Online Now 3846

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2756
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3796
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Any fans of the ACLU here?

  • Felix said...

    No. I already provided a rebuttal to that fallacy.

    Link?

    Uncle DP

  • SignalBama said...

    Now the personal attacks. Makes sense. If you do not have facts or an intelligent response they usually do occur. Listen just because you do not understand the full context of the Bill of Rights and what brought about the writing of the clauses and Amendments.... Don't get mad at me for trying to explain it to you. I am not manipulating or twisting anything. Pick up any American History book that covers the Bill of Rights and read it yourself. Then after that look at the rulings that were made the past 200 years when these types of cases were ruled on by courts. It all points to exactly what I have said. Outside of you seeing that and understanding that no one here has an agenda against you.... I don't know what else to say to you man. I was hoping to help educate you a little bit to help you understand. But you seem to care more about being right about believing something that is false.

    See my challenge above. Bet anything you can't do it.

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    Lets back up. Here is the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Work your magic on it and show me how these words can possibly be used to say that schools have a right to prohibit the free exercise of religion among its students. Go.

    Schools don't have a "right". We are talking about the relation between the public institution infringing upon the student. If found, the court decides and the school must comply.

    I'm confused how you are determining which parties are doing what.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • Uncle DP said...

    Link?

    headslap

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • Uncle DP said...

    Lets back up. Here is the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Work your magic on it and show me how these words can possibly be used to say that schools have a right to prohibit the free exercise of religion among its students. Go.

    Under the Incorporation doctrine(look it up), the Bill of Rights was broadly applied to limit state and local governments as well as federal. Incorporating the 2 religious clauses from the First Amendment was a large reason for this. The first step was the Supreme Court’s conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. The Establishment Clause was incorporated with a bit of turmoil in 1947. Largely because it dealt with Congress involving itself with state establishments of religion. Once this was incorporated on a state level is when Schools became under the domain of these clauses as they were state government funded.. The first case of this came in regards to state sanctioned prayer in 1962. I'm sure I am just manipulating facts though instead of actually explaining what happened to you.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by SignalBama on 5/8/2012 at 6:06 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • Felix said...

    Schools don't have a "right". We are talking about the relation between the public institution infringing upon the student. If found, the court decides and the school must comply.

    I'm confused how you are determining which parties are doing what.

    I asked for someone to twist up the First Amendment to back up their beliefs and this is how you reply? With some gibberish about public institution/student infringement relations? Read that aloud and let me know if it sounds as good as it did when you typed it because it is obvious that you sure as hell made no attempt to add anything of value to this discussion.

    This post was edited by Uncle DP on 5/8/2012 at 6:05 PM

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    Link?

    http://www.ehow.com/how_2090771_ignore-message-board-trolls.html

    signature image signature image signature image

    Dawg E Style161

  • SignalBama said...

    Under the Incorporation doctrine(look it up), the Bill of Rights was broadly applied to limit state and local governments as well as federal. Incorporating the 2 religious clauses from the First Amendment was a large reason for this. The first step was the Supreme Court’s conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. The Establishment Clause was incorporated with a bit of turmoil in 1947. Largely because it dealt with Congress involving itself with state establishments of religion. Once this was incorporated on a state level is when Schools became under the domain of these clauses as they were state government funded.. The first case of this came in regards to state sanctioned prayer in 1960.

    So, when asked to use the 1st Amendment to justify your stance, you give me some long-winded essay that barely even includes any if the original words in the 1st Amendment but accuse ME of manipulating the text when all I'm doing is quoting it? I rest my case. You just completely lost this debate. You're done.

    Nice edit, by the way. I guess that makes you feel as though you've saved face?

    This post was edited by Uncle DP on 5/8/2012 at 6:10 PM

    Uncle DP

  • Dawg E. Style said...

    http://www.ehow.com/how_2090771_ignore-message-board-trolls.html

    I don't get the idea that Felix is a troll. I think he really believes he's right.

    Uncle DP

  • So Signal and myself make two points and your only rebuttal is ad hominem.

    Your powers of persuasion are unmatched thumbsup

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • Uncle DP said...

    So, when asked to use the 1st Amendment to justify your stance, you give me some long-winded essay that barely even includes any if the original words in the 1st Amendment but accuse ME of manipulating the text when all I'm doing is quoting it? I rest my case. You just completely lost this debate. You're done.

    I showed you exactly how it became applicable to schools that are funded by the state government. I never said you manipulated anything.... Are you seriously adding something I didn't say yet again to my post ? Maybe it is just your guilty conscience speaking up ? I don't know, I know I never said it though. However you saying someone "Lost this debate" doesn't make it true. Especially when specific facts were provided to give you an answer. The original text was implied in my response. I was showing how it became applicable to states and schools in general. Maybe you just didn't grasp that ?

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    I showed you exactly how it became applicable to schools that are funded by the state government. I never said you manipulated anything.... Are you seriously adding something I didn't say yet again to my post ? Maybe it is just your guilty conscience speaking up ? I don't know, I know I never said it though. However you saying someone "Lost this debate" doesn't make it true. Especially when specific facts were provided to give you an answer. The original text was implied in my response. I was showing how it became applicable to states and schools in general. Maybe you just didn't grasp that ?

    DP 1 Signal 0 Final

    Any more issues you want me to set you straight on?

    Uncle DP

  • Felix said...

    So Signal and myself make two points and your only rebuttal is ad hominem.

    Your powers of persuasion are unmatched thumbsup

    I never attacked you personally. I simply pointed out that your arguments don't have any merit given the evidence at hand.

    Here's a link to an explanation of ad hominem.

