whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, bilzfancy said: Now that is some bullcrap, I can understand Lewis having a funeral, he was a long time congressperson but George Floyd was a nobody before he was killed and he had 3 funerals I can’t understand him having A funeral attended by the same people saying “regular people” can’t have equal funerals. We don’t have classes in America. (At least we’re not supposed to) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 28 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: im being fully serious in this discussion. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both first amendment rights. Neither are absolute rights. limits on attendance to religious services (equally applied to all religions) is going to be upheld. And it has been upheld consistently, including the Supreme Court. restrictions on protests have been made and are okay. But simply preventing people from protesting in public spaces, would never be attempted or upheld. It’s clearly unconstitutional How is that an idiotic statement? Why is the government restricting church services? What is the end game on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: I’m just pointing out that comparing the protests to churches is comparing two entirely different concepts that have entirely different bodies of law. It is not apples to oranges, it’s fruit to sports. Applying first amendment law to freedom or religion is an entirely different concept than applying the relevant law to freedom of speech. you can throw your hissy fit because you don’t understand all you want. The difference between me and you is that I understand this topic is highly confusing and complicated, while you think it is very simply. You should be more aware of your ignorance. And I’m saying, your argument is based on years of abuse of the constitution, and not the constitution itself. The first Amendment provides equal protection for the exercise is religion as it does the freedom of speech. Let’s only go on what SCOTUS says- black people aren’t humans, and your argument is valid. Appealing to the difficulty of an argument is a fools way out. You’re a fool. But we knew that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Why is the government restricting church services? What is the end game on that? im not saying I agree with it, I don’t. I’m just saying the protest issue is entirely irrelevant and is used by politicians to rile up the less informed. So they can say “derrr they don’t restrict protests but they restrict churches...” 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: And I’m saying, your argument is based on years of abuse of the constitution, and not the constitution itself. The first Amendment provides equal protection for the exercise is religion as it does the freedom of speech. Let’s only go on what SCOTUS says- black people aren’t humans, and your argument is valid. Appealing to the difficulty of an argument is a fools way out. You’re a fool. But we knew that already. and you can to grasp that what constitutes freedom of religion is not the same thing as what constitutes freedom of speech. Both are protected, but they are two entirely different concepts. but yea, everyone is a fool. 200 years of cases and opinions are fools for not grouping them together. Everyone is a fool but you. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: im not saying I agree with it, I don’t. I’m just saying the protest issue is entirely irrelevant and is used by politicians to rile up the less informed. So they can say “derrr they don’t restrict protests but they restrict churches...” Can you read? I didn't ask if you agreed with it. Why is the government restricting church services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Can you read? I didn't ask if you agreed with it. Why is the government restricting church services? Their reasoning is public health. I can link you to the Supreme Court opinion if you want to learn more about the state’s reasoning. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 @Crayola64 the First amendment is built upon itself as a whole unit: 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. Remove part and you invalidate all. Your belief that certain things can be limited based on precedent is the same mentality that led to Dred Scott and a billion other horrible decisions by SCOTUS overreaching and writing law instead of interpreting it. But by all means, burry your head and continue in your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: @Crayola64 the First amendment is built upon itself as a whole unit: 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. Remove part and you invalidate all. Your belief that certain things can be limited based on precedent is the same mentality that led to Dred Scott and a billion other horrible decisions by SCOTUS overreaching and writing law instead of interpreting it. But by all means, burry your head and continue in your ignorance. that’s not what I’m saying at all but ok. We can’t have a genuine discussion about this because you have no idea what you are talking about. The law on the first amendment is thousands of pages long. You can’t understand that it goes beyond the actual words in the constitution. neither right is absolute? Okay. Of course they can be limited. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: that’s not what I’m saying at all but ok. We can’t have a genuine discussion about this because you have no idea what you are talking about. The law on the first amendment is thousands of pages long. You can’t understand that it goes beyond the actual words in the constitution. That’s because it doesn’t. Anything that goes against the initial constitution and the bill or rights either explicitly or implicitly is a badterdization of law that’s been slipped in over the years by corrupt officials. No secondary law can counter the highest law of the land. You’re arguing that one freedom protected can be revoked and limited as needed, but the other can’t. besides, your entire argument started with the “the government can’t limit” protests which you immediately backtracked on and said they can limit them, just not to the extent that they can limit religious expression cause mah precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiotAct Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: besides, your entire argument started with the “the government can’t limit” protests which you immediately backtracked on and said they can limit them, just not to the extent that they can limit religious expression cause mah precedent. don’t forget “muh rightz”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, whatdrought said: That’s because it doesn’t. Anything that goes against the initial constitution and the bill or rights either explicitly or implicitly is a badterdization of law that’s been slipped in over the years by corrupt officials. No secondary law can counter the highest law of the land. You’re arguing that one freedom protected can be revoked and limited as needed, but the other can’t. besides, your entire argument started with the “the government can’t limit” protests which you immediately backtracked on and said they can limit them, just not to the extent that they can limit religious expression cause mah precedent. none of that is what I said. But okay. my point is that comparing the two are lazy, intellectually dishonest, and political manipulation. You don’t agree, which is wrong, but okay. I have no need to convince you. I think the protests should be allowed because of course they should be. Preventing them from occurring is obviously unconstitutional i think churches should be open. But that legal issue is much closer. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Their reasoning is public health. Correct. When does public health take precedent? So they care about public health for certain things but not others? 14 minutes ago, whatdrought said: @Crayola64 the First amendment is built upon itself as a whole unit: 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. Remove part and you invalidate all. Your belief that certain things can be limited based on precedent is the same mentality that led to Dred Scott and a billion other horrible decisions by SCOTUS overreaching and writing law instead of interpreting it. But by all means, burry your head and continue in your ignorance. The key word is establishment. They didn't want government to establish a state run religion. What they fled from to begin with. Why its listed so prominently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Correct. When does public health take precedent? So they care about public health for certain things but not others? Why are you asking me what the government cares about? Did I say I support it or that I agree with their argument? weird questions Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said: It has to be intentional because he's proven that he can at least provide some coherent thinking from time to time here. Unfortunately, this is the norm for leftists: instruct, accuseor blame the right for doing things that the left is literally doing while they instruct, accuse and blame. Obama stands in a crowd to tell people they shouldn't stand in crowds, and the left's response to the obvious stupidity of what Obama is doing is "Well, you're missing the point..." He's good at aggregating mainstream data and understanding the analysis through a mainstream viewpoint. Anything outside of that? Forget about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) Bill Gates: Dr. Fauci allowed to tell truth on 'some days' unless 'contradicted by his leadership' NO WAY - say it ain't so - the Dictator in Chief contradicting the EXPERTS? Sending mixed, incoherent messages? DAILY? I mean - look how it's turned out here in the Divided States of America as COVID continues to spiral out of control and our economy tanks. US is turning into one of those "schitt hole" countries Trump talks about... Edited July 31, 2020 by BillStime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 For those with the time and patience to read, this is worth reading. https://principia-scientific.com/from-covid-to-cancers-hcq-is-wonder-drug-of-our-time/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 RIP Buddy: The first dog to test positive for the coronavirus in the U.S. has died If we’re still learning about how the coronavirus spreads among humans, and why some people get so much sicker than others — then we’ve barely scratched the surface with what it does to pets. But the Mahoney family’s struggle to get him tested and to fully understand why their pet’s health declined so rapidly — and whether lymphoma, which wasn’t diagnosed until the day he died, played a part in it — illustrates just how many questions remain about the virus’ effect on animals. https://on.mktw.net/3ghPiAJ The media knows we have gotten so dumb we have zero time to read the articles, the patience to do so, or that we even bother to care and ask questions. Headlines all that matters bc we are bombarded with 1000K of them a day. Lying. About. Everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123719bwiqrb Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, shoshin said: So it will take until the end of Sept to fully slide down the curve again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts