Voted Today Topic Deleted?

[gbpfan1231]

Was that topic deleted? Any idea why? Just curious I don't see it anywhere?

[SEC=UGA]

Was that topic deleted? Any idea why? Just curious I don't see it anywhere?

 

When you injected partisan hackery into the thread, they blew it up...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moneymakers]

Welcome to the liberal huddle.

 

The only place in U.S. where the first amendment does not count if you are Conservative.

 

Maybe we should change the name of The Huddle to MSNBC wannabe.

 

Than maybe we all can get that tingle feeling.

[Perchoutofwater]

Welcome to the liberal huddle.

 

The only place in U.S. where the first amendment does not count if you are Conservative.

 

Maybe we should change the name of The Huddle to MSNBC wannabe.

 

Than maybe we all can get that tingle feeling.

 

I don't know why the thread was deleted. When I left last night I didn't see anything in it that was offensive. I'm guessing someone started making personal attacks or something. Having said all that you are way off base here. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with business, and DMD and WW are protecting their business. If we discuss politics in a rational manner with out it breaking down into flame wars they typically let us go on our way. It is only when we start lobbing personal attacks that threads typically get deleted. The mods are not politically motivated when they delete threads.

[moneymakers]

I don't know why the thread was deleted. When I left last night I didn't see anything in it that was offensive. I'm guessing someone started making personal attacks or something. Having said all that you are way off base here. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with business, and DMD and WW are protecting their business. If we discuss politics in a rational manner with out it breaking down into flame wars they typically let us go on our way. It is only when we start lobbing personal attacks that threads typically get deleted. The mods are not politically motivated when they delete threads.

 

 

LOL

 

Not even close

[Duchess Jack]

LOL

 

Not even close

Would it be negative to suggest that your opinion on this issue is consistant with your opinion on all issues?

[Duchess Jack]

I don't know why the thread was deleted. When I left last night I didn't see anything in it that was offensive. I'm guessing someone started making personal attacks or something. Having said all that you are way off base here. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with business, and DMD and WW are protecting their business. If we discuss politics in a rational manner with out it breaking down into flame wars they typically let us go on our way. It is only when we start lobbing personal attacks that threads typically get deleted. The mods are not politically motivated when they delete threads.

it was a friendly enough review of people's experiences when I last saw the thread.

 

with that said - I felt that the left's opinion was unfairly gagged when Bush was in office. This just goes to show that DMD's supersoaker extinguishes flames pretty equally on both sides.

[bushwacked]

Would it be negative to suggest that your opinion on this issue is consistant with your opinion on all issues?

 

That's a nice way of putting it. I don't like the threads being deleted either just like when they were also being zapped the day after Obama won.

 

The I voted thread had nothing offensive or any bickering at all when I went to bed last night.

 

And the other thread, beyond tosberg's child like chivesiness that no-one bit on, was civil also.

[Square]

I don't know why the thread was deleted. When I left last night I didn't see anything in it that was offensive. I'm guessing someone started making personal attacks or something. Having said all that you are way off base here. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with business, and DMD and WW are protecting their business. If we discuss politics in a rational manner with out it breaking down into flame wars they typically let us go on our way. It is only when we start lobbing personal attacks that threads typically get deleted. The mods are not politically motivated when they delete threads.

Doesn't seem very possible. I'm not going to act like their was a good time when everyone was warm and fuzzy to each other, but the threads devolve pretty quickly anymore. Maybe we can hope that since the election day has passed, everyone will simmer down a bit. Not likely, but I'll hope. I still contend that a better business strategy would be to gun all the political threads but obviously they are going to let them go on. To act like this is some kind of a liberal haven is nonsense.

[Duchess Jack]

Maybe we can hope that since the election day has passed, everyone will simmer down a bit.

Talk radio and cable news will/has assured that the hate and bile will never ever leave politics.

[SEC=UGA]

To act like this is some kind of a liberal haven is nonsense.

 

Who was complaining about it being a liberal haven?

 

(I actually know who it was, the question was more an aside about the quality of the complaint)

 

I've seen threads on both sides gunned. Point is, the ones that are civil and, in most cases, debate worthy seem to stick around.

[SEC=UGA]

Talk radio and cable news will/has assured that the hate and bile will never ever leave politics.

 

Oh, prior to those things there was just as much vitriol and mud slinging... It may have been even worse. At least fights no longer break out in the halls of congress as they once did.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Welcome to the liberal huddle.

 

The only place in U.S. where the first amendment does not count if you are Conservative.

 

Maybe we should change the name of The Huddle to MSNBC wannabe.

 

Than maybe we all can get that tingle feeling.

 

 

moneymakers seems to have aproximately the same grasp of the 1st ammendment as Christine O'Donnell.

 

 

On an interesting side note, it is funny to see that the right wingers seem to beleive that thehuddle is leftist, while I as a leftist tend to think of DMD as being on the right (but trying valiantly to be as neutral as possible)

[Perchoutofwater]

moneymakers seems to have aproximately the same grasp of the 1st ammendment as Christine O'Donnell.

 

 

On an interesting side note, it is funny to see that the right wingers seem to beleive that thehuddle is leftist, while I as a leftist tend to think of DMD as being on the right (but trying valiantly to be as neutral as possible)

 

I agree with you that moneymakers doesn't seem to have a grasp on the 1st amendment.

 

I'm not an O'Donnell fan, but what did she state that was contrary to the first amendment? This is the second time I've seen someone post this and this. I'd like to know the comment that you take exception to.

[moneymakers]

8 years of unmerciful Bush bashing was allowed.

 

Threads that where even slightly anti liberal where not just locked . They mysteriously just disappeared.

[Perchoutofwater]

8 years of unmerciful Bush bashing was allowed.

 

Threads that where even slightly anti liberal where not just locked . They mysteriously just disappeared.

 

That is total crap. I'm about as conservative as they come and I disagree with you on that. There was a one year or so period of time where there was something close to free reign, but DMD and WW saw that it was not healthy for their business and quickly clamped down on it. That was during Bush's first term. Saying they allowed it for 8 years is pure fabrication.

[Duchess Jack]

Oh, prior to those things there was just as much vitriol and mud slinging... It may have been even worse. At least fights no longer break out in the halls of congress as they once did.

its an issue of access now. and the imprinting of speaking points and outrage and fear on people (on both sides) - just by merit of repitition and echo-chambers. most people can do a great job acting out the hate, fear, and outrage - because they see and hear it every day - but it comes from talking heads whose job is to make people feel these things. They do the thinking and analysis for people. So, at the end of the day people know schticky one-liners, speaking points and feel all the hate - but rarely try to think beyond what they are told they have to think and what they are told is going on. again - this is an issue on both sides of the isle.

[bushwacked]

I agree with you that moneymakers doesn't seem to have a grasp on the 1st amendment.

 

I'm not an O'Donnell fan, but what did she state that was contrary to the first amendment? This is the second time I've seen someone post this and this. I'd like to know the comment that you take exception to.

 

 

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

 

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

 

“You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,” Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O’Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution.

[Hugh 0ne]

8 years of unmerciful Bush bashing was allowed.

 

Threads that where even slightly anti liberal where not just locked . They mysteriously just disappeared.

 

 

Really? You think the huddle is liberal?

 

Man, you alone are worth the price of admission.

[Kid Cid]

I agree with you that moneymakers doesn't seem to have a grasp on the 1st amendment.

 

I'm not an O'Donnell fan, but what did she state that was contrary to the first amendment? This is the second time I've seen someone post this and this. I'd like to know the comment that you take exception to.

Not that it mattes any more, but here is the crux of the matter.

 

In a debate with Democrat Chris Coons this morning, Delaware's Republican nominee for Senate, Christine O'Donnell, suggested the way she reads the Constitution, there's no ban on the government establishing or influencing organized religion.

 

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell said, according to the AP.

 

The question came as part of a discussion over science education in public schools. O'Donnell "criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine." She also seemed unclear about what's in the Constitution itself.

 

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" she asked, when Coons brought up the fact that the very First Amendment to the Constitution "bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion."

 

As with almost anything political these days, context proved important. She was asking a literal question and in that context she was absolutely correct, the Constitution never explicitly states that there is a separation of Church and State. However, in his writing to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, Jefferson expounds upon the statement in the 1st Amendment that prohibits Congress from making laws prohibiting the establishment of any type of religion.

 

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

 

So, as much of a twit as Christine O'Donnell is, she was factually correct in her statement. It come as no surprise that the media jumped on her statement and twisted it in a way that makes her appear in a bad light. Now, she is also a super religious nutbag so it would be disingenuous on my part to suggest that she actually understands everything that I've just written.

[gbpfan1231]

I see other topics that have the red X but it looks like the I voted is gone completely. I am OK with one being locked or even deleted but I would prefer to see them locked so you could at least read what made it get locked and there may be things that were posted that are worthy before someone jumped in to say something that made it lock worthy.

 

I am not complaining about things getting locked - the moderators make the rules so what they want or say goes and no arguments from me.

[cre8tiff]

it was a friendly enough review of people's experiences when I last saw the thread.

 

with that said - I felt that the left's opinion was unfairly gagged when Bush was in office. This just goes to show that DMD's supersoaker extinguishes flames pretty equally on both sides.

 

I was one of the ones that flamed him the worst about that. I have since seen the error of my ways, and concur that DMD's threadgun is blue-red colorblind.

[Perchoutofwater]

Not that it mattes any more, but here is the crux of the matter.

 

 

 

As with almost anything political these days, context proved important. She was asking a literal question and in that context she was absolutely correct, the Constitution never explicitly states that there is a separation of Church and State. However, in his writing to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, Jefferson expounds upon the statement in the 1st Amendment that prohibits Congress from making laws prohibiting the establishment of any type of religion.

 

 

 

So, as much of a twit as Christine O'Donnell is, she was factually correct in her statement. It come as no surprise that the media jumped on her statement and twisted it in a way that makes her appear in a bad light. Now, she is also a super religious nutbag so it would be disingenuous on my part to suggest that she actually understands everything that I've just written.

 

That was the statement I thought he was referring to, and I was going to make the exact same remarks that you made. I just wanted to make sure she didn't make another statement I was unaware of.

 

The first amendment in regard to religion was to make sure that there was no state (federal) religion as there was in England. Actually many of the states at the time had state (actual state not federal) religions, and they wanted to make sure that federal government didn't establish one as the state (federal) religion over the other. The idea that the intent of the 1st amendment was to keep the Ten Commandments off of court house walls, or to prevent prayer in schools is laughable, particularly if you know your history. At the time Jefferson was president the largest church congregation on the continent was meeting in the US Capitol, and Jefferson was in regular attendance.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Fatman]

The sense of "rights" at the Huddle always makes me laugh. This is a private enterprise. Don't like it? Don't pay for it.

[Kid Cid]

That was the statement I thought he was referring to, and I was going to make the exact same remarks that you made. I just wanted to make sure she didn't make another statement I was unaware of.

 

The first amendment in regard to religion was to make sure that there was no state (federal) religion as there was in England. Actually many of the states at the time had state (actual state not federal) religions, and they wanted to make sure that federal government didn't establish one as the state (federal) religion over the other. The idea that the intent of the 1st amendment was to keep the Ten Commandments off of court house walls, or to prevent prayer in schools is laughable, particularly if you know your history. At the time Jefferson was president the largest church congregation on the continent was meeting in the US Capitol, and Jefferson was in regular attendance.

In that you are correct, this was not the intent of the 1st Amendment. However, it is pretty clear that having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall would indicate a predilection towards a Judeo/Christian point of view and therefore could be intimidating to those not of those faiths. I believe that the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment to prohibit this display is correct.

 

While we're on the topic of the Ten Commandments, why anyone would want them associated with the government in any way is beyond me. There are really only a couple of things in there actually worth mentioning as part of law. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

1. I am the Lord your God You shall have no other gods before me You shall not make for yourself an idol

This is purely religious in context. It's all about this god not wanting you to look at other gods. In fact, it is more like a jealous girlfriend than an all powerful creator of the universe. Personally, I think there are some self esteem issues going on there.

 

2. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

Again, this is more about a religious issue than a governmental one and this seems more like a human thing than a divine thing. Kinda like bringing your momma into the conversation, it can be guaranteed to start a fight.

 

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

OK, now this jealous girlfriend wants you to spend a whole day with her on top of things.

 

4. Honor your father and mother

OK, while this is the right thing to do, do we really want to make laws about it? I can see it now," Listen kid, you're gonna honor me with a 10% vig from your paper route or I'm gonna call DCYS."

 

5. You shall not murder

Alright, we finally got to something that we should make a law about. That makes us one for five so far. Now as far as laws go, I don't think that many are going to argue the point that we should have a law against killing people. Except Texas.

 

6. You shall not commit adultery

Hmmm...close, but no cigar. While I happen to believe that if you tell someone that you aren't going to sleep around on them, you should do exactly that, it is not up to the government to enforce what amounts to a verbal agreement. Besides, who's to say that things haven't changed in the time since the agreement was made and the time that it was broken? Let the two individuals work it out amongst themselves, the government has bigger things to worry about.

 

7. You shall not steal

OK, here's another good one. Taking things from another person without their consent is very wrong. At all levels. Laws against this sort of thing are pretty much required. Two for seven.

 

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

This is kind of a gray area here, but I'll give it to you, you really shouldn't lie about your neighbor. You shouldn't lie in general but in legal matters, it is really important to know the truth so this one can go on the books. Three for eight.

 

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Ok, there are two aspects of this one and neither are particularly good for the cause of there being laws against it. First of all, if I'm coveting something, that's in my head and in my heart and those are two places that the government just shouldn't be. If I act upon those thoughts, that is a completely different story. If I do act upon this one, there is the whole question of the willingness of the neighbor's wife. If she is willing then that brings us back up to item 4. If she isn't willing, then you would think that item 7 applied in some fashion. However there is also the question of rape and it seems to me really funny that there is no item prohibiting that particular behavior. So we'll say that this item is already covered. Three for nine.

 

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Once again, this has already been covered.

 

So really, there isn't much actual value to this list of items from a legal standpoint. Actually putting them on display in a State or Federal building is purely an act of religious marketing.