    Fallacy: Ad Hominem

    Description and examples of Ad Hominem fallacy.

    www.nizkor.org

    Uncle DP

  • I'm confused as to why you even post in these threads DP. You have made it clear you (a) always think you're right and everyone else is wrong and (b) will never and hate the idea of compromise. So what's the point?

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • Uncle DP said...

    DP 1 Signal 0 Final

    Any more issues you want me to set you straight on?

    No response at all then ? Is that the way you are going to go with it ? You made a statement earlier to BamaLives about how your supposedly shot down all his arguments. Well I would like you to take notice here that you have no reply at all. All of your false interpretations have been shot down by more than one person and your last ditch attempt to distract and claim victory has failed when you simply can't reply to actual facts.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • I am just impressed there has been no name calling here and has remained semi civil , thumbsup

    signature image signature image signature image

    Dawg E Style161

  • Dawg E. Style said...

    I am just impressed there has been no name calling here and has remained semi civil , thumbsup

    HAHA well he has tried to call names... I just don't stoop to that level with him.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    No response at all then ? Is that the way you are going to go with it ? You made a statement earlier to BamaLives about how your supposedly shot down all his arguments. Well I would like you to take notice here that you have no reply at all. All of your false interpretations have been shot down by more than one person and your last ditch attempt to distract and claim victory has failed when you simply can't reply to actual facts.

    I gave you the First Amendment as fact and challenged you to twist it to your liking. You couldn't even do that. You just went another direction altogether. You simply cannot make the Amendment say what you want it to say. Ergo, I win.

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    I gave you the First Amendment as fact and challenged you to twist it to your liking. You couldn't even do that. You just went another direction altogether. You simply cannot make the Amendment say what you want it to say. Ergo, I win.

    I have never tried to make it say what I wanted. I only told you what it said. You seem to be the one to imply that it says something it doesn't. You seem to not understand it at all. Supplying you with the history and why it was written is in no way implying it says something it doesn't. This is not about winning or losing. This is about helping you understand your own rights... Which you clearly don't by the way you have described what you think they say.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • Uncle DP said...

    I never attacked you personally. I simply pointed out that your arguments don't have any merit given the evidence at hand.

    Here's a link to an explanation of ad hominem.

    You have given no attempt for allowance of a competing belief and base that on how stupid you think I am.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • SignalBama said...

    I have never tried to make it say what I wanted. I only told you what it said. You seem to be the one to imply that it says something it doesn't. You seem to not understand it at all. Supplying you with the history and why it was written is in no way implying it says something it doesn't. This is not about winning or losing. This is about helping you understand your own rights... Which you clearly don't by the way you have described what you think they say.

    I still can't see how quoting something word for word is akin to claiming it says something it doesn't yet adding/removing/massaging is considered shooting straight. That's a pretty twisted worldview IYAM.

    Uncle DP

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    You have given no attempt for allowance of a competing belief and base that on how stupid you think I am.

    I didn't say you were stupid but you're right about not allowing for a competing belief. I can read 15 plainly-written words and determine what they mean. I don't need to listen to someone spin them into, essentially, the exact opposite of what they mean.

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    I still can't see how quoting something word for word is akin to claiming it says something it doesn't yet adding/removing/massaging is considered shooting straight. That's a pretty twisted worldview IYAM.

    Yours is a singular view of the words without an understanding of why they were written and how they are applied in the real world. No one added anything or removed anything from the Clauses. The only one in this thread trying to make them not mean something they do is you. Everyone who has tried to explain it to you has been ridiculed by you. You simply tried to browbeat anyone that attempted to help you understand with your same singular view.

    We simply tried to help you understand again... Why they were written and how they were applied. We have done this through telling you the history of how they came about and how they have been applied in court rulings. You should visit a local school and ask the principle of that school about what is allowed there in relation to religion based on the first amendment. Ask him what the school allows and doesn't allow and then ask him why that is. You might find a firmer grasp of what they mean that way. I am heading out for the night. Was a fun little discussion. I really enjoyed most of your juvenile responses. Got a few chuckles. Have a good evening.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    Yours is a singular view of the words without an understanding of why they were written and how they are applied in the real world. No one added anything or removed anything from the Clauses. The only one in this thread trying to make them not mean something they do is you. Everyone who has tried to explain it to you has been ridiculed by you. You simply tried to browbeat anyone that attempted to help you understand with your same singular view.

    We simply tried to help you understand again... Why they were written and how they were applied. We have done this through telling you the history of how they came about and how they have been applied in court rulings. You should visit a local school and ask the principle of that school about what is allowed there in relation to religion based on the first amendment. Ask him what the school allows and doesn't allow and then ask him why that is. You might find a firmer grasp of what they mean that way. I am heading out for the night. Was a fun little discussion. I really enjoyed most of your juvenile responses. Got a few chuckles. Have a good evening.

    "Yours is a singular view of the words without an understanding of why they were written and how they are applied in the real world" is a standard statement from someone who is trying to twist the meaning of something and force feed it to you as something it isn't. Thanks for being so transparent.

    As for understanding why they were written, I understand the reason for the Bill of Rights perfectly. It was added because the States felt there weren't enough limitations on Federal power as the Constitution was initially written and would not have voted to ratify it without additional controls over the Federal government. So by taking something that was meant to limit Federal power, applying the 14th Amendment and apply it to the States (a point I'm not arguing), and using it to give power to the very people it was intended to limit is the essence of manipulation. Can you not see this?

    This post was edited by Uncle DP on 5/8/2012 at 7:14 PM

    Uncle DP

  • double

    This post was edited by BigCaliVT on 5/8/2012 at 7:28 PM

    signature image

    BigCaliVT ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports