Quantcast

Seven of Nine

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Seven of Nine of the founding fathers (Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe) of the US rejected the divinity of Jesus, so fundamentalist christians are unpatriotic fools who seek to pervert the ideas that founded America and many have ideas that are more dangerous to the future of the US than radical Islam and should therefore be thrown out of the US or locked up.

Discuss.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
They also owned slaves, didn't want to pay their taxes, didn't want women (or anyone else who wasn't a rich white male for that matter) to vote, and committed treason against their government (Great Britain).

Go founding fathers!!!!!!! :thumb:

Come on man, America was founded on hypocricy. You know that.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Hypocracy or not, should we throw the fundamentalist christians out? Exporting fundamentalist Muslims is all the rage. Why not all the religious nutjobs?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Seven of Nine of the founding fathers (Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe) of the US rejected the divinity of Jesus, so fundamentalist christians are unpatriotic fools who seek to pervert the ideas that founded America and many have ideas that are more dangerous to the future of the US than radical Islam and should therefore be thrown out of the US or locked up.

Discuss.
It doesn't matter if the founding fathers were deitists, christians, muslims, devil worshippers or aliens they included the First Amendment of the Constitution.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
DRB said:
It doesn't matter if the founding fathers were deitists, christians, muslims, devil worshippers or aliens they included the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Ack. That reminded me of the movie Dazed and Confused. Remember the hippy stoners diatribe about how all the founding fathers were into aliens and how Geo. grew hemp? "...and behind every great man there is a woman. And that woman was martha Washington. And every day George would come home. She'd have a big fat bowl waiting for him man when he'd come in the door man. She was hip, hip, hip lady man." :thumb:
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Ciaran said:
Ack. That reminded me of the movie Dazed and Confused. Remember the hippy stoners diatribe about how all the founding fathers were into aliens and how Geo. grew hemp? "...and behind every great man there is a woman. And that woman was martha Washington. And every day George would come home. She'd have a big fat bowl waiting for him man when he'd come in the door man. She was hip, hip, hip lady man." :thumb:
Did you look at a dollar bill, man? There's some spooky **** going on there. And it's green too
 

ridetoofast

scarred, broken and drunk
Mar 31, 2002
2,093
0
crashing at a trail near you...
Changleen said:
Seven of Nine of the founding fathers (Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe) of the US rejected the divinity of Jesus, so fundamentalist christians are unpatriotic fools who seek to pervert the ideas that founded America and many have ideas that are more dangerous to the future of the US than radical Islam and should therefore be thrown out of the US or locked up.

Discuss.

where did you read this/how did you determine it? sources please...and expound on the bolded parts
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Um, it's kinda well known that Seven of Nine were deists, and with the current crap happening with this Pat Robertson fool, I thought it would be intersting to discuss the similarity between the sort of sh1t people like him spout, compared to the very similar sh1t radical Muslims are getting thrown out of Western countries for spouting currently.

If a 'Muslim' can be deported for using his religious standing to deliver messages of hate and death, then why should a 'Christian' recieve any better treatment? Why would you want to keep this prick in your country anyway?

As for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, I view this in a similar way to saying 'bomb' in a airport. Freedom of speech in the US is far from absolute, and using your standing to call for the assasination of a foreign leader in the current climate is just retarded.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
As for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, I view this in a similar way to saying 'bomb' in a airport. Freedom of speech in the US is far from absolute, and using your standing to call for the assasination of a foreign leader in the current climate is just retarded.
You have a weak understanding of freedom of speech as defined by the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. While it is not absolute it is close.

The current standard, as defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that speech meant to invoke an "imminent lawless action" is not protected.

Whitney vs. California would also be an excellent read for you to gain a better understanding. Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in his opinion, no danger flowing from speech can be considered clear and present if there is full opportunity for discussion.

Retarded yes, unprotected speech, no.

As for the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, its totally immaterial.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
DRB said:
You have a weak understanding of freedom of speech as defined by the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. While it is not absolute it is close.
Thank you Professor. :)

The current standard, as defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that speech meant to invoke an "imminent lawless action" is not protected.
So, being as Pat wanted to invoke the CIA or whoever to take the illegal action (as defined by sucessive presidents) of assasinating the leaders of a foreign country, and to do it quickly, his word are clearly not protected by freedom of speech, eh?
Whitney vs. California would also be an excellent read for you to gain a better understanding. Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in his opinion, no danger flowing from speech can be considered clear and present if there is full opportunity for discussion.
This is his get out clause then. Except it could be argued that in the medium he delivered his message, i.e on his TV show, there was no opportunity for discussion of it. They may be subsequent discussion of his statement, but does this reflect 'full opportunity' to discuss his pov? I think a taped statement from OBL calling for Jihad or whatever would be judged not to allow 'full opportunity' for discussion, so is a pre-taped TV show really much different?

I'd say an important part of the 'full opportunity' implies the ability to discuss it, at the time, with the original speaker, do you agree?

Probably all things considered, he can get away with what he said under the protection of free speech, especailly since he has made two statements in response to public reaction. This goes some way towards discussion.

However, the point still remains that if the US is willing and has indeed deported even suspected hate-mongers from 'Islam', it is a bit of a double standard to give this guy the full benefit of doubt under free speech laws, when what he is calling for, far more publically, is just as bad.

Edit: Just saw this:
When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests Wednesday.,
It seems he is himself declining the opportunity for 'full discussion' thus indicting himself. Lock him up! :D

As for the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, its totally immaterial.
I just put that in to remind the christians what they're talking about when they refer to the US as a christain country.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
So, being as Pat wanted to invoke the CIA or whoever to take the illegal action (as defined by sucessive presidents) of assasinating the leaders of a foreign country, and to do it quickly, his word are clearly not protected by freedom of speech, eh?
He didn't say quickly which is very key. And the very fact that he called for an illegal act doesn't cause it to become unprotected speech. Again a weak understanding of freedom of speech. If had done your reading like I told you would know a 3 part criterion has to be met for speech to fail the imminent illegal action test. First, it must be directed to incite lawless action. Second it must be calling of imminent breaking of the law, not conduct at some future time. And Third (and most importantly) the advocacy must be likely to produce such conduct.

There is no implication from Brandeis that discussion must be immediate and with the orginial speaker. Nor would it make sense that it would have to be. Brandeis says the following:

"If there is time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avoid the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression."
Changleen said:
However, the point still remains that if the US is willing and has indeed deported even suspected hate-mongers from 'Islam', it is a bit of a double standard to give this guy the full benefit of doubt under free speech laws, when what he is calling for, far more publically, is just as bad.
Where and who has the US deported suspected or even proven hate mongers from Islam for something they said? Don't get those "progressive" western governments confused with the close minded backwards Americans.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
DRB said:
He didn't say quickly which is very key.
He did akchewally.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come to exercise that ability"
And
"I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it"
Where and who has the US deported suspected or even proven hate mongers from Islam for something they said? Don't get those "progressive" western governments confused with the close minded backwards Americans.
Extraordinary Rendition.
 

ridetoofast

scarred, broken and drunk
Mar 31, 2002
2,093
0
crashing at a trail near you...
Changleen said:
Um, it's kinda well known that Seven of Nine were deists, and with the current crap happening with this Pat Robertson fool, I thought it would be intersting to discuss the similarity between the sort of sh1t people like him spout, compared to the very similar sh1t radical Muslims are getting thrown out of Western countries for spouting currently.

If a 'Muslim' can be deported for using his religious standing to deliver messages of hate and death, then why should a 'Christian' recieve any better treatment? Why would you want to keep this prick in your country anyway?

As for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, I view this in a similar way to saying 'bomb' in a airport. Freedom of speech in the US is far from absolute, and using your standing to call for the assasination of a foreign leader in the current climate is just retarded.

perhaps it is well known to you, and i think i see where you perceive the overarching intent of this discussion is proceeding, however for general edification of those that are ignorant could you provide some reading that exemplifies the stance the you profess the 7/9 held?

i do understand that they VEHEMETELY opposed state sponsored religion, however i dont seem to rememeber from my readings that they rejected judaism (sp?!) ((lots of beerz and shots in me now, forgive my spelling)...
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
He did akchewally.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come to exercise that ability"
And
"I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it".
Nope. Its not direct enough. If its not yelling fire in a crowded theater its probably going to fail.

Changleen said:
Extraordinary Rendition.
We were talking about freedom of speech. Again where has the US deported an Islamic extremist for what they said? Okay I'll make it easier on you. Where has the US government even suggested that deportation for speech, similar to what "progressive" western governments are starting to do, is possible or acceptable?
 

beestiboy

Monkey
May 21, 2005
321
0
Merded, ca
From what i have seen all deportations have been due to illegal status in the country i.e., bad/expired visa and such.

DRB gives me hope that intelligent debates can be held in this forum, I appreciate the effort you put forth from the onset of your argument to back it up. As opposed to having the justification/documentation for it beat out of you.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
DRB said:
Nope. Its not direct enough. If its not yelling fire in a crowded theater its probably going to fail.
Says you.
We were talking about freedom of speech. Again where has the US deported an Islamic extremist for what they said? Okay I'll make it easier on you. Where has the US government even suggested that deportation for speech, similar to what "progressive" western governments are starting to do, is possible or acceptable?
Being as no-one you've ever extraordinarily renditioned has ever actually done anything, what was it other than their opinions that got them deported? Or are you simply deporting random punters to be tortured in the middel east now?
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
beestiboy said:
From what i have seen all deportations have been due to illegal status in the country i.e., bad/expired visa and such.
What about the Muslims that were kidnapped from Italy by US secret services? What about people who have been shipped off to Egypt or wherever the moment they first set foot on US soil?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Says you.

No says the US Supreme Court. Over and over and over.
Changleen said:
Being as no-one you've ever extraordinarily renditioned has ever actually done anything, what was it other than their opinions that got them deported? Or are you simply deporting random punters to be tortured in the middel east now?
I'll do the work for you. Give me a name that got deported or extraordinatily renditioned.

Plus you were the one that seemed all about deporting the trouble makers when this was about England.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Maher Arar

You can start here if you like:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usai_torture
From a link from the above website.....
Maher Arar’s case may have been a rendition within a lawful procedure, given that it appears he was removed from the United States after being placed in expedited immigration proceedings. His case is likely not among those considered to be “extraordinary renditions” by U.S. officials, which are probably limited to cases involving the apprehension and transfer of persons outside of the United States and outside of any legal framework. Despite the fact that Mr. Arar’s rendition purportedly occurred within a legal process
And that has what to do about freedom of speech? If you want this to be about extraordinary rendition then maybe you should start a thread about that.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
DRB said:
No says the US Supreme Court. Over and over and over.
So your interpretation of his words will be the same as the supreme courts? Are you sure? What if mine are different? This is a dumb argument. Anyway as I already said he probably is protected by free speech. You are missing my point somewhat. I am trying to compare the US's treatment of 'christians' and 'muslims' hate-filled proclamations, and I persoanlly wish they'd both shut the hell up, **** off and disapear.