Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) I think the states should end their open defiance of federal law and prosecute people who break the f***ing law. I've never cared very much about medical marijuana, and so I haven't followed any of this, really. What, exactly, are you referencing?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) just what does it take to get medical-grade herb prescribed to you? thats all i want to know. Doctor's prescription, I believe. But it's different in each state, I think. I think that what you're getting at is that some doctors may abuse this and prescribe pot to those who aren't sick enough to have it like all drugs are abused by prescription at some point or another, and I'm sure that'd be the case sometimes with this, but I don't think that should really factor into whether or not it should be legalized. I trust our Doctors, for the most part. And I think the Feds should stay out of this matter.

Anyone who likes David McCullough, or good History Books, should read Truman. QUOTE(rventura23 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) freakonomics, anybody read it? I didn't particularly enjoy it, but I do recommend it. I find myself in the minority as far as my opinion of that book, so I reckon you might like it.

I think this is a damn shame, and one of the reasons I take such offense when the Republicans compare themselves -- or the sitting President -- to President Truman. I love Harry Truman. And Adlai Stevenson. I hate Do-Nothing-Congresses and Grouchy Old Pessimists. Oh, what the hell: (I'm aware that Truman wasn't responsible for the first minimum wage. I'm just saying that whenever this sort of thing is done by Republicans -- and that's very often, kids -- this is the speech I think of.) EDIT: I boldened another very much relevant portion.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) i like what you are saying. i probably see it as a little more vindicating than you do, but right on. My reason to support the war primarily has to do with the fact that Saddam was vile, lying, and couldn't be trusted when he promised that he'd been destroying his weapons and had destroyed them. When the United Nations wasn't allowed access to certain sites, when they said that they weren't getting much help, and when I considered the UN's track record in Iraq, I knew there was no other course. It's not as simple as that, but that section I quoted was really why I supported and support the War. I will say this, about vindication: I do feel vindicated in that this is proof that Saddam wasn't harmless and telling the truth while Bush was needlessly rushing us into war because his dad did too or whatever other theories are out there. I feel vindicated that Sadddam wasn't being honest, that there were weapons to be found and very well might be, but I don't feel like bragging about it. Know what I mean?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:05 PM) we need to topple that bastard, if not just for the sake of the people living in that country. The most disturbing things I've ever read come from North Korea. It's such a vile place. (I'm not endorsing your invasion route, but I am concurring that it's an awful, awful place.)

As a proponent of the War, I appreciate this news very much. I will say, though, that with or without this article I'd still be as serious a supporter of the War as I am now. I don't feel particularly validated by this article, and I don't think that this is cause for critics to "eat crow." It has to be said that they DO have a point -- War critics, that is -- when they say that THIS isn't what we went to War over -- or that, at least, this isn't what Bush sold the War on. However, this: Is a good part of why I believed going in was right, and still do. Good news, good news.

Pfft. Now we won't score anymore runs because of your jinx. Bastard!

