Coburn says gays are the greatest threat to our freedom

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

And? That is even farther from expressive association than not serving blacks.

How is not serving blacks more expressive than dancing naked?

One has something to do with social identity. For the record, though, I have said that neither is protected under the First Amendment.

What the hell does the First Amendment say about social identity? And then what is refusing to serve blacks protected under since you say laws prohibiting that are unconstitutional.

It's also not related to social identity to post some sort of political sign or banner outside your house, but that's protected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

[dazzleman]

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

Lovely how you'd rather mindlessly bash me than care that the Republican party is run by extremists.

The Republican Party is not "run" by Tom Coburn.

Thank you.  I love it how the Democrats squeal like little b&$ches whenever somebody says that they're run by Michael Moore or George Soros, but then they say the Republican party is run by extremists.

As I said earlier, we need to know the context of his statements.  I have reservations about the whole radical gay agenda, as symbolized by those whackos who march in drag in the Gay Pride parade.  They seek to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many don't really want to give approval to.  Tolerance is different than acceptance.  In truth, I have extreme reservations about the agendas of the groups that "represent" all of society's self-proclaimed "victim" groups -- gays, blacks, women, American Indians, etc.  I support equal rights in general for members of all these groups, but the agendas that are being pursued on their behalf go well beyond equal rights in a lot of cases, and seek to redefine the meaning of equal rights in a way that I don't approve.

[A18]

It protects expressive association.

I said laws prohibiting it are constitutional, not unconstitutional.

I never stated expressive association is the only thing protected by the First Amendment, nor have I ever stated that everything remotely related to expression is protected speech.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

No, my position is that pornography is not "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Music and books are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doesn't the state have the power to regulate who uses their buildings?

The state owns nothing.

Huh?

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

Lovely how you'd rather mindlessly bash me than care that the Republican party is run by extremists.

The Republican Party is not "run" by Tom Coburn.

Thank you.  I love it how the Democrats squeal like little b&$ches whenever somebody says that they're run by Michael Moore or George Soros, but then they say the Republican party is run by extremists.

As I said earlier, we need to know the context of his statements.  I have reservations about the whole radical gay agenda, as symbolized by those whackos who march in drag in the Gay Pride parade.  They seek to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many don't really want to give approval to.  Tolerance is different than acceptance.  In truth, I have extreme reservations about the agendas of the groups that "represent" all of society's self-proclaimed "victim" groups -- gays, blacks, women, American Indians, etc.  I support equal rights in general for members of all these groups, but the agendas that are being pursued on their behalf go well beyond equal rights in a lot of cases, and seek to redefine the meaning of equal rights in a way that I don't approve.

Bush is an extremist, dumbass. You can quit bashing liberals, who don't control jack sh**t right now, and wake the  up the damage the crooks who run your own party are doing. No more mindless bashing of liberals.

[dazzleman]

I love it how the Democrats squeal like little b&$ches

OMG THE FAGS HAVE TURNED DAZZLEMAN GAY.

[dazzleman]

Bush is an extremist, dumbass. You can quit bashing liberals, who don't control jack sh**t right now, and wake the  up the damage the crooks who run your own party are doing. No more mindless bashing of liberals.

Dude, you really are pretty hilarious.  Do you really think I would take orders from you?  I'll bash liberals more than ever, just based on your last line. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is an extremist, dumbass. You can quit bashing liberals, who don't control jack sh**t right now, and wake the  up the damage the crooks who run your own party are doing. No more mindless bashing of liberals.

Dude, you really are pretty hilarious.  Do you really think I would take orders from you?  I'll bash liberals more than ever, just based on your last line. 

Pathetic, your party is in total control of the government, and you, just like them don't stand for anything, you guys just stand against liberals who have no power now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

No, my position is that pornography is not "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Music and books are.

strip clubs aren't pornography. And what's the difference?

[dazzleman]

Pathetic, your party is in total control of the government, and you, just like them don't stand for anything, you guys just stand against liberals who have no power now.

Buddy, there are plenty of things I stand for, and liberals are either opposed to most of them, or have stubbornly pushed incompetent schemes to address them.  That's why I don't like liberals.

It's funny to see you burn with impotent fury.  Keep it up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pathetic, your party is in total control of the government, and you, just like them don't stand for anything, you guys just stand against liberals who have no power now.

Buddy, there are plenty of things I stand for, and liberals are either opposed to most of them, or have stubbornly pushed incompetent schemes to address them.  That's why I don't like liberals.

Name some things.

[A18]

Nudity is not speech. Get it?

The difference is that one is implicit in the original meaning of the First Amendment, and one isn't. Same deal with child pornography.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nudity is not speech. Get it?

The difference is that one is implicit in the original meaning of the First Amendment, and one isn't. Same deal with child pornography.

Well the First Amendment wasn't drafted to stop Marilyn Manson from tearing apart Bibles on stage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't protect him from any state banning him from doing so.

[A18]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

[dazzleman]

Name some things.

I have to admit that I'm very wary of getting drawn into a serious discussion with such an angry and negative person such as yourself.  It's like walking into quicksand, and there's no upside, since I don't think your mind is open enough to listen to anything I have to say anyway.

Having said that, I have made a series of substantive posts on a number of things, and in some cases disagreed with Republican posters on certain issues, most recently the issue of whether Rosa Parks should lie in state in the Capitol.

My attacks on liberals are far from mindless.  I sincerely believe that the "liberal" agenda has gone seriously off-track, and that even where liberal goals are laudable, their proposed means of achieving those goals are bound to fail.

If you really want to know what I think, you can read other threads in which you have not been involved.  I tend to be more expansive about my nuanced views in a less rabidly partisan atmosphere than the one you foster.

I am going to go out for a run now.  When I get back, if you think you are capable of having an actual discussion, rather than an angry two-way monologue, I will post some of what I strongly believe in.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

But that's not "speech". It's an action, just like dancing naked.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My attacks on liberals are far from mindless.

You say liberals support Islam. That's pretty damn mindless.

[A18]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

But that's not "speech". It's an action, just like dancing naked.

"Speech" in the First Amendment includes more than literal speech. But it does not include every action.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Name some things.

I have to admit that I'm very wary of getting drawn into a serious discussion with such an angry and negative person such as yourself.  It's like walking into quicksand, and there's no upside, since I don't think your mind is open enough to listen to anything I have to say anyway.

Having said that, I have made a series of substantive posts on a number of things, and in some cases disagreed with Republican posters on certain issues, most recently the issue of whether Rosa Parks should lie in state in the Capitol.

My attacks on liberals are far from mindless.  I sincerely believe that the "liberal" agenda has gone seriously off-track, and that even where liberal goals are laudable, their proposed means of achieving those goals are bound to fail.

If you really want to know what I think, you can read other threads in which you have not been involved.  I tend to be more expansive about my nuanced views in a less rabidly partisan atmosphere than the one you foster.

I am going to go out for a run now.  When I get back, if you think you are capable of having an actual discussion, rather than an angry two-way monologue, I will post some of what I strongly believe in.

So I have to look through all of your old posts to find some actual positions here? I didn't ask why you don't like liberals, I asked why you like Republicans/conservatives. I checked the first few pages of your posts, and didn't see much.

[Emsworth]

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Commercial association does not necessarily constitute speech.

Why would an organization, like the Boy Scouts, which meet inside public buildings, have more right to discriminate than a private company that owns their own building that they discrimate in?

The Boy Scouts are a completely private organization engaging in expressive activity. However, the company is not engaging in expressive activity, but merely selling a product or providing a service with no relation at all to speech.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Boy Scouts are a completely private organization engaging in expressive activity. However, the company is not engaging in expressive activity, but merely selling a product or providing a service with no relation at all to speech.
[/quote]

Seems like some real hair splitting to me.

[Emsworth]

Seems like some real hair splitting to me.

It is a distinction that is not only rational, but also clearly supported by precedent.

[memphis]

I am not sure I understand your point...are you saying rich people can't be saved or that being rich is somehow a sin?

What the bible is saying is that Jesus was a socialist.

As to the rich being saved:

Abraham was rich, Job was the richest man in the East, King David was rich, King Solomon was the richest king on earth, etc, etc, etc.

So the rich can be saved, for the rest of the passage reads:

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

 26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

... so then, it is possible for the rich to saved!

You mean the Bible contradicts itself? No way! I don't believe it....