.jpg)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hit 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights. Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002 . . . . "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.
Edit: A commenter has made a brilliant point. The entire opinion is based upon the sign advocating illegal drug use. So what if the sign said "Prescription Bong Hits 4 Jesus" or "Medicinal Marijuana 4 Jesus"?
46 comments:
Yes, thats right, let's just wipe our ass with the bill of rights. That's all it's good for anymore.
It would have been ok if the banner had said, "Prescription Bong Hits 4 Jesus".
"Brains for Republicans"
But liberal weenies want to shut down talk radio. I guess since Hair America failed because nobody wants to hear "conspiracy" hogwash, they can't compete with freedom of speech and therefore want to squelch it. Bring back the days of Walter Cronkite. Why is it that they don't want to shut down Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and the ilk?
In other news, to restore freedom of speech, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final months before the election.
It is mind boggling that a person in the United States can have less freedom of speech just because they are a public school student. Keep in mind, the students were NOT on school property and had the day off from school to attend a function NOT affiliated with the school.
It would be the same as a Dallas Independent School District student going to the State Fair on the DISD State Fair Day and getting into trouble for wearing a tee shirt with the slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
Incidentally, I feel certain the students were NOT offering "bong hits" to Baby Jesus so exactly WHY would Chief Justice John Roberts write; "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,". Since when does a high school principal have the right to determine someone else's Constitutional rights especially when they are NOT at school?
This ruling is WRONG on sooo many levels. It TRULY amazes me that people are NOT outraged. How many principals are THRILLED to now be responsible for the care and behaviour of their students OUTSIDE of school and when they are OFF school property?
My personal feelings on the banner; is that the students were being ANNOYING goofballs just playing a prank. Face it, they were NOT really offering "Bong Hits" to ANYONE. That fact not withstanding, I think EVERY teenager should have their mouth taped shut UNTIL they can prove in writing that they have something valid to say. But heck, I also think that EVERY male who father's a child and FAILS to properly parent that child by providing appropriate financial, emotional and psychological support to that child should be REQUIRED by law to have their nads nipped...PERHAPS a wee bit draconian and a good thing I am NOT in charge of making the rules. That being the case I think the bloody LEAST people/judges can do is adhere to the EXISTING laws and follow the United States Constitution when creating and enforcing CURRENT laws.
"Hair for Barry"
The kids were out of school and not on school property. It's difficult for me to understand the Supreme Court majority's thinking on this silly free speech issue.
1) As noted by the court's opinion, students' rights are restricted all the time. This was a decision based on how much authority the school has to do so. The Bill of Rights is in no greater danger than it ever was because of this case.
2) The student by his own admission created the banner specifically to provoke a response from the principal, who had disciplined him earlier. The student's "core beliefs" were not at stake here.
3) As noted in the story, the students were released from school specifically to attend this event, and were accompanied by teachers, therefore a "school event."
4) This is a case where "politically correct" speech worked against Liberals -- thus the outrage in this forum. (Note the energetic exercising of the right to call Republicans morons, nazis, fascists, etc. The First Amendment lives on.)
Comment to Barry's edit...
How does ANYONE know for CERTAIN it was not BEER "Bong Hits" that were being offered on the banner?
Honestly, that is what I thought the sign was offering.
Or what if marijuana was legal, like it should be. Or what if it said, Jell-O shots for Jesus?
Come on guys, this has nothing to do with free speech. This has to do with a punk kid who only wanted to stir up trouble. Besides, what was this kid trying to say if he wasn't advocating drug use?
Many of you seem to forget that he was a student at the school and that he was attending a school-sanctioned event.
Oh wordkyle, your interpretation that this was a "school event" just because teachers went along is so convenient. It's just another of your pot/kettle finger pointing.
Assume that the facts were that the same event was held, but the teachers initated a prayer. So, under your reasoning, you'd be OK with considering it a "school event", and making the prayer clearly illegal because it was school/state sponsored.
By the way, which church offers Bong Hits 4 Jesus? I think I'd like to attend. But only if it's approved by Satan. I mean, only if Satan hates it.
Wait.
I am so confused.
"rob banks for jesus", or how about "swim the river for jesus"
Read this from Tinker v. Des Moines School District. This was the 1969 case about students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War & the principal suspended them. This decidely more liberal Supreme Court (than the current one) felt they were the guardians of free speech. ..... That Supreme Court said: (It's long but it's worth your time to read it.)
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."
"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society"
It makes me sad to read that & see how far away from this our current Supreme Court is now. This current Court does not seem to see the Bill of Rights as the individual's constitutional protection from government abuse of power. C'mon, do we really need the gov't, in the form of the school & principal, to tell that kid, in America, he has no right to hold up a banner at a parade that says something as silly as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"? Is it good for any of us that that kid LEGALLY has no right to put up that silly banner? Where was the harm? What's up next? Thought police? This isn't China or the former Soviet Union.
Wordkyle, you left out in your number 3 comment that the student that made the sign & held it up was NOT in school at all that day & was not accompanied by teachers, & therefore was not at a school event.
Your #2 is certainly correct. The student was testing his First Amendment rights & yes, he found out he had no rights according to this Supreme Court.
Your # 1 is wrong, in my opinion. This Supreme Court continues to chip away at our Bill of Rights & this one is a big chip.
I don't even understand your point in # 4.
What if the banner said "Bong hits for Satan" ? Would that have made a difference? Maybe that church can do that one on their next billboard.....
Seriously, this is a a frightening ruling by the highest court in the land, at least for those of us who do feel that our individual civil liberties are essential to a democracy.
I can only hope that Dubya doesn't get to appoint another Supreme Court justice.
When will this presidency ever be over? Will the next President be able to undo some of the damage this president has done to the United States place in the world? Will the next President be able to undo the damage Dubya has done to every citizen's civil liberties?
Welcome to the real world, kids--surprise!! there are consequences for your actions.
Another reason I homeschool.
11:12 "Bring back the days of Walter Cronkite."
Walter Cronkite has spoken out vehemently against the "Secrets and Lies" of the current Republicans. Are you sure you want to bring him back? I mean, I'm all for it but...
Who is trying to shut down talk radio? That is a myth fabricated by a fat, balk man who went to Taiwan armed with Viagra so he could have sex with children.
txsharon,
Would it make you feel better if you knew that most high school history, government, & journalism teachers that I know (including me) are big fans of the First Amendment? Just thought I'd let you know that, should you tire of homeschooling.
Sheehan, I was only pointing out that the liberal weenies like yourself want Walter back when there was only one voice. Now that there are many news outlets, it chaps libs that the other side of the debate can be considered and not just shoved down our throats by the voice of God Cronkite. A fat balk man? Please don't school your children at home if you can't spell. The "myth" that you refer to is called the Fairness Doctrine that is being pushed by liberals to silence talk radio. Why is it only being pushed to silence talk radio and not cable TV programs like Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman?
TxSheehan, Why was Cronkite silent during the Clinton Corruption administration? Was it maybe because he too is a liberal weenie and did not dare speak out against his hero?
Anon 1:38 and Anon 2:28 -- From the article: "Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers."
So not my "interpretation," but the argument of the school in front of the Supreme Court.
Also in the story: "Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use."
So the student could have avoided the suspension by obeying the teacher. He made a choice for which there were consequences. No wonder the Liberal panties are in a wad.
It's still a fact, Wordkyle, that the student did not attend school that day at all. It is true that students were let out to go to the parade, so they called it a "school sanctioned event," but the student who made the sign came to the parade from home, not from school. Get all the facts.
And yes, he could have taken the sign down, & yes he was testing the waters, & the courts eventually. I can't believe that even you are happy with this result.
Wordkyle,
Why do you seem to think that liberals don't believe in consequences? We do. The kid, who may or may not be liberal, knew there would be consequences & he made his choice. The consequence I am very concerned with now is the consequence of this Supreme Court ruling...... and the consequences of George Bush appointing 2 justices to a court that wasn't exactly liberal to begin with. It was more middle of the road before. Now with Scalia, Thomas & Bush's 2 appointments (Robers & Alito), we are into some scary territory, and we are probably going to be there for decades.
7:16, The scary Supreme Court ruled in favor of the anti abortion group today that allows for airing ads during the final months of an election. Don't you love it when free speech is restored?
