More bodies means more citations means more revenue.
It's simple math.

1+ fuck you citizen = do what we say or I'll shoot you.

(October 3, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Drich Wrote: ahh, no.

to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

How is restricting the formal declaration of God and country not an impediment of the free exercise of religion?

Are you not petitioning congress to restrict how the practice of Christianity goes down, by mandating the removal of God in the pledge?

Far be it for me to tell a US citizen what his constitution is about, except, and this is a big one here, you haven't the first fucking clue about what the constitution is about.

The establishment clause has been settled as having two very important components, first that the US government will not establish a religion for the nation, and therefore will not privilege any individual religion over another. This means the state will not fund religion, will not pass laws on religious lines, will not impose religious tests on public representatives or employees nor demand that anybody in the US follow a particular religious line. And, because it is a constitutional imperative, each and every state legally has to follow the same line, any state doing otherwise is committing treason just as if they tried to secede (so a state that allows a mural of the ten commandments on its courthouses is acting with treasonable intent under the law).
The second component is that the state has no right to interfere in any individual's religious beliefs or lack thereof. And knowing you and your Talibanist tendencies that must grate at you every single day of your life, that there is no way for you to force others to bend their knees to your particular perception of god, his rules and your prejudices. And part of that is a declaration that the US is "one nation under god (meaning the christian conception of yhwh) is actually illegal under the US constitution, despite what you may think, and your fellow christian taliban fundies in the Republitard party may solemnly swear is possible.

(October 3, 2016 at 3:15 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I guess the real question is, what does Drich mean by 'formal declaration'?

Anyone can declare they're a member of any religion or not (although, being an avowed Muslim or atheist is political suicide).  That was Ben Carson's and Ted Cruz's political strategy - cozy up to evangelicals.

What can't happen is any formal - as in governmental - declaration of allegiance to any particular god, even something as broad as the Judeo-Christian god.  This is a secular nation.  Always has been.

I'd go farther than saying the US is a secular nation (I know devout catholic nuns who have no problem professing their faith and being fully secular at the same time, and I see no contradiction there). I would state that the US is constitutionally obliged to take an agnostic position vis a vis any deity that one could possibly imagine, in that it neither supports nor denies the possibility of any deity's existence.

The exact phrase.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

(September 29, 2016 at 4:41 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Believe it or not, you're actually the one who's playing the race card, by continually implying that my only interest in this matter imply in regards to race. I've made it clear, that I believe that such abuse of authority should be of concern to any normal citizen. You're the one that created the thread, in an apparent attempt to debunk/challenge the "notions" that police misconduct even exists, or that blacks can actually be innocent. I'm only contributing to discussion within the framework you provided. 

Then define abuse... As our discussion has gone the only thing you seem to be willing to discuss indepth is my view on race. therefore is it not logical to conclude this is a discussion on race? Yet now, it is somehow about abuse.. So define abuse in how it relates to the instances i provided.. Take Charlotte for instance how were the police 'abusing' their power there?

Quote:Drich
because white man will always just stomp you down. When in truth people across the world (Syria) are literally lining up to endure the 'oppression' you say black people can't function under. Why is that? Why would Syrians want to come to a country hostile to them/Dont want them here? For The same reason my family came here... Because even though they were hated (A member of a race hated by all Americans not just whites, as they were a perceived enemy of America for nearly 40 years in 3 different armed conflicts/wars) The reason the came here is even with the hate that ALL Americans were politically correct in feeling pre9-11 when arab people became the new hated race, It is sh*t ton better here (even with all the minority oppression black people seem to be buckling under) than where they came from.. where they were truly oppressed (hunted down and killed for their beliefs/who they were geologically speaking)

Quote:The fact that immigrants seek to come to the US in order to attain a better life, doesn't negate the fact that injustice does indeed occur in this country.

Yes a better life, that rioting black people say does not exist.

Quote:I see no absolutely no point in ignoring or being unwilling to address those matters, in favor of seeking to "measure" the oppression of one group over another in the ultimate game of "Who's Had it Worse?" It only serves as an argument as to why individuals of certain subgroup should shut up, bend over, "take it up the ass"  and then be grateful for the "opportunity" to be FUCKED; because, after all...it could be worse. 

Entitled to much?
That statement directly reflects a strong sense of entitlement. "I don't care how well I have it compared to other people I demand more! I want what I want I don't care what others do not have!!

What I am telling you, by mentioning all the immigrants seeking a home here, is that they all seem to have a better chance (most times not even speaking English,) than those born here and afforded every opportunity.. (which is obviously not enough)

Quote:I don't play that game.

Why? oh, that's right because it completely destroys the picture of the oppressed minority,
and how the cards are stacked against us. If this is true, again why do minorities who come from militarily aggressive countries (Who are hated by all Americans not just the white ones) don't seem to have the same issues black people do?

If any minority group has been oppressed in the last 15 years it has been Muslims/people from the middle east. Remind me again where was their last riot IN this country?

Quote:Yet here you are born here, and ONLY have one racial obstacle to over come (BY JUST FOLLOWING THE F*CKING RULES OF SOCIETY THAT EVERYONE NEED FOLLOW NOT JUST BLACK) and you want special permission to shit on police and society. With out it you personally will turn on anyone who says, hey this is moronic and infantile. Just do what cops say do and you wont get shot.. If this was a real issue If america was just asking too much then why oh why didn't MLKjr march police shooting an armed black man? or march when police shoot a black man fighting the police? Or march when a black man has a gun and will not comply with orders? Why? because back then unlike today the lines between right and wrong are blurred because back then MLKjr did not want hold up law breaking criminals as heros. Because there were real instances of oppression where inocent people were being mistreated by police and others. It is to these cases that he marched and it is to these cases that he united the community, even so he still did not riot. nor call for the death of anyone let alone police...


Why do people now support the exact oppsite people, protest proceedures and values that MLK Jr pioneered yet still want to align their cause with his?

Quote:Wow, back at square one.

You really can't do it, can you?

Really? REALLY? you didn't read past the few couple sentences did you?
BECAUSE THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH WAS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REAL PROTESTERS AND THIS B/S THAT IS BEING PASSED OFF AS PROTESTING

Quote: You're incapable of accepting that there are protesters (the majority),  and there are rioters; They're one in the same in your narrow little mind; Clearly, there's not enough room for you to process the notion of there being more than one type of black person there....and MLK Jr.

What I said was the MLKjr did not see a need to rally behind and protect black men fighting or resisting cops. He condemned those actions. He told his followers to protest peacfully. whenever riots did break out or people wanted to resist police he would openly condemn those actions.

I was drawing a sharp contrast between the protests of MLKjr and the 'protesters' of today.

Example:
Michael Brown's step Father
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlDzWt7TPc
What more central figure that the victims primary care guardian who the protesters are all there to support can set the tome for the whole protest??? Matter of fact it wasn't till after his call to "burn this bitch down" did the riots start.
syville Smith's sister:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjqhnSf0l-Q

Again close family member to whom the protesters are there to rally behind and support, calls for riots. "burn down they (white people) shit"

then we have charlotte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDzsE5heUuA

at least watch the charlotte video and maybe show me where there is a clear line you think exists between rioter and protester (as I showed you with the example of MLKjr (protester) in contrast to what is going on today

Quote:Drich
Dude dove in his car or reach deep in his car... I would have shot the guy too after the second or third time I told him let me see your hands... That said i acknoweledge the cops mistake and my own if I were in that situation and then I do expect the cop to be prosecuted if the law so demands it.

Quote:WRONG.

Wrong indeed... why are we even discussing this? did this shooting inspire a riot? did the cop go unpunished? did the guy not get paid for the cops actions??? Funny how you have to go off point to make a case. either way Ill be happy to address any points you make.

Quote:Dude reached in his car like a normal fucking person to retrieve his license,

which is a moron's mistake. If you have to do anything that takes you out of the line of sight of a cop, you announce what you have to do to comply first. Got a legal gun in the car you tell the cop with both hand on the steering wheel you have a legal gun in the car. once the cop rolled up on this guy and he screamed for ID he should have put his hands up and told the cop my ID is in the truck do you want me to get it still?

Quote:and was never told to" Let me see  your hands." The driver was told "Get out of the car" ONE time, before he getting out of the vehicle as instructed.  The trooper said it a second time, just as he started shooting at the driver.....who had already exited the vehicle. 

get out of the car, get out of the car! then one shot, then another that hits the truck then get on the ground, get on the ground, then hands behind your back.

Quote:It's pretty sickening, the lengths you'll got to, in an attempt attribute this particular incident to the driver. 
Reveals a lot about you and how your mind works, I think.

The guy was shot because he is an idiot, and because the cop freaked out.

But again, what is the topic of conversation here? cops making mistakes and paying for them with their carrers and 20 years of his life? Which again is an example of justice.

Or why do rioters 'burning shit down' for "justice" when what they really want is vengeance.

Quote:I don't even know what you're talking about here. I don't expect anyone to be completely "for me" or agree on every incident where racial bias is suspected, because I'm honest enough to acknowledge that my own bias has the potential to skew my view of these situations at times.

I don't even claim to know that this shooting was racially motivated. I suspect it may played a significant role in the event, but it's quite possible that the trooper was simply one of the most careless, worthless, horrendous State Troopers in the history SC. Or had been dropping acid a few hours earlier; I don't know. 

But, what I do know is that someone who can look at that video and say "Nope, nothing's wrong here", has a serious fucking problem. 
There's no way around that.

You can take that however you like.