You know, I just can't lay off, but I'll try to make this brief, and I won't be making any promises I can't keep. It's hard to refuse response when someone is babbling in your general direction. You stupid bastard -- did you even read my post? I explicitly said that some of our nation's laws were, but nowhere near enough to be considered a "Christian Legal System" and that, besides that, the Commandments that our system follows happen to be the most common sense and universal ones. Holy s***, son, I've been saying that all thread long but also disputing the notion that we've got a Christian-based legal system. There's some minor Christian influence, if you want to look for it, but not that much. And whatever happened to you going from, To only "some". I guess you misstyped, and have now switched your position to mine. Thanks for that. Have we gone from being arrogantly rude, with cute little pet names for one another, to "f***ing"s being in every sentence? s***, there's no f***ing need for that! I never said there's no Christian influence in the public scene. I was saying that, fundamentally, our Legal System is a Secular One and not a Christian-based one. Gay marriage opponents are doing it because they think it's moral, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that this entire Legal System -- or that a significant portion of it -- is religion-based. It seems that you can't understand such a simple bit of nuance. Thanks for telling me what I know and don't know. Perhaps you should focus on getting your own arguments together instead of probing my mind. Oh, my God, son, you don't understand simple nuance. Because men hold office are Christian, Because men who have held office were Christian, Because the President has said he thinks of Christ when he makes his policy, This doesn't make a Christian System of Law. And the legal realm -- the fundamental legal realm -- is a different entity than the established political realm. Which is to say, for instance, that while legislators in Texas can pass an anti-sodomy law aimed at prosecuting gays due to a Conservative religious opposition to homosexuality, the Supreme Court can strike down those laws due to the Equal Protection Clause. First: there is no anti-sodomy law anymore. THe Supreme Court killed those. But you don't understand the nuance between the Fundamental System we have and the political system there exists. I explained it a bit earlier. You're flipping arguments from "I'm arguing that our Legal System is a Christian-one" to "George Bush and the Republicans and some Democrats hate gays and so that makes this legal system a Christian-based one because some people use their faith in making laws." You have fun switching, Senator Kerry. I did not shoot myself in the foot. Yours is first. Mine is second. Here's what I said that prompted you to say I "implied" that law and philosophy are different: First: law is NOT the same thing as philosophy. Law is derived from philosophy, as you said and I concurred. They're similar, but not the same. You mean...some Western philosphers...were Christian? I'm stunned! Thank you for enlightening me! Oh, you're in my head again, assigning motive to me! I shall call you Sir Ass[igner]! Can I borrow your ESP, Sir Ass[igner]? Poll no one -- you hold a candle to the sun!

Then stick to the subject and argument at hand, Mr. Consistent. We were talking about whether or not American law is based on Christianity. I said that it wasn't, and you did, then brought up Divine Justice. I said that that wasn't a part of American Law, and you said that it was a long time ago, in the Colonies. I said, "Then that doesn't count, because that wasn't American Law. That was a different time, when we weren't a nation, and were controlled by another." Divine Justice is not and never was a tool of American Law, with "America" beginning once the Constitution is ratified. Oh you're a wily devil. How clever. I have long been making the argument with you that American Law isn't based on Christian Law or Christianity. You made the point that certain things were in sync with Christianity. I said "Basic, Universal things" were, and that that included such universal things as "Do not kill, do not lie," etc. etc. but then said that aside from the Obvious Commandments, there are no Laws based in Christianity (like "worship false idols" "do not cheat on your wife" "be nice to mom and dad"). America. Is not. A nation. With a Bible-based. Or Christian-based. Legal system. That's an entirely different story. While it's true that Christians (Catholics, too) are the likeliest to oppose gay marriages in our society, that has little to do with our legal system fundamentally and it has nothing to do with the way this country was founded. It's a recent development. They were ALL colonists before they were Americans, Einstein. You're playing a game of Semantics. You very well know that the distinction I was making was between Colonists as in the Pilgrims, the first movers who first came to America and set up the colonies, and the generation that came generations later and revolted. If your point was -- and, let me say, I have trouble distinguishing what you're saying because there's absolutely no coherent thread between any of what you say -- that the first Colonists, the Pilgrims, came over as Christians intent on a Puritan, ultra-Christian nation, and that their laws were Christian-based, that's true, but we weren't a country back then, and when we finally became a country, their ilk had long passed and we no longer used Christianity as our Law. The point on my part is that Christianity was never the Basis of our Law or our Constitution. You have been misrepresenting me throughout this entire thread, and it is what you always do. Perhaps, however, I am giving you too much credit: I suppose it's entirely possible that someone like you just doesn't understand subtlety or nuance. You weren't arguing philosophy. You were arguing Law. Philosophically, there are a ton of Christian elements in our society, and its influence is heavy. In American Law? Not so much. But we're not arguing over Christian influence in Society, just in Law. And no, American Law is not based "in large part" on Christian "philosophy." It's based on secular principles (I've listed them numerous times), along with three things htat happen to be in the Ten Commandments but that are universal and basically accepted by all societies. Our Laws do descend from Western philosophers and ideals. That's a far different thing to say than "Our laws are rooted in Christianity." That's simply untrue. I wasn't aware that our legal principles could be traced back to the Bible. I'll bet that's what James Madison was looking at when he penned the Fourth Amendment, and that Federal Laws protecting witnesses, our system of Judicial Review, the Appeals process -- that any of these things are rooted in Christianity. Oh go to hell. How's that for grown up? You said I wanted Jefferson to be an atheist. As I conceded, I'd erred, and nothing more. But in saying "You just want Jefferson to be an Atheist LOL BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE LOLOL!" you were assigning a motive to my post. And, so you know, I never said you wanted me to be an Atheist. Perhaps your English Comprehension skills are off? I said I felt that the implication was, in saying I wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist, that I was an Atheist who therefore wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist due to some awkward agenda. If that wasn't what you were implying, then by all means, I accept that, and I won't call you dishonest over it. But don't give me this nonsense about how you didn't assign any motive to my post, as you clearly did. This time, I'm done with your posts as I can only spin around you in circles for so long. You have fun calling me a Liar, claiming I used a "smear tactic" before editing that out as it was a comment wholly withut merit, and hanging on to the idea that Christianity is the basis for American Law. We're done here, and you're not going to goad me back. Have a nice night.

My votes: But there's no way Reinsdorf would fire him for this.

I'm surprised nobody has come up to talk about how proud they are of this restaurant.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) You're missing the point... again. The threat of Divine Justice WAS used to enforce laws a loooong time ago. Many of our nation's current laws are based on what is taught in The Bible. There's no denying that. The colonists who later founded our nation were also overwhelmingly Christian. Sounds like you need a history lesson, Scooter. Oh, my giddy English flag: The threat of divine justice was used to enforce laws? Back in the 1600s? I'm sorry, that doesn't count. We weren't a nation back then in any sense of the term. Maybe you don't know your history, Billy, but we didn't become a nation until the late 1700s. If certain states were using "Divine Justice" as a way to enforce laws, that's not the same as saying that this nation used divine justice to enforce laws. Many of our current laws are based on what is taught in the Bible? Name them. I can count a couple of the Ten Commandments as having made the switch, but that's about it. Murder, stealing, and lying (albeit stretched to "under oath" and, perhaps, "conspiracy"). And the colonists did not found our nation, so you know. They founded a series of states, each different from the other. Years later, men who descended from them took the initiative in creating a nation, and they were deists. The Pilgrims didn't found the United States of America. But even if the founding fathers WERE Christian, that doesn't make us a Christian Nation as in Nation based on Christianity in the way that Israel is Jewish or Saudi Arabia is Islamic. We're a nation comprised of Christians but this is very much a secular government as it was intended to be. Re: the bold: you keep talking to me like that you're gonna make my heart go all pitter pat with glee. Are you trying to seduce me? Who said that Christianity didn't have an influence on our society? I'm just saying our Legal System isn't based on Christianity or Christian Law. The basic tenets of American justice are not religious based. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. etc. Those aren't things someone found in the Bible. You claiming that I wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist is dishonest. All I did was err and you began making assumptions about what I "wanted" and you assigned a motive to my post. Talk about dishonest. And, I did intend to leave the thread, but I'm not one to be called dishonest and then walk off without making my points in return. So don't start calling me dishonest for that, too, Charlie Brown.

