Gaar, Jeeee-sus, get some rest. I'm going to, good night hard head.
On Nov 12, 8:56 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you said that our "Policies" are not on Display... > > And the very FACT that some of these Displays EXIST in the first place > is because of those "Policies". > > So what a better way to "display" such Policies?!?!?!?!? > > Somehow, I don't think you will ever "get it" holly. > > On Nov 12, 6:38 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > gaar, > > > Jesus Christ, do you want to respond to the fucking post, or not? > > What the fuck is wrong with you? I said the Constituion is not on > > display? Your getting more loony with each passing day. I'm getting > > tired of your bullshit. > > > On Nov 12, 8:22 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You did say that such things were NOT on Display, right? > > > > So not only did you not mention it, but you were denying it outright, > > > and I was correcting you. > > > > Capiche? > > > > On Nov 12, 6:15 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > gaar, > > > > > Oh i didn't realize that I was ONLY supposed to mention it exactly > > > > WHEN, WHERE and in the exact context that YOU wanted me to. > > > > > Please try to find it in your large and tender heart to forgive my > > > > transgression Lord High Judge. It's your tree and I'm just a squirrel > > > > trying to get a little nut. > > > > > Fuck you. > > > > > On Nov 12, 7:39 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Understood... > > > > > > And I was making the point that these "Displays" and what they say do > > > > > in FACT "Represent" U.S. Policy, just by being there. > > > > > > THAT is where YOU failed to mention the Freedom OF Religion, given in > > > > > our First Amendment, that I am pointing out... > > > > > > Try to keep up, Idiot. > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:34 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > You really are the total OCD hard head. > > > > > > I was responding to your statement that I neglected to mention that > > > > > > our Constituion is how the people get their right to freely express > > > > > > their religion. And i just showed where you were wrong. > > > > > > Call it a day Gaar, your getting silly. > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 7:22 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmmmm... > > > > > > > > You just admitted that some of the displays that YOU say do not > > > > > > > profess our "Policy" do in fact profess our Policy. > > > > > > > > You are aware of that, right? > > > > > > > > I was pointing out that YOU said such things were NOT on display, > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > you just admitted that they are. > > > > > > > > Imagine that. > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:18 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > > Hollywood post to mark Nov.12th time 9;14am > > > > > > > > > And i quote myself "It guarantees freedom from religion as much > > > > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > guarantees freedom to practice a given religion of choice." End > > > > > > > > quote. > > > > > > > > > Had enough hard head? > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 6:41 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > News to me? > > > > > > > > > > I just thought I would point it out, since you neglected to > > > > > > > > > mention > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:32 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > > > > No shit Sherlock. Or not practice religion. This is fucking > > > > > > > > > > news to > > > > > > > > > > you or something? What the fuck do you think I've been > > > > > > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:54 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The First Amendment is also how People get the Right to > > > > > > > > > > > Freely express > > > > > > > > > > > their Religion... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:49 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too late to save you boy, he's left the field. > > > > > > > > > > > > What you are talking about lad is a official document, > > > > > > > > > > > > you know like a > > > > > > > > > > > > TREATY, that is ON display. And that document dosen't > > > > > > > > > > > > say a fucking > > > > > > > > > > > > thing about religion other than that this country will > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT have an > > > > > > > > > > > > official one. Yep, I checked, right there in the First > > > > > > > > > > > > Ammendment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:02 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of those "diplays" is of the U.S. Constitution... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As many others just quote from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which isn't "U.S. Policy", it should be the Fucking > > > > > > > > > > > > > Law of the Land. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:59 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how my comparison of private opinions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > differ from public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinions expressed in the capacity as a national > > > > > > > > > > > > > > office holder is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsensical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never been to D.C. Seen pictures, documantaries and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > movies of tourists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standing in front of them getting their pictures > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taken. Symbolism for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the masses, not official statements of U.S policy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't run away, try harder. Your rolling over and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving up like the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ram's defensive line. LMAO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:44 pm, Kamakazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's only difficult because you argue a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsensical position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you been to DC? "tourist attractions"???. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're referring to the Smithsonian's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exhibit on Uranus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:39 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure you can, primarily in their PERSONAL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LETTERS to friends and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associates. And i can find as many from other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FF's that do not support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion, all depends on WHICH FF I dig up and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at WHAT point in his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monuments? Tourists attractions lad. NOT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > official documents stating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > federal Govt. policy. You understand that a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Treaty has to be ratified > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by Congress, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is is beyond you to understand that a man might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a personal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion that is quite different from an opinion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he might hold as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public official when his/her decisions might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very well impact on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entire country? Is this too difficult for you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2:16 pm, Kamakazee <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For every "Treaty of Tripoli" snippet you dig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up (and I suspect there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't many) I can pull up 10 snippets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly related to the faith/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > belief/religions the found fathers expressed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in other writings. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > produce 10 pictures of monuments in DC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. Of course the Establishment Clause is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended to prevent the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment, by the govt, of any state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sponsored religion. And of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course one is free to chose no religion, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not specifically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stated in the USC, that was my point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:39 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakazee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please tell me you're not this dense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The constituion specifically forbids the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment of ANY state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion. Look it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if there IS no officially sanctioned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion that means you can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never be "punished" for not following the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "approved" religion as no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such thing exists. That, of course means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not required to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practice ANY religion. The end result or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect is to make one "free" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from religion is one so chooses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding a specific religion such as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christianity the U.S. Govt. made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a clear statement in the Treaty of Tripoli > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed and ratified in 1797 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "as the Government of the United States is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT, in any sense founded > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the Christian religion". John Adams was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president at the time, most > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of our "Founding Fathers" were still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > living. Just Google "treaty of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tripoli" if you doubt my word and read the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > damn thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That enough help for you? Need more? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:56 am, Kamakazee <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorta, but where is that found? In the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > freedom of expression clause? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the establishment clause? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Help a guy out here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 9:14 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It guarantee freedom FROM religion as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much as > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
