Gromnir

regardless, the following is just plain wrong: "It is the Court's duty to rule on what is legal or illegal based on current precedents and law." HA! Good Fun!

dubliners pale fire brave new world the sound and the fury richard iii slaughterhouse 5 the king's indian babbit rabbit is rich the dark knight returns beowulf grendel as i lay dying the heart of the matter knight the phantom tollbooth HA! Good Fun!

is not semantics. Congress cannot overturn a Court decision re Constitutionality. Congress' only option is to change the Constitution. and as to following precedent, NOT overturning roe v. wade or some other case ain't the same as following precedent. maybe this is a vocab thing... am not sure. HA! Good Fun!

still got miscommunications with ss. the Court has no duty to follow "current" precedents. the Court determines Constitutionality and as the highest court in the land it not need to follow past precedent. if it deems an act to be unconstitutional, then guess what... the act is unconstitutional until the Court changes its mind. and as it is the Court that determines what is law

They may have spoken on an issue, that doesn't mean they covered it completely. Politicians have also been known to do strange things, like vote for something they thought was wrong and defend their decision. Thats not to say I believe the framers or founding fathers did this. Simply that people do crazy things, as you yourself said, thusly I don't really intend to debate intent. As the romans used to say, the public is a fickle mob. Generally speaking what I said was true, which was my point. Public opinion thankfully doesn't control law, either. I don't see how my notions are wrong, either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you cannot debate legal issues w/o intent. sorry, but it just ain't possible. try figure out the rule o' law divorced from considering what the author intended is a hopeless endeavour... and yeah, the mob is fickle... which is exactly why the Court is not elected... so it need not be swayed or controlled by the mob. get off the fence ss. you can't have both ways. oh, and yeah, you is wrong. takes an amendment for Congress to direct overturn a Court deciscion concerning interp of Constitution. texas v. johnson and the eichman cases is illustrative... and katzenbach v. morgan is not doispositive in this case as we ain't talking 'bout judicial interp of a federal law, but of the Constitution itself. HA! Good Fun!

then isn't it great that you live here in the us where you can choose to loathe God all you wish? nevertheless, the fact that you loathe God should not mean that everybody else should loathe God and it not mean that peoples needs must pretend that they do not love God simply 'cause such a thing bothers you. as we said earlier, Gromnir is in favor of Wall of Separation language, but there is very little to suggest that Wall of Separation is what the framers wanted... and if you ignore the framers, then whose intent should matter? leave up to public opinion as ss suggests? then why have a Court at all? end up with the tyranny of the majority nightmare? HA! Good Fun!

They aren't here now to explain their reasoning, or what factors played in their mind. Its one thing to analyze the factors leading up to a decision and the decision itself, but the fact is we don't know ALL the things which played in their mind. Thus I'm not going to debate what someone's intent was. I never met George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. so I'll restrain myself from saying "I think they thought." Polls support that most people accept the seperation of church and state arguement. It might not be an overwhelming majority, but neither was Bush's election. In all likelihood if you went to a breadbasket state to poll, most might not accept it. *Shrugs* I go by what the polls show.

"2 - The "Wall" of seperation may not have existed in the original intent (which we really can't debate their intent), or the original wording. However we have come to a point where people believe that is the case, and most accept it." first, why you think it is not possible to debate intent? look at what the framers said is a good start... then look at what they did. we not gotta know specific what is in the minds of each and every framer to glean their intent s a whole. second, the fact that you assume that most folks accept the wall o' separation language seems based on gut feeling rather than reality. we got a very religious nation, and your certainty that most folks believes that the establishment clause creates a wall o' separation would be something that we would have no such certainty 'bout. finally, what does it matter that most persons accept something as true? popular opinion is what Congress is 'posed to be swayed by. Congress is the folks elected by the people. if the people has changed their mind, then by all means, let them change the law by demanding their representatives to do so. that is the way the process is 'posed to work. stodgy old Justices who gots no accountability to the public is the ones who should be gauging the current trends and opinions o' the American Public? oh, and while this ain

we like to fight. unfortunately, we only engage in those socially acceptable forms o' combat, (e.g. fencing, rugby, litigating, dating.) high school were the last time we bloodied some other human being in a bare fisted brawl. am now too old and too mature to engage in such barbarism. *sigh* is one of the great tragedies o' life that we rarely appreciate our youth until it is gone. HA! Good Fun!

The coiimibat oif the infinity engine games in general was quiite weak. Balduirs gate 2 had loits oif poissibilities buit yoiui oinily needed toi emploiy 1 strategy toi carry yoiui throiuigh moisit oif the game: casting breach foilloiwed by a melee ruish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> breach didn't work on many critters... or it were of limited efficacy. had to fight vampires different from mind flayers and liches different from golems, and dragons different from everything else. to say otherwise would be fibbing, if only to your self. HA! Good Fun!

roshan now compares bg2 combat to ps:t? HA! look, Gromnir liked ps:t a great deal... were/is our favorite pc game (regardless as to whether or not it were a crpg,) but ps:t combat were NOT a positive quality and it not have anywhere near the possibilities and complexity o' bg2... not that bg2 were a great combat simulator neither, but to compare to ps:t... like ps:t for what it was... and in spite of its weakness... but pretend that it not have weakness is foolish. HA! Good Fun!

never denied founding father status o' jefferson... or his political influence. however, he was, at the time of the constitutional convention, viewed as something of a loose cannon and yeah, a fringe politician... and maybe a bit of a nut too. would never wear more than one suit, and would wear that until it wore out before getting a new one. regardless, he were one guy... just one. his views hardly represented the Framer's intent as a whole. HA! Good Fun!

there is no duel. am not gonna simply throw out 100 quotes to prove you wrong. is a waste of both our efforts. maybe you want a list o' Court cases that you will not fully understand? do yourself a favor and look at the actions of early post bill o' rights Court, Congress and Exec, 'cause a battle o' quotes will prove nothing, and you will still be wrong. am always amazed at how folks put so much stock in jefferson and madison quotes concerning establishment clause, while they happily ignore fact that the Congress that ratifies the Bill o' Rights opened with a prayer, and apportioned monies for christian missionary work into indian territory... and almost 150 years o' subsequent history. *sigh* and please try to get it through your head that jefferson were not a framer. he was not at the Constitutional Convention and he were not part o' the virginia delegation that ratified the bill of rights neither. HA! Good Fun!

most prominent? HA! he wasn't even at the constitutional convention. and if you wanna start listing stuff, go for it, but we will bury you with washington and jay and hamilton and madison and many many others... and more important, since all we got is drafts o' the amendments, we will buryyou with the ACTIONS o' the fldgeling government... put the FRAMER's words into context of what they did with'em. jefferson were a brilliant man, but he hardly spoke for the majority o' the founders... and he weren't a framer. HA! Good Fun!

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge. The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear." the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit. make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it. ... look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today. Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> jefferson were THE framers? wow. and here we thought that he were just one guy... and kinda a fringe politician at that. were he even at the constitutional convention? no? wall o' separation folks place too much stock in jefferson... and they ignore pretty much everybody else. is bad history and bad scholarship. HA! Good Fun!

oh, and not that it matters, but Gromnir is catholic and goes to church regular and we watch notre dame football every saturday and if we ever have children we will probably send 'em to catholic school... and if it were up to us, we would have a Wall of Separation 'tween church and state. in spite of our faith (or maybe because of it,) is our opinion that religion and government is a bad combination and we would just as soon keep 'em as separate as reasonably possible... 'course is not like we is suggesting that if a church is on fire that local municipal fire departments should not put out the blaze. total separation ain't as possible as some folks seem to think. however, as a dyed-in-wool original intentionist, we will tell you that Wall of Separation were not what were the meaning o' the separation clause when it were written, and as such it should not be the Law of the Land. oh, and judges who go around changing the law to suit their personal politics should be horsewhipped... even if they think that they is doing so for the greater good. HA! Good Fun!

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge. The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear." the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit. make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it. ... look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too. HA! Good Fun!

sure you can, but the doctorate ain't awarded by an accredited university or somesuch. is how chiropractors can call selves Dr. So n' So. HA! Good Fun!

"That may be, but Dr.Eldar is the most deserving of respect." only if it is an md... any yutz can get a doctorate nowadays. get a doctorate in something silly like holistic medicine or new age religion or applied mathematics? bah. HA! Good Fun!

am playing the new bard's tale for pc, and we is as suprised as anybody to find that it is fun. sure, the gameplay is pretty pedestrian, but this game has some very funny moments helped along by some first rate voice acting. if you is expecting a great game then you will be disappointed, but if you wanna play a game that makes you chuckle and maybe even laugh, then bard's tale is worth a looksee. btw, am only a few hours into the game, but for $20 we has gotten our money's worth so far. HA! Good Fun!

in time of Caesar

"If I'm meat, does that mean you want to grill me?" eldar, eldar... puns? " I'll take any pitch you can throw." any clown can stand in there and swing. nevertheless, this is familiar territory for eldar and Gromnir, and if it makes you feel better to think you is holding your own then we is happy for you indeed... 'cause then you will keep on swinging. in any event it is nice to see that the mod tag not prevent eldar from letting himself get caught up in this kinda nonsense... sorta reaffirms our faith in the human animal. HA! Good Fun! ps cicero? you cannot honestly be surprised that we would mock your attempt to compare self to cicero, can you? ... maybe Gromnir will start comparing self to mother teresa.

"The transcendent oine was a goioid end boiss becauise he was yoiuir oiwn moiirtality, which was a great coincept coinisidering what the game was aboiuit. Hoiwever his oinily moiitivatioin was his instinct toi suirvive. Thuis he was noit evil, he was juist foilloiwing his basic animal instincts. Of coiuirse, he did doi soiimie evil things, buit I think that the transcendent oinie woiuild proiibably be moirie oifi a chaoitic neuitral character rather than an evil oinie. So the transcendent oine can hardly be coinisidered a goioid villain." wanna play a game? count the grammar errors. in any event, tto is a good endboss, but hardly a good villian and not necessarily evil but more like chaotic neutral... yeah, you is poster child for clarity... HA! Good Fun!

wild pitches? hmmmm. 'nother nickname comes to mind... meat. as to nero... you play the fiddle? *shrug* what were nero's butler's name. maybe him you is rating. HA! Good Fun!

"Someone has to have a high opinion of me." no "Anyhow, someone has to be the Cicero of the forum. " no "Do you suggest it's you?" lord no. congrats... 3 strikes in one post. HA! Good Fun!