Texas judge warns of civil war if Obama is re-elected

[muff daddy]

I was referring to marriage rights, women's rights as two.examples. Do you have any examples?

I do not agree with your interpretation.

Specifically want political moves?

Sure. What ever you say.

Chuck Schumer is on record calling for limits and so is Pelosi.

 

[EastCheats]

Lack of evidence.

An Atheism Fallacy, paraphrased..

Most Atheists, fail to realize, there is a difference between PROOF which is irrefutable and EVIDENCE which provides support. While it may not be possible to PROVE (provide irrefutable evidence) a negative, it certainly is possible to PROVIDE EVIDENCE (provide support for an idea or belief) a negative, which, to my knowledge, no Atheists has ever done.

Think of it in terms of a legal trial where Theists are on trial defending their beliefs in God and the Atheists are the prosecution. The Theists are put up on the stand first to present evidence for the existance of God. The Theists present their evidence then it is then up to the prosecution – the Atheists – to provide evidence to the contrary. The prosecution in a legal trial can’t just stand up and say, “Their evidence isn’t valid therefore we don’t believe it!” and expect to win the trial! They would be the laughing stock of the legal community. The prosecution in this case has the burden of proof and must provide evidence that proves the defendant guilty. Similarly, Atheists can’t just make the claim that there is no evidence that God exists. They MUST provide evidence to the contrary, which we already established is impossible because all evidence cannot be known therefore all evidence cannot be disproved.

 

[Ms Tree]

Chuck Schumer is on record calling for limits and so is Pelosi.

Limits on what. Do you have any examples?

 

[muff daddy]

Your google finger broke or didn't you take your smart pills today?

 

[Ms Tree]

Your google finger broke or didn't you take your smart pills today?

So you could not find any either?

 

[Ms Tree]

An Atheism Fallacy, paraphrased..

Most Atheists, fail to realize, there is a difference between PROOF which is irrefutable and EVIDENCE which provides support. While it may not be possible to PROVE (provide irrefutable evidence) a negative, it certainly is possible to PROVIDE EVIDENCE (provide support for an idea or belief) a negative, which, to my knowledge, no Atheists has ever done.

Think of it in terms of a legal trial where Theists are on trial defending their beliefs in God and the Atheists are the prosecution. The Theists are put up on the stand first to present evidence for the existance of God. The Theists present their evidence then it is then up to the prosecution – the Atheists – to provide evidence to the contrary. The prosecution in a legal trial can’t just stand up and say, “Their evidence isn’t valid therefore we don’t believe it!” and expect to win the trial! They would be the laughing stock of the legal community. The prosecution in this case has the burden of proof and must provide evidence that proves the defendant guilty. Similarly, Atheists can’t just make the claim that there is no evidence that God exists. They MUST provide evidence to the contrary, which we already established is impossible because all evidence cannot be known therefore all evidence cannot be disproved.

Important not sure what point you are trying to make. You could just as easily swap the sides and end up with the same result.

As for proving that god does or does not exist I will say this. When you can explain to me why you do not believe in all the other gods, then you wil understand why I do not believe in yours either.

 

[muff daddy]

So you could not find any either?

Legislation

 

[muff daddy]

Pelosi's People's Rights Amendment:

“People’s Rights Amendment” it wants added to the Constitution. The amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.​

Schumer:

“I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.”

They may want to changer their minds since O has been using superpacs.

 

[EastCheats]

Important not sure what point you are trying to make. You could just as easily swap the sides and end up with the same result.

As for proving that god does or does not exist I will say this. When you can explain to me why you do not believe in all the other gods, then you wil understand why I do not believe in yours either.

I think Gahndi got it right:

"Belief in one God is the cornerstone of all religions. But I do not foresee a time when there would be only one religion on earth in practice"

I think it takes as much if not more faith to go against all the believers in the world to say you know more than them. You better hope you are right about being dust in the wind.

 

[Ms Tree]

Ah I see. They are seeking to restore right to individuals and not corporations as granted in Citizens United. I see that as an expansion of individual rights. I do understand your point now.

 

[Ms Tree]

I think Gahndi got it right:

"Belief in one God is the cornerstone of all religions. But I do not foresee a time when there would be only one religion on earth in practice"

I think it takes as much if not more faith to go against all the believers in the world to say you know more than them. You better hope you are right about being dust in the wind.

I am not sure I was clear. I assume you only believe in one god and that is the God of your religion. Out of all the beliefs that have, are and will be how do you k.ow you chose the right one. For arguments sake lets say there are 100 choices. you have a 1:100 chance of being right. And that is assuming that the real right one is among the choices.

I lead my life according to the folder rule. I treat others as I wish to be treated. Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant in my opinion. I would hope that if there is a God that this entity would base judgement on who I was as a person rather than if I happen to bow down to the right divinity. If I am judged upon something as irrelevant as that then I have no interest in anything from that God.

Perhaps that is arrogant but I have always believed that actions speak far louder than words.

 

[muff daddy]

Ah I see. They are seeking to restore right to individuals and not corporations as granted in Citizens United. I see that as an expansion of individual rights. I do understand your point now.

Citizen United took away no individual rights.
Show where it has.

Now they are seeking to limit 1st amendment rights.
Now you are on record against free speech.

You bend your COTUS to fit your personal agenda.

 

[EastCheats]

Perhaps that is arrogant but I have always believed that actions speak far louder than words.

Trying to convince people that they are stupid for believing is an arrogant attitude beacause intended or not, that's the message you are sending.

 

[Ms Tree]

Corporations have been silencing individual rights on a regular basis. Jerry wanted to build a new stadium here in Arlington. He put enough cash in front of the city government that they went ahead and used eminent domain to confiscate the land of home owners to build Jerry's world.

Now with Citizen United corporations can through limitless amounts of cash at political candidates with out any disclosure of where it came from. They can marginalize the individual voters and buy an election lock stock and barrel. If you think this amount of money is being spent without favors being owed then you are in deed a idiot of colossal proportions.

Money is what runs this country. Those with the gold make the rules.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.


On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an “ ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’ ” and from creating “ ‘the appearance of such influence,’ ” beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id., at 150; see also, e.g., id., at 143–144, 152–154; Colorado II , 533 U. S., at 441; Shrink Missouri , 528 U. S., at 389. Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA, a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other’s backs—and which amply supported Congress’ determination to target a limited set of especially destructive practices.

If you wish to call Justice Stevens, Ginsburg , Breyer, and Sotomayor as opponents of free speech then I consider my self honored to be in their company.

 

[Ms Tree]

Trying to convince people that they are stupid for believing is an arrogant attitude beacause intended or not, that's the message you are sending.

How is that different from people who believe trying to convince people who do not believe that they are stupid? Aside from that, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am merely posing questions. I did not bring up religion, Muff suggested that I find religion. I merely asked which one was right and for proof.

As I said above, I do not care what religion is right or wrong. I live my life as I see fit and I am willing to discuss my beliefs. I have no interest in converting anyone. If someone changes their mind so be it. If they do not, that is fine as well.