I am, so you know, done with this thread.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Not for a lack of trying Even there we differ.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:48 PM) Divine Justice is what the overwhelmingly-Christian Western society used to enforce "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc." before it had the infrastructure to do so. The basic "laws" of Christianity (and Judaism) eventually became the basis of our legal system. Why is that so difficul to understand? We're just about done here, Skip. If you're making the argument that "divine justice" is what we used to enforce our laws then you're off the deep end. Divine justice is the teaching that God could pardon sin by a mere act of will, and without any satisfaction to his justice i.e. without an atonement. Yeah, that's what our legal system was and is based on. I suppose that innocent until proven guilty, the concept of search warrants, the appeals process -- these things of our system of law are all based on Christianity. Or that they're nowhere near as important as "divine justice" is to our legal system! I wasn't aware that you had to have ESP to get a hunch as to where someone's taking something. I was clarifying the point: if you are saying I want him to be an Atheist, the implication is that I'm an atheist with an agenda. I'm not. And I retracted about Jefferson. Ah, and I see you changed your post. I guess that me saying, "I'm not an Atheist with an agenda" in more words -- that me clarifying that I'm not an Atheist, and making sure that that implication isn't there -- no longer qualifies as a "smear tactic" but is merely worthy of a "try again Scooter." I'm glad to see you are no longer accusing me of smear tactics, Captain.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Not a provocation as much as a sign to the United States that it can strike back to the west coast if needed in the event of an invasion. I'm of the school that North Korea chose to go nuclear because it does so purely for defensive means. I don't think that the madman of North Korea is nearly as crazy as we think, and is really just constantly working to consolidate what he has and keep power, not expand it. The truth is, and I'm sure he's well aware of it, that his country is surrounded by so many others that are so much more wealthy than North Korea and used to its wealth, that any power grab would most likely be short lived even if it was left alone by outside powers. I agree with that, but I as under the impresion that this school of thought -- that Jung is defensive minded -- was the conventional wisdom. At least, that it's the convention wisdom coupled with the fact that he wants to be considered a real leader on teh global stage and not, you know, get mocked as much. By the way, by "provokation" I mean I believe it's an attempt to show us that he CAN fight back, and to, thus, try to use it as leverage for some sort of aid from Korea and Japan and us.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Maybe there's a quid pro quo. Maybe France will help with our lower case empire. I guess we differ there. I don't believe we HAVE a lower-case empire.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) France is actually in the vanguard of NATO troops in Afghanistan and does contribute to the world community in some ways. Also, the United States is bound by its own self-interest to help in Africa. A continent plagued by disease and a lack of statesmanship is crawling with the symptoms that tend to cause a militant movement that may sponsor trans-global terror. If our country's stated goal is to stop trans-global terror, we need to adjust our scope of the future properly. We've pretty much f***ed ourselves - at least for the time being - in the middle east, but sub-saharan Africa is a different story. We have the opportunity of gaining influence, not adding to French control. If the people calling to aid the French in Africa are worth their salt, they will see this opportunity and seize on it, eventually squeezing France out of the picture. I know France assists in some ways, but overall, my point was that they're not worth turning on Africa over this and assisting their attempts at lower case empire.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) This is a situation that I feel tense about, not for what North Korea is doing but rather for the response that we may do. I feel like this may be seen as a provocation that it really isn't. I think it's clearly an attempt to provoke Japan and ourselves, and perhaps to scare the South Koreans. I don't think even George Bush is ridiculous enough to go crazy over a missile test.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) All loathing aside, this is a fairly accurate critique of France's shortcomings in the post colonial age. A big part of the problem that people saw in urban areas is a result of decades of thinly veiled racist policy on behalf of the French government. Many of the new states that France released on its own are financially controlled and dependent on France. Many central banks in Africa can actually have its decisions overruled by the French government, which often controls up to half of the votes in the body. Yeah, and for some odd reason or another, our government is going to bow to their requests for assistance. I mean, maybe I'm off or something, but France isn't THAT valuable to us. It's not like they give us much assistance when the going gets tough.