerance is never the key, J-Sin. If you cannot see that, then this nation is the worse for your presence.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:48:35 +0000 Whoa…please don’t say that. There is no similarity to what I’m saying and Jim Crow laws. You’ve obviously no interest in real debate and would rather fling insults than actual rational thought. It’s absolutely ridiculous to say what you’re saying. By having a prinicipal or anyone lead a prayer in public school that is establishing a religion. Period. It’s not a matter of equal access but of teaching and promotion of religion, which is precisely what would have occurred. The Supreme Court has ruled on similar matters. Perhaps you should undertake some of these exercises so you have a better understanding of what you’re mudding out. Sorry but you’re wrong. I consider this matter settled. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Running around in circles isn’t helping anything but your venting of anger and I don’t care to participate in your slanderous dribble anymore. Thanks for helping me pass some time at work though! :)

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:30:51 +0000 Religion, as far as the Government should be concerned, IS just speech. That is what you are missing.

Subscribing to a religious ideology is no different from subscribing to a political ideology. Self-righteous people may think differently; so be it. They’re allowed to think differently, it’s one of the things that makes this nation strong.

“But on your argument on the Constitution it also expresses that religion and state should not be mixed.”
Read the section again.
It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Even with the 14th amendment applying constitutional constraints to the states, this STILL does not mandate that no religious word shall ever be heard in government. It mandates that the laws of the land shall not put any religion forth above any other.

“In your world, you�d have prinicipals opening their schools with a prayer!”
On one day, perhaps. On another day, if a local minister, or Imam, or Priest, wanted to come in and give an invocation or benediction, they would be free to ask to do so, and had darned well better be given permission, or at least added to the scheduled rotation if someone had already asked for their favored day. Or if an Atheist parent wanted to come in, and did not believe in God, but wanted to state as much and nonetheless wish the children a happy and productive day, SO BE IT.

EQUAL access is the key, J-Sin. The inclusion of all, rather than “check your religion at the door.”

“What’s stopping a religious organization or any organization for that matter in meeting at a non-federally funded or state-funded building? Nothing.”

So what? What is the difference between allowing 4H to use a federally or state-funded building, and allowing a bible study group, or a Koran study group, or a group meeting for group meditation Buddhist-style? ONLY THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

That’s discrimination. The use of non-publicly-owned buildings is not the issue. Equal access, for all citizens, to publicly owned buildings, IS the issue.

Your argument that “oh but they can go somewhere else so what does it matter” is akin to the Jim Crow laws of the old South; Blacks couldn’t use the good facilities, because there were separate facilities for black use only, which of course weren’t as well maintained or well furnished or well constructed. And we threw that load of bullcrap out a LONG time ago.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:38:45 +0000 Me: That’s lame! The only reason I said e-mail is because I don’t want to keep hitting refresh and checking up on this blog throughout the day. I have no interest in stopping this argument because it’s interesting to me but I also have no interest in sparring with you since you obviously are just after “winning”, whatever that means.

But on your argument on the Constitution it also expresses that religion and state should not be mixed. What’s stopping a religious organization or any organization for that matter in meeting at a non-federally funded or state-funded building? Nothing. See that’s where you’re confused, you’re confusing religion as if it’s just speech and that’s all. I think that would offend most religious people. And that’s precisely where your argument falls flatly on its face. I don’t know why you’re making this so hard on yourself. Religion doesn’t belong in our government. Despite what you may think Religion is all about exclusion when it comes to other religions. That’s why it has no place in government among many other reasons. In your world, you’d have prinicipals opening their schools with a prayer! That would exclude all the children that are of a different religion or of none at all wouldn’t it? Is this really that difficult for you to digest?

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:23:43 +0000 By the by, J-Sin, your bit about “take this to email” is only marginally less cowardly than Carlton’s flat-out running away from an argument he was losing.

I continue to post here in hopes that others will stand up and join in the discussion. Nobody was ever served by not being able to be a part of rational debate.