Pledge! Now!

[213374U]

Don't even try, Commy. Gromnir is just out of your league. He's got some brains inside his skull, you know.

[Commissar]

Don't even try, Commy. Gromnir is just out of your league. He's got some brains inside his skull, you know. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow.

 

Man.

 

You two want to book a room or something? One of those heart-shaped tubs?

 

Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk.

[Gromnir]

more strawman crap.  lord only knows where/how you clowns come up with this junk... and just so we is straight, we not give a damn 'bout your characterizations of Gromnir.  got to town on insults o Gromnir.  not bother us in the least.  for chrissakes, growup.  is just words on a message board... and as you point out, Gromnir most certainly DID note earlier that such characterizations do not strenghten or weaken an agrgument.  'course we also noted that there is a fine tradition o' insulting folks in debate... even ghandi got in some quotable shots.  so the conclusions some folks wanna draw from Gromnir statements on the subject o' personal attacks is... odd.  poor reading comprehension? nevertheless, attack away... though this continued line o' debate o' commie's is tending to makes him look a little hypocritical, no?

 

personal attacks on Gromnir not bother us in the least. is silly to get worked up over such stuff.  however, characterizations of Gromnir arguments better be accurate or you can expect more lumber to come your way.  after all, the only thing worth arguing 'bout is the argument.  try to wrap your mind 'round that one.

 

on a side note, Gromnir is curious 'bout "choice reflections" o' our alma mater.  those is always amusing... and as we got multiple degrees from multiple universities, we offer much opportunities.  have at it.

 

...

 

and still nobody wanna actually talk 'bout first amendment.

 

go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're the one writing the theses, man, so I'm curious as to which one of us is actually getting worked up on the issue.

 

Rail away at my reading comprehension skills all you like, but you've got to give me some credit; it's not always easy to wade through crap written by a guy pretending to be an ork, or whatever it is you do. It's a cute motif, I'll give you that.

 

What do you want to discuss about the First Amendment, exactly? We disagree on interpretation. Not all that much more to say, is there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

theses?

 

HA!

 

sorry chum, but you is the guy/gal that got offended by the kida posts we made and felt you had to address our mean nature. surely Gromnir ain't the one worked up... amused is more like it... especially since you has kinda gotten involved in the very thing you were trying to moderate Gromnir 'bout.

 

and yeah, we can criticize your reading comprehension skills. if you got the idea that Gromnir were 'gainst attacking your opponent then your reading comprehension has gotta be for crap. sorry, but we were anything but subtle or unclear on that issue.

 

as to chalking up disagreement on interpetation of Constitution as being moot... it is moot only if you believe it to be so. if Constitutional interp issues were simply matters o' differing opinion then there would be no need for a Court in the first place.

 

so far we ain't seen any but ss actually attempt to discuss Constitutional interp issues. what does pledge mean and why is it good or bad... have seen lots of that. have seen folks ask whether seperation o' church and state is a good thing or not... but as to actual Constitutional interp, we has seen almost nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps thought you had some observations 'bout our alma matter?

[Commissar]

theses?

 

HA!

 

sorry chum, but you is the guy/gal that got offended by the kida posts we made and felt you had to address our mean nature.  surely Gromnir ain't the one worked up... amused is more like it... especially since you has kinda gotten involved in the very thing you were trying to moderate Gromnir 'bout. 

Well, you gave me permission, after all.

 

and yeah, we can criticize your reading comprehension skills.  if you got the idea that Gromnir were 'gainst attacking your opponent then your reading comprehension has gotta be for crap.  sorry, but we were anything but subtle or unclear on that issue.

 

as to chalking up disagreement on interpetation of Constitution as being moot... it is moot  only if you believe it to be so.  if Constitutional interp issues were simply matters o' differing opinion then there would be no need for a Court in the first place. 

 

so far we ain't seen any but ss actually attempt to discuss Constitutional interp issues.  what does pledge mean and why is it good or bad... have seen lots of that.  have seen folks ask whether seperation o' church and state is a good thing or not... but as to actual Constitutional interp, we has seen almost nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  thought you had some observations 'bout our alma matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I've said repeatedly that I don't use the First Amendment to justify removing "under God" from the Pledge, but rather equal protection and equal rights. It seems an infringment of both if one group - those who believe in God - are favored over another in terms of a national oath of allegiance. How are atheists, Satanists, Wiccans, and all those other wackos given equal consideration? They're not.

 

P.S. I wasn't aware I needed to spell it out. Then again, I should've figured.

[Laozi]

Teh he he he

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ninja coming your way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Told ya

[LoneWolf16]

Why does Gromnir refer to himself in the third person?

Edited September 25, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[Gromnir]

Don't even try, Commy. Gromnir is just out of your league. He's got some brains inside his skull, you know. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow.