The Supreme Court is taking a decidedly rightward swing. The recent appointees are demonstrating much more ideology than judicial thought. Unfortunate. We are also dealing with a populous that gets too much of its information from the babbling lips of right wing radio. Case in point: recent Newsweek poll shows that over 40% of respondents still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The small fact that no Iraqi was involved, and that no Iraqi has taken part in any terrorist attack on the USA has no meaning to these folks. (If the poll was of the Supreme Court the results would probably be the same!).
7:41 - The political ads you speak of and the Supreme Court ruling was much more complicated than your post. If you don't believe me, you might note that the Bush Administration, the NRA, as well as (gasp!) the ACLU were against the Supreme Court's ruling today. The real issue in that case was campaign finance reform, which the SCARY Supreme Court cut down. Scary as hell.
9:20, You might want to reread your Moveon.org manifest. The ACLU, NRA and other groups agreed with the decision the court passed down. I know liberal weenies hate facts.
Anon 7:43 -- The Supreme Court has ALWAYS expressed the ideology of its members. The current anti-religion stance of the courts started in 1947 with Everson v Board of Education. The decision disregarded 150 years of Supreme Court precedents. The decision was completely ideological.
Also, the Newsweek poll and talk radio have nothing to do with one another. Why not blame network news, the New York Times or the school system for American ignorance?
Anon 7:16 – Liberals hate consequences (unless it’s a Republican who does wrong.) Somebody gets busted (consequence) for smoking pot? Obviously a fascist arrest, although marijuana is illegal. A woman fools around and gets pregnant (consequence) and wants an abortion because a child would be inconvenient. Air America/Liberal talk radio fails (consequence), so Liberals want legislation to force it into the market.
Modern Liberals preach moral relativism, so they never have to worry about right or wrong. (“Right” or “wrong” implies judgment, and consequences.) It’s why Conservatives are held to a much higher standard than Liberals – when a Liberal commits a criminal or immoral act, nobody’s surprised.
Man, wordkyle, you are unbelievable in that you think you are an expert in what liberals think, do, and feel. I am a liberal & nothing you say liberals think or do is correct for me. How arrogant can you be when you take it on yourself to explain what liberals think???? I wouldn't even do that & I am a liberal. I can only speak for myself, but you surely CANNOT speak for me!!!
And please, being in favor of the separation of church & state is NOT being anti-religious, or anti-Christian. It IS believing that an individual's religion is none of the government's business. It IS believing that everyone has the right to make his/her own decision about what religion, if any, they belong to. It IS beneficial to both individuals and religions; religions hugely benefit by not having to pay taxes to the government, & in turn the government does not use taxpayer money to indoctrinate anyone into a particular religion, at school or elsewhere. It's the individual's choice. People that say liberals have taken God out of school - puh-lease - Do you really think it is possible that God could be kept out? Yes, the state, in the form of teachers, is suppose to NEITHER PROMOTE nor INHIBIT religion. The state is to be neutral so that families can indoctrinate their children into the beliefs they themselves choose, not that the state chooses. Students can still pray at school; students can pray at the flag pole; students can go to Fellowship of Christian Athletes meetings at school, during school hours. So God is where ever you want to take him. Check out Saudia Arabia if you think the marriage of state & church is so wonderful.
Quote wordkyle - "It’s why Conservatives are held to a much higher standard than Liberals"
I laughed out loud. You have got to be kidding me! That is some self-righteous BS.
If I remember correctly, Clinton got impeached for having extra marital sex & lying about it. C'mon if you are going to run around on your wife, you are certainly going to lie about it. In my mind being unfaithful to his wife was much worse than lying about it. But that's just me. ANyway, who cares? I wouldn't want to be married to Bill Clinton, but I long for the days when we had an extremely intelligent president who had the world's respect, if not the neo-con's respect.
George Bush, on the hand, led this nation into war on false pretenses, continues to lie about it when he does answer questions, resulting in thousands of dead Americans (not to mention the 100,000's of dead Iraqis because I am being ethno-centric here) and an Iraq that is MUCH more dangerous & threatening to the US now than it was under Saddam Hussein. (I'm not even going to get into his trampling of the Bill of Rights.)
How did Clinton pay? He is one of only 2 US presidents to ever be impeached.
Who did Clinton hurt? His wife and daughter.
How did Bush pay? He hasn't.
Who did Bush hurt? Too many to count & for decades to come
Now tell me again - Conservative are held to a much higher standard than Liberals??????
According to the latest AP poll, 1000 women were asked if they would have sex with Bill Clinton. 1% said no, 2% said yes, and 97% said never again.
Anon 1:17 -- Okay, let's see..
1) What Liberals "think, see and do" is apparent by their very public support for the issues I mentioned above. If you don't know what Liberal causes are popular, then you should pay more attention.
2) The Constituiton does not provide for a "separation of church and state." Your statement that "the state is to neither promote nor inhibit religion" is a modern concept. Until 1947 (see previous post) the government heartily endorsed religion in government buildings and in schools. I never claimed that there should be a "marriage" of church and state; I simply believe that the courts -- in the form of Liberal judges -- have become hostile to religion, especially Christianity.
3) You remember incorrectly. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury, not just for lying. IF he had stuck simply to his most infamous statement -- "I did not have sex with that woman" -- he might not have been impeached.
Remember the gaggle of Democrats who gathered around Clinton to show their support after he was impeached? That's moral relativism in action. The excuses of "everybody does it" and "who cares?" are still used by every Liberal who defends Clinton's immoral actions. (BTW, in addition to his wife and daughter, Clinton might have done some harm to Paula Jones, and the reputation of the office of the President, by lying.)
1) Again, wordkyle, since you are not a liberal, you cannot explain how liberals think. In fact, you can't even explain how one liberal thinks. You don't possess that power or knowledge, but you obviously think you do. Not to mention, that like the word conservative, liberalism has a whole spectrum of beliefs & liberals don't line up exactly at the same point on the spectrum for every issue. Obviously, liberals disagree among themselves on various issues, as do conservative. Once again, YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR HOW SOMEONE THINKS & WHY THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY DO & IF IT IS A RIGHT OR WRONG BELIEF, EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF. You are certainly not God, & you are certainly not a mind reader.
2. What? Are you kidding me? I know the term separation of church & state isn't in the constitution but that phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson during that time period in reference to the First Amendment. (Yes, I also know he wasn't at the constitutional convention) But the establishment clause is in the constitution and that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. They didn't make rulings about it until the public school system became so widespread & such an arm of the gov't. Before then, there was no need to interpret it.
3. When I said Clinton was impeached for lying, I of course meant lying to the Grand Jury. I didn't remember incorrectly, I just thought you would know that we all know you can't impeach people for lying in their homes & offices.
Bush obviously knows this since he has conditions for his office being questioned by Congressional oversight committees. He says there can be no written record of what they answer, & they can't take an oath that they swear to the truthfulness of their answers, & their answers can't be made public. Well that would be some useless answers.
Surely, you are not a Bushie on every issue. Are you going to tell me that you agree with Cheney that the VP is not in the EXECUTIVE branch so that he doesn't have to follow EXECUTIVE orders (made by his boss)?..... Weird because Cheney has been quick to hide behind EXECUTIVE privilege for years. I love it that archivists are the ones to call him on his absurdity.
Oh well, we can thank him for giving comedians unbelievable material that makes us laugh.
Are you in there with Cheney on that? After all, you're both conservatives; surely you think the same way about every issue...
To 1:17 & 3:55...
You make SEVERAL excellent points. However, it is a WASTE of YOUR time to direct them at wordkyle with any expectation that he will even CONSIDER the veracity of your comments. Wordkyle is so self deluded that he TRULY believes his side is ALL GOOD and the other side is ALL BAD. Wordkyle is the type of Republican for whom NONrepublicans are grateful and he is one of the BEST things to happen to the Democrats.
If Wordkyle can't take it upon himself to explain what liberals think, why are you so arrogant to say that he thinks like all conservatives?
Uh, 5:16, it's called irony. I was using wordkyle's own logic to show my point - - all liberals don't think like all other liberals, just like all conservatives don't think like all other conservatives.
Stand up; it's all going over your head....
And mzchief, I agree with you, but I needed to be reminded of just what you said. Thanks. And we'll just hope wordkyle keeps on keeping on. And if he doesn't we'll goad him a bit.... or we will invite him to a slumber party.
To quote you Wordkyle - "BTW, in addition to his wife and daughter, Clinton might have done some harm to Paula Jones, and the reputation of the office of the President, by lying."
OK, let's compare the harm Clinton did to the office of the President by lying about his extramarital strayings to the harm Bush did to the office of the President by lying about why we needed to pre-emptively invade Iraq.
There is no comparison in the amount of damage.
And BTW, if statistics are correct, there are many people that have extra-marital affairs. It doesn't make it right, but it does mean that we would lose a lot of top-notch CEO's, CFO's, chairmen of the board types, inventors,.... well let's be honest, it happens to people in all walks of life..... if we let the conservatives get their way and oust people from their jobs because of their mistakes in their personal lives.
Oh yeah, & remember Newt Gingrich, who lead the attack on Clinton? We later find out that he was having an affair at that very same time. HOw can you hold people to a standard you don't hold yourself to?
Anon 3:55 -- The vocal and active Liberal support for the positions mentioned earlier express what they believe. What they do expresses who they are.
Supreme Courts up until 1947 embraced the concept of God and religion:
"the Christian religion is a part of the common law" - Justice Joseph Story (majority opinion), Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844)
Justce Brewer noted in Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) “…this is a Christian nation"
In the case of United States v. Macintosh (1931) the court said, "We are a Christian people..."
Hugo Black's decision in 1947 was the beginning of the court's hostility toward religion -- 145 years of Supreme Courts had disregarded Jefferson's letter. The modern American court's devaluation of religion, particularly Christianity, stems from that decision.
Religion's last gasp in the Supreme Court:
"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses.
"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.
"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.
"We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (majority opinion) Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
To let people choose their religion, to let people indoctrinate their children in what beliefs they want, instead of having the gov't indoctrinate the majority religion in ALL people, using tax money that religions do not pay, IS NOT BEING HOSTILE TO RELIGION. It's leaving those very personal beliefs up to the person, and having the gov't stay out of it!! Isn't that what conservatives prefer - to keep gov't out of their business? And what could be more personal that someone's spiritual beliefs?
AHEM!
Regarding the Bill Clinton CRAP!...I PERSONALLY do NOT care how or why he was sexing up Monica Lewinski or ANY other consenting adult because it is NONE of MY business what ANYONE other than what MY partner and I do sexually...and YES "head" IS sex. Ask yourself these questions; Would YOU consider your wife/girlfriend giving head to ANOTHER bloke, her cheating sexually or would YOU consider your husband/boyfriend receiving head from some other chick, him cheating sexually? Clearly, Hillary Clinton thought Bill being blown by Monica was sex and his cheating.
Bill Clinton was NOT the FIRST nor the LAST politician to tell the United States public a bald face LIE. Everyone knows politicians lie to the public.
However, Bill Clinton did indeed LIE under oath and AFTER having been informed by Judge Susan Webber Wright, the Arkansas judge in Jones v. Clinton that he MUST answer questions regarding his sexual conduct. Clinton lying that he had NOT had sex with ANY employee including Monica Lewinski made it impossible for the Jones attorney to show Clinton's inclination to INAPPROPRIATE behaviour with female subordinate employees prompting Judge Wright to dismiss the case and writing "There are no genuine issues for trial in this case,". Incidentally, In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Paula Jones $850,000.
So YES, Bill Clinton did lie under oath and DID commit perjury because his lie was indeed germane to the case and by lying Clinton did in fact ALTER the proceedings in Jones v. Clinton.
Should President Clinton have been impeached, YOU BET YOUR ARSE he should have been impeached. If the President of the United States is permitted to lie under oath then WHO should have to tell the truth?
When someone climbs high enough up the ladder and has ENOURMOUS responsibility and VAST privilege the consequences for misdeeds are indeed FAR greater than those endured by someone on the lower rungs.
Much is expected of those to whom much has been given.
Jones v. Clinton documents at the Washington Post.
Jones v. Clinton lite at Wikipedia.
As for wordkyle citing Supreme Court decisions endorsing a national religion/Christianity there is NO doubt he is STILL pissed about Brown v. Board of Education and women getting the vote.
It seems this is wordkyle against the world... or at least the blog...
I am conservative and agree with what wordkyle is saying (since he backs up his thoughts with facts that CANNOT be ignored by a reasonable-thinking person), it seems he always draws the ire of the bloggers on this site. I guess that is to be expected since this is "Liberally Lean", so he is on the opponent's home court.
But there's one thing I notice in this repartee: it always resorts to name-calling and personal attacks. I applaud a civil discussion of two opposing sides, but there's always a lot of venom spewed at wordkyle for his thoughts. To me, that makes the liberal stance seem petty, since they always have to attack the blogger personally.
Just my thoughts...
Homeschooling is for hillbillies.
Whether what he said was right or wrong, he has the right to do it. Now that he was found wrong for doing it, we are just on our way down to becoming a society that doesn't truly let free speech reign. Free speech doesn't always mean good speech. If the KKK can have a public rally, then this kid should be able to advocate Jesus and his love of bong hits.
It APPEARS as though wordkyle has taken to commenting anonymously.
Please notice how the anonymous comment at 9:32 ignores the FACT that wordkyle is TYPICALLY the first person to toss about derogatory statements about the authors of other comments. In standard wordkyle fashion 9:32 ignores the FACT that wordkyle feels comfortable claiming to KNOW the hearts and minds of liberals because wordklye has observed the actions and comments of liberals. When I point out that wordklye is without doubt a misogynistic bigot because of the Supreme Court decisions he cited, 9:32 declares wordkyle is is being victimized by mean people.
Am I alone in noticing that ALL of the Supreme Court decisions cited by wordkyle were PRE civil rights, two were PRIOR to women being nationally permitted to vote and one was PRIOR to blacks being freed from slavery? A REASONIBLE person can conclude that given wordkyle's belief that PRE civil rights was TRULY the golden age of enlightenment that he MUST believe that ANYTHING that grants individual rights to blacks and women is BAD.
Hey! If wordkyle can CLAIM he KNOWS the hearts and minds of ALL liberals based upon what he has read about liberals why should I not be permitted to declare FULL knowledge of the heart and mind of wordkyle based upon the things HE writes?
No doubt the following quotes are among the main reason wordkyle such a MASSIVE supporter of ALL things Bush.
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
~George H. W. Bush 27, Aug. 1987
"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
~Gov. George W. Bush 24, June 1999 in response to the Wiccan soldiers at a military base in Texas being given the right to meet together on base.
9:32 - I looked through here & can't find any evidence of "name-calling" except mzchief did say wordkyle was "self-deluded." I did see several instances of "liberal weenies". Do those cancel each other out?
Other than that, I just see people posting things & talking directly to wordkyle or quoting him so that they can address what he said. This seems to me to be a pretty good back and forth discussion.
And you said wordkyle backs up his thoughts with facts? Do you not see any facts that the other side used to back up their thoughts?
Like you said, you're a conservative & so you must like his thoughts better than the other side. It doesn't mean the other side isn't using facts, because there are plenty here. We are all picking and choosing which facts to use.
I'm not sure, obviously, but I am thinking wordkyle does consider this a lively discussion. I would be surprised if he felt like he was personally attacked, it seems that just his opinions are being attacked. Some of the banter sounds like good-natured teasing, not hateful attacks.
What attitude we bring to the discussion usually colors how we interpret what we read.
Just my thoughts, too.
To 11:24...
Ooooppppsss! My bad!
I called wordkyle a "misogynistic bigot" IMMEDIATELY prior to your EXCEPTIONALLY well thought out and composed comment. I pointed out the perception of wordkyle being a "misogynistic bigot" MORE to prove a point than ANY other purpose.
*;)
I don't post anonymously.
MZC: The Supreme Court quotes I made were to show that historically the SCOTUS was friendly to religion. The recent animosity is since 1947. Consequently, it follows that the quotes would be old.
Your so-called perception of my stance regarding civil rights and women does not reflect reality.
I figure people resort to ad hominem attacks in this venue when they can't win the debate.
Post a Comment