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Jefferson never claimed to be an Atheist and, by almost all accounts, was a Deist. The fact that you WANT him to be an Atheist to support your argument won't change history. Except Deism, where divine justice doesn't play a major role. Those ideas had been rooted in Christianity LONG before the colonists came to America. Deists like Jefferson and Franklin didn't create them. I did some basic research, and am going to retract the conviction that Jefferson was an Atheist. I will say, however, that I didn't say he WAS one, just that he wasn't a Christian and that the Founders were either Atheists or Deists. I believe I overstated the Atheist presence, and take that back -- however, I was absolutely right about Christianity. Hey, listen: Divine Justice doesn't play any significant role in American Justice -- not in the Constitution, not in the public arena. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the talk of Divine Justice. That not all of Christianity's basic principles are universal? Congratulations, but the ones that are are basic tenets in American Justice while Divine Justice isn't. :rolly You want to accuse me of re-writing history? Whatever. I made an error that I rectified. And, by the way, I believe you to be implying that I'm an Atheist and therefore "want" Jefferson to be an Atheist. I'm not an Atheist, mate. Thanks for playing, tiger.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) My mistake. I meant to say that our nation's system of law was founded on basic Christian principles. I said that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. Well, I still think it's a stretch to say that our system of law is based on basic Christian principles, but it's a far stronger case than the non-existent one for a Christian Constitution. Why do I think it a stretch? Like I said, basic Christian principles are the basic principles of just about every society, religious and otherwise. "Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape" -- these aren't exactly exclusive to the Bible. And Jefferson may have been a Deist, might've been an Atheist. Agree to disagree. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) Even Deism? I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that divine justice isn't a major tenent of Deism. And where, exactly, is it a tenet of the Constitution or even of our Law system? As I said earlier, before you edited your post, we'll agree to disagree. The time he lived in wasn't quite as open to Atheists. No, not really -- or, not in the end. It doesn't affect the argument over Christianity and Law/the Constitution, and it doesn't change the fact that Washington was a) no Theocrat and B) came to associate himself with Freemasonry and Deists.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Few of the Founding Fathers were Atheists. I can't name any off the top of my head. The Catholic and Anglican Churches were trampling on everybody's rights back then, so it's not quite surprisng that quite a few of them (including Jefferson and Franklin) became Deists. Washington was a Christian who moved closer towards Deism later. That said, the average colonist was not part of the "in vogue" Deist movement and considered themselves Christian. Given that even Deists believed in the basic moral values taught by Christianity, it's very fair to say that the Constitution was founded on basic Christian principles. I boldened the portion I found most objectionable. Let's say that the inventor of Hockey believed in basic Christian principles. Does that mean Hockey was founded on basic Christian principles? My attempt to ridicule your point by stretching it to fit other scenarios aside, that statement is absurd. What are basic Christian principles, exactly? Let's say they're the ten commandments. Last time I checked, "Don't cheat on your wife" and "Don't curse" aren't American laws or Constitutional, neither is "Respect your parents." "Don't kill, don't steal," etc. etc. are all basic Christian principles, but they're basic principles in every Religion. I wasn't aware, my dear boy, that the Bible contained principles saying that freedom of speech is paramount and that the government has no right to search your home without a warrant. I guess I should re-read Matthew to find a comprehensive guide to government, starting with Checks and Balances, that the Founders took and molded into the Constitution. To say that the Constitution was founded on Christian principles is to grasp at straws. Let's assume that they were all Christians, just for kicks. (And by all, I mean the Founders.) The Constitution was written based on the teachings of Locke and Rousseau. They weren't thinking, "What would Jesus Do?!" as they wrote it and there's not a damn thing to suggest that. Jefferson was clearly not a Christian. He read the Bible and re-wrote it to delete everything "supernatural" and impossible. Adams once wrote in a letter to Jefferson that Christianity was a fraud. And Washington? Everyone attaches political beliefs to him that he may or may not have had, but he was a Deist for much of his life, and that's all that really matters there.