There is NOTHING WRONG HERE BECAUSE JUSTICE prevailed. The man getting shot as well as the cop going to jail are simply causalities of their own mistakes. Mistakes that they both paid for, and one of the two was rewarded for.

(October 3, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(October 3, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Drich Wrote: The first amendment guaranty's the free practice of religion sport, not freedom from religion. Meaning if the law makes of 1960 decided to incorporate an declaration of alliance to God they were free to do so.

Let look at the wording again:
to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,


So again congress can not pass a law that makes any one religion a state sanctioned religion. That said (and history points out) nothing prevents members of government can't personally endorse what they believe. Which is also protected by the second sentence of the first amendment. to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, "impeding the free exercise of religion," To prohibit, a formal deceleration of allegiance to God is again impeding the free exercise of religion.

So then you'd be perfectly fine with replacing the word "god" with Allah on our money and in the taking of oaths for public offices and for testifying in court, right?

Oh my globb..

God is not a deity's name Just like Allah is not a deity's name. they are generic terms that describes a deity that holds that title. Arab Christians use the term allah.

So at it's core saying in God we trust In allah we trust is saying the same thing.

If clinton is elected and she lets in all the Syrians she wants then perhaps we will have to shift from God to allah as they will be the ones making the rules for those of us who are left.

So, to be clear, you have no qualms swearing to allah, then?  In Allah We Trust, on our currency, a-ok with you? If clinton got elected, and that happened, no problem, right? As to the nonsense above that little bit of wheedling deciet...."hey, look at all these darkies reacting violently to their systematic oppression by the very insitituion of justice!" Yeah, look at that........that's "law and order".

You know why -I think- cops don't get rough out here in my neck of the woods like they do in inner city? Too many violent rednecks with high caliber rifles. Somehow, they manage to talk us down...we make it to trial. Not that we don;t get away with it in the city too. 15 minute high speed car chase, shots fired out into the crowd......we make it to trial. 13 year old hoodrat so much as runs or makes a "scary" move...popopopopopop. Something tells me that these cops know that their victims aren't as dangerous as they later claim while washing their hands of blood. If they were, perhaps they'd treat them with the same sort of deference and patience they treat your stars and bars waving ar toting rebel......

Or maybe they just know that people like you don't give a fuck?

(October 3, 2016 at 3:15 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I guess the real question is, what does Drich mean by 'formal declaration'?

Anyone can declare they're a member of any religion or not (although, being an avowed Muslim or atheist is political suicide).  That was Ben Carson's and Ted Cruz's political strategy - cozy up to evangelicals.

What can't happen is any formal - as in governmental - declaration of allegiance to any particular god, even something as broad as the Judeo-Christian god.  This is a secular nation.  Always has been.

proof? It would seem to me the bill of rights says otherwise. As a secular nation would declare it's intention to refrain from anything religious, yet the congress still opens with a long standing tradition of prayer. That the capitol building was used as a church for almost 100 years also speaks contary, the fact that congress sought and offically had a specific version of the bible to be printed and distributed in schools all point to the lie that this country was founded as a secular nation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGH-6adzue0

ooops...

(October 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You know what I'm starting to wonder?  Why, when so many people's "deeply held religious beliefs" start tumbling down on the shitty side of the law...those same believers start to think that maybe..maybe...somethings wrong with the government.....?

Here's the thing rhythm...

This religion has not changed in the time this country was founded. The founding Father's saw no rights being violated when they wrote and enacted the constitution...

Yet now 250 years later "deep seated religious views must be changed." and You don't see anything wrong with that.

If it is Hillary's government that has problems with religion, then perhaps the problem is with her government and not the standing religion of this nation for the last 250+ years.

(October 4, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You know what I'm starting to wonder?  Why, when so many people's "deeply held religious beliefs" start tumbling down on the shitty side of the law...those same believers start to think that maybe..maybe...somethings wrong with the government.....?

Here's the thing rhythm...

This religion has not changed in the time this country was founded.

hahahahahahaha, history as told by drich. Yeah, no change, no change at all, and that;s super relevant too..I'm sure.

Quote:The founding Father's saw no rights being violated when they wrote and enacted the constitution...

They wrote and enacted it specifically -to- prevent such violations as you are here, advocating for..when you say that the constitution does not gaurantee us freedom -from- religion.  

Quote:Yet now 250 years later "deep seated religious views must be changed." and You don't see anything wrong with that.

No ones telling you that you have to change your deep seated religious views.  I already told you, believe all the bigoty shit you like. You just can't point to your beliefs in bigoty shit as a legal excuse for violating the rights of another..just like you can;t sacrifice that girl to bloodgod no matter how much you believe in him.

Quote:If it is Hillary's government that has problems with religion, then perhaps the problem is with her government and not the standing religion of this nation for the last 250+ years.

The standing religion, which would be your religion..right?  Sometimes, it sounds like you think that -you- founded this country and wrote the constitution, lol.