 

Man.

 

You two want to book a room or something? One of those heart-shaped tubs?

 

Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

don't you just love the hypocriscy o' some folks? you do know that you is gonna lose some serious jr. moderator points for attacking 213etc. like that.

 

*shrug*

 

there is a few folks that gots the chops and the integrity to be taken serious in a moderator role whether they is mods or not. silvermoon on the old interplay boards was such a person. she almost never got invloved in the petty brawls that would break out on the boards. you could tell that she were really trying to help. silvermoon would ask folks to stop fighting, and they did.

 

on the other hand, folks who so easily succumb to the kinda behavior that they profess to wanna stop is...

 

not need go further down that path?

 

leave the modding to the mods. without a tag you needs respect to be taken serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

Don't even try, Commy. Gromnir is just out of your league. He's got some brains inside his skull, you know. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow.

 

Man.

 

You two want to book a room or something? One of those heart-shaped tubs?

 

Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

don't you just love the hypocriscy o' some folks? you do know that you is gonna lose some serious jr. moderator points for attacking 213etc. like that.

 

*shrug*

 

there is a few folks that gots the chops and the integrity to be taken serious in a moderator role whether they is mods or not. silvermoon on the old interplay boards was such a person. she almost never got invloved in the petty brawls that would break out on the boards. you could tell that she were really trying to help. silvermoon would ask folks to stop fighting, and they did.

 

on the other hand, folks who so easily succumb to the kinda behavior that they profess to wanna stop is...

 

not need go further down that path?

 

leave the modding to the mods. without a tag you needs respect to be taken serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, trust me, Grommy, I've got Numbers' permission, too.

 

And knock off the mod fetish worship, por favor.

[Gromnir]

theses?

 

HA!

 

sorry chum, but you is the guy/gal that got offended by the kida posts we made and felt you had to address our mean nature.  surely Gromnir ain't the one worked up... amused is more like it... especially since you has kinda gotten involved in the very thing you were trying to moderate Gromnir 'bout. 

Well, you gave me permission, after all.

 

and yeah, we can criticize your reading comprehension skills.  if you got the idea that Gromnir were 'gainst attacking your opponent then your reading comprehension has gotta be for crap.  sorry, but we were anything but subtle or unclear on that issue.

 

as to chalking up disagreement on interpetation of Constitution as being moot... it is moot  only if you believe it to be so.  if Constitutional interp issues were simply matters o' differing opinion then there would be no need for a Court in the first place. 

 

so far we ain't seen any but ss actually attempt to discuss Constitutional interp issues.  what does pledge mean and why is it good or bad... have seen lots of that.  have seen folks ask whether seperation o' church and state is a good thing or not... but as to actual Constitutional interp, we has seen almost nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  thought you had some observations 'bout our alma matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I've said repeatedly that I don't use the First Amendment to justify removing "under God" from the Pledge, but rather equal protection and equal rights. It seems an infringment of both if one group - those who believe in God - are favored over another in terms of a national oath of allegiance. How are atheists, Satanists, Wiccans, and all those other wackos given equal consideration? They're not.

 

P.S. I wasn't aware I needed to spell it out. Then again, I should've figured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

fine, run down the arlington heights factors and show us how this is an equal protection issue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

theses?

 

HA!

 

sorry chum, but you is the guy/gal that got offended by the kida posts we made and felt you had to address our mean nature.  surely Gromnir ain't the one worked up... amused is more like it... especially since you has kinda gotten involved in the very thing you were trying to moderate Gromnir 'bout. 

Well, you gave me permission, after all.

 

and yeah, we can criticize your reading comprehension skills.  if you got the idea that Gromnir were 'gainst attacking your opponent then your reading comprehension has gotta be for crap.  sorry, but we were anything but subtle or unclear on that issue.

 

as to chalking up disagreement on interpetation of Constitution as being moot... it is moot  only if you believe it to be so.  if Constitutional interp issues were simply matters o' differing opinion then there would be no need for a Court in the first place. 

 

so far we ain't seen any but ss actually attempt to discuss Constitutional interp issues.  what does pledge mean and why is it good or bad... have seen lots of that.  have seen folks ask whether seperation o' church and state is a good thing or not... but as to actual Constitutional interp, we has seen almost nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  thought you had some observations 'bout our alma matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I've said repeatedly that I don't use the First Amendment to justify removing "under God" from the Pledge, but rather equal protection and equal rights. It seems an infringment of both if one group - those who believe in God - are favored over another in terms of a national oath of allegiance. How are atheists, Satanists, Wiccans, and all those other wackos given equal consideration? They're not.

 

P.S. I wasn't aware I needed to spell it out. Then again, I should've figured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

fine, run down the arlington heights factors and show us how this is an equal protection issue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arlington Heights is irrelevant. Equal protection doesn't outlaw merely intentional bigotry; it also, in some cases, outlaws disparate impact. I would argue this is an example of the latter - though, to be fair, I don't think anyone has yet argued against Di's earlier claim that "under God" was inserted to separate the God-fearing good Americans from the godless communists way back when.

[Gromnir]

recall what happened in washington v. davis? and that were with suspect classes.

 

what level o' scrutiny does wiccans get in an equal protection case? remind us? not strict. not even intermediate. rational basis?

 

HA!

 

argue ep and lose.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

Wow.

 

Man.

 

You two want to book a room or something?  One of those heart-shaped tubs?

 

Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk.

Naw. I just enjoy it when people crush the inane ravings that you think that pass for arguments. Anyway, I didn't know I needed a room for that.

 

Uh... I don't know what kind of familiarity you think you have with me, but no, you don't have my permission. I like to keep my distance from carriers of infectious stupidity.

 

Also, it amuses me to no end that you are still pissed about my reporting your post. Yeah, sorry. I won't do it again. I wouldn't want to cause you an aneurysm because of it. But hey, if you can't take the heat, perhaps the Winnie the Pooh boards are more your kind of place.

[Commissar]

recall what happened in washington v. davis?  and that were with suspect classes.

 

what level o' scrutiny does wiccans get in an equal protection case?  remind us?  not strict.  not even intermediate.  rational basis? 

 

HA!

 

argue ep and lose.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rational basis, indeed. Doesn't that state that a law is constitutional so long as it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest?

 

Are you suggesting that separating Christians from non-Christians (as was previously argued as the entire point of inserting "under God" in the first place) is a legitimate government interest?

[Commissar]

Wow.

 

Man.

 

You two want to book a room or something?  One of those heart-shaped tubs?

 

Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk.

Naw. I just enjoy it when people crush the inane ravings that you think that pass for arguments. Anyway, I didn't know I needed a room for that.

 

Uh... I don't know what kind of familiarity you think you have with me, but no, you don't have my permission. I like to keep my distance from carriers of infectious stupidity.

 

Also, it amuses me to no end that you are still pissed about my reporting your post. Yeah, sorry. I won't do it again. I wouldn't want to cause you an aneurysm because of it. But hey, if you can't take the heat, perhaps the Winnie the Pooh boards are more your kind of place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bottom line? You want to accuse a guy who pursued his commission after Sept. 11, 2001 of being a terrorist sympathizer, you most definitely have given him the right to say whatever the hell he wants to you.

 

Now go sit in a corner somewhere.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Commissar

[Gromnir]

do you know what a "legitimate" govt. intrest is in terms of Constitutional Construction? the only way it ain't legit is if it violates establishment or free ex clause... and again, arlington heights kills you.

 

"Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

 

disparate impact has evidentiary value, and nothing more. for chrissakes, why you think rhenquists' cf cite of arlington heights in deshaney caused such an uproar?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2005 by Gromnir

[Commissar]

do you know what a "legitimate" govt. intrest is in terms of Constitutional Construction?  and again, arlington heights kills you.

 

"Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

 

disparate impact has evidentiary value, and nothing more.  for chrissakes, why you think rhenquists' cf cite of arlington heights in deshaney caused such an uproar?

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And once again, I'd argue that, if it's not the case now, protection ought to be extended to everybody, not simply defined racially.

[Gromnir]

oh geez... the friggn' circle starts all over again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

oh geez... the friggn' circle starts all over again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Howso? You're free to disagree with me, though I'm not sure if you do. If you want to talk strict constitutional interpretation, I would say that there's plenty of leeway in the past judgments of equal protection cases - which have primarily dealt with race - to be expanded to this.

[213374U]

Bottom line?  You want to accuse a guy who pursued his commission after Sept. 11, 2001 of being a terrorist sympathizer, you most definitely have given him the right to say whatever the hell he wants to you.

 

Now go sit in a corner somewhere.

I don't remember accusing you of being a terrorist sympathizer. I simply reported your post because your rhetoric seemed to imply that. The mods agreed with me, so either you take it up with them, or you STFU. At any rate, quit bringing up issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to discredit me. All you are proving is that you're out of better arguments. And so far, that's pretty much it.

 

It's also incredibly sad that you are still holding a grudge against somebody you don't know across half the globe. I guess your life must be pretty empty, and that makes you deserving of pity.

 

But don't despair, Commy. There's always Brides-r-us.com. )

Edited September 25, 2005 by 213374U

[Commissar]

Bottom line?  You want to accuse a guy who pursued his commission after Sept. 11, 2001 of being a terrorist sympathizer, you most definitely have given him the right to say whatever the hell he wants to you.

 

Now go sit in a corner somewhere.

I don't remember accusing you of being a terrorist sympathizer. I simply reported your post because your rhetoric seemed to imply that. The mods agreed with me, so either you take it up with them, or you STFU. At any rate, quit bringing up issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to discredit me. All you are proving is that you're out of better arguments. And so far, that's pretty much it.

 

It's also incredibly sad that you are still holding a grudge against somebody you don't know across half the world. I guess your life must be pretty empty, and that makes you deserving of pity.

 

But don't despair, Commy. There's always Brides-r-us.com. )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I already used them. I'm married to a Russian, after all.

 

And I hold a grudge against you because you never contribute anything other than, at best, grade-school insults. Hell, you just evoked mail-order brides. I stand in awe of your rapier wit, sir.

 

Now either join the Constitutional dogpile or, like I said earlier, go sit in a corner.

[Gromnir]

oh geez... the friggn' circle starts all over again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Howso? You're free to disagree with me, though I'm not sure if you do. If you want to talk strict constitutional interpretation, I would say that there's plenty of leeway in the past judgments of equal protection cases - which have primarily dealt with race - to be expanded to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

look, you don't know what you is talking 'bout. honestly. you just haven't studied the cases and tht is getting more and more obvious. ep does apply to everybody... you is reading wrong... but that ain't your fault this time. gotta have whole case to comprehend. first, read arlington heights and washington v. davis... then find out about chickens sacrifices in florida... is a RELIGIOUS ep case. you need to show actual discriminatory INTENT, and that is almost impossible to get.

 

is not the race distinction that kills you... is the necessity of INTENT. disparate impact is not enough.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

I already used them.  I'm married to a Russian, after all.

 

And I hold a grudge against you because you never contribute anything other than, at best, grade-school insults.  Hell, you just evoked mail-order brides.  I stand in awe of your rapier wit, sir.

 

Now either join the Constitutional dogpile or, like I said earlier, go sit in a corner.

Hey, it's not me who keeps bringing up some stuff that's months old and few remember and even less care about. Effectively, you have done nothing but whine. Smarten up, man. Or go grab some tissues, whatever suits you better.

 

And again, your attempts to discredit me have failed, as I have already disabled your arguments in the past. Not that it's quite a feat, to be honest, but I don't really need to do it any more, as you prove time after time that all you are after is controversy.

 

The only problem with that is that you really suck at sparring.

[Commissar]

oh geez... the friggn' circle starts all over again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Howso? You're free to disagree with me, though I'm not sure if you do. If you want to talk strict constitutional interpretation, I would say that there's plenty of leeway in the past judgments of equal protection cases - which have primarily dealt with race - to be expanded to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

look, you don't know what you is talking 'bout. honestly. you just haven't studied the cases and tht is getting more and more obvious. ep does apply to everybody... you is reading wrong... but that ain't your fault this time. gotta have whole case to comprehend. first, read arlington heights and washington v. davis... then find out about chickens sacrifices in florida... is a RELIGIOUS ep case. you need to show actual discriminatory INTENT, and that is almost impossible to get.

 

is not the race distinction that kills you... is the necessity of INTENT. disparate impact is not enough.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute...doesn't the whole reason for "under God" being inserted in the Pledge reveal discriminatory intent right off the bat?

[Gromnir]

not by a long shot. don't work like that. you pretty much gotta show that the legislators who passed the law wanted wiccans and satanists to feel bad or suffer. get yourself actual congressional records where legislators said, "those damned witches are a blight on society, so let's add, "under God," to the pledge." how likely is that?

 

w/o actual intent you is pretty much gonna have to use a first amendment free excercise or establishment clause basis to show that the legislator's intent were discriminatory... so why use ep when you is gonna have to go 1st amend anyways?

 

even so, you is going at this thing in parts rather than seeing the whole.

 

1) learn what is the threshold questions... especially what makes for a class distinction

2) review the major ep cases since arlington heights and divine rule from those cases

3) get somebody to exlain to you the three levels o' scrutiny

 

ep is 'bout 2 weeks of con law in second semster, but you can teach self in a few days... as long as you has somebody explain some o' the more subtle nuances. the thing is, just 'cause you see the words Equal Protection, it does not mean that everybody gets treated the same under the law... just as "Congress shall make no law," in the first amendment context does not actually mean that Congress cannot make laws which abridge free speech.

 

just 'cause you think you understands something in english does not mean that you understand something in law.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2005 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

arlington heights is your guide. arlingngton heights factors identify how a court can divine invidious intent. 'course knowing the words and the factors ain't 'nuff. understanding how those factors has actually been used by the Court is what legal analysis of an ep question is all 'bout.

 

...

 

regardless, if somebody say that arlington heights don't apply to an ep question, they is almost assuredly showing that they don't know a damned thing 'bout ep.

 

HA! Good Fun!