's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

If you could play God(23 posts)

If you could play Godcarnageasada
Nov 21, 2002 5:30 PM
and write a few commandments. What would they be? Here's a couple of mine but I was hoping some of the more talented contributers on this board could do better.

1. If thou can't afford it, thou don't need it.

2. If thou is biggie-sized, thou shalt not eat fast food more than once a week.

3. Thou shalt not spend more than one hour watching television unless it's Sunday and there's a good game on.

4. Thou shalt not kill unless it is an act of self defense that saves thou ass.

5. Thou shalt not commit adultery with another person's spouse.

6. If thou is a swine and fails at number 5, thou shalt not forsake the necessary precautions.

7. Thou shalt not swear at thou's friends. Even if they are assholes.

8. Thou shalt exercise at least 20 minutes every other day. Exercise shall be termed loosely. Just get thine ass off the couch.
re: If you could play Godczardonic
Nov 21, 2002 6:55 PM
1) Thou shalt do unto others as thou would have others do unto thyself. (Nothing new here)

2) Thou shalt ask of no other what thou can provide for thy self.

3) Thou shalt strive to improve thy self in all matters.

4) Thou shalt strive to improve the lot of thy fellow man, recognizing that to do so is to improve thy self.

Now, how would you re-tool the Bill of Rights?
G.W. Bush, FLICK. Cheney, POOF! Clarence Thomas, ZAP!retro
Nov 21, 2002 8:21 PM
Then the final insult: I'd mess up Trent Lott's hair.
Nov 21, 2002 9:04 PM
You really think you could mess up Trent Lott's hair? :^)

Actually, my astonishment was over the Clarence Thomas part. I'd have to agree with you on the rest (in spite of being a Republican), but Clarence Thomas is quite possibly the best thing that has happened to any branch of our government in 50 years. Maybe even longer. As far as I can tell (and I have studied a lot of Supreme Court decisions), he does a far better job of sticking to the Constitution rather than trying to change it based on personal opinion. He often votes against his own political opinion when he thinks that that is what the law requires. Unfortunately, people still bring up that Anita Hill thing (which was totally bogus), and he gets little positive attention in the media. (Don't ask me why, but I don't know if there is ANYTHING the media hates more than a conservative black man. Perhaps a conservative black woman reverend? Now that I'd like to see!)

One of my law school classmates will be clerking for Clarence Thomas for the next 2 years. Lucky girl.
Nov 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Strict construction is in itself a political position, and a conservative one at that. You're in law school, you should think about that.
well said - nmMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:25 AM
Nov 22, 2002 8:05 PM
WAS in law school. I'm done now.

In my book, legislative intent goes a long way. I know that there are others who don't feel the same way, but I have a hard time seeing how an interpretation different from that of the people who made the law has much validity. After all, they who passed the law knew what they wanted it to mean when they passed it. I always keep in mind that the Constitution (and supposedly our whole federal government) was set up such that everything it COULD do was specifically listed. NOT everything it couldn't do. (That distinguishes us from virtually every other country in the world). EVERYTHING else was specifically left up to the states. We've obviously strayed far from that concept, but I think it is still valuable.

While I'm thinking about it, here are my two favorite oxymorons:
"Radical Conservative"
"Intelligent Liberal"
Nov 23, 2002 3:35 PM
I'm a proud conservative, but I don't pretend that everyone else should be. Judicial activism is a cornerstone of liberal politics in this country. In my struggles against liberals I don't make much progress by arguing that thier position is "stupid", rather I point out that my ideas are better and more likely to benifit all our citizens.

Your emphasis on the 9th and 10th amendments are central to the libertarial section of the American conservative movement, and I share your views. We cannot forget, however, that it was activist federal judges in the 50's and 60's who ended racial segregation in this country. Anyone who would want to turn back the clock on race relations in the US would certainly be marginalized.

I'm still waiting for an activist judge, perhaps Clarence Thomas, to extend the Second Amendment to prohibit gun bans by the several States.
Nov 24, 2002 11:36 AM
I don't usually say that all Liberals are stupid (unless I happen to be particularly worked up about a specific issue). I will, however, unequivocally say that they are all short-sighted, or perhaps more clearly stated, they are grossly ignorant of the long term consequences of their politics. I know that there are many good liberals out there, who honestly believe that what they are trying to do is good. And the reasoning behind it is certainly admirable (i.e. the desire to help those in need). What none of them seem to understand is that such policies can not be sustained indefinitely, and will eventually lead to collapse. History always repeats itself (and it's lessons), but many cling to the idea that somehow it's "different" now. Oh well. Variety is good. I'd prefer more benign variety, but we're stuck with what we have.

I'm not sure I agree fully with your view on racial equality. Personally, I think the change was destined to happen (slavery's eventual demise was even specifically mentioned by several of the founding fathers of our country), but the only judicial "activism" that took place was after the pendulum passed the middle (e.g. Affirmative Action). Prior to that, the civil rights changes were, in my opinion, implemented to coincide with the original intent of the Constitution - it just took a long time for people's attitudes to reach that point. Hatred based on race is a horrible thing, and I think the gov't has actually fueled it with many of their policies. Clarence Thomas expressed that clearly in an open question and answer forum at my law school a few years back. One of our more liberal professors (and also one of my favorites), a Native American, tried to put him on the spot by asking him why no Native Americans had ever been accepted as Supreme Court clerks, implying that there was some prejudice involved. Justice Thomas quickly pointed out that he would love to have a Native American clerk, but that none had ever met the requirements that all SC clerks have to meet (graduate in top 10% of their class and clerk for at least one year at the federal appellate level). It was a pointed example of how completely non race related issues are twisted by those who feel they have been somehow slighted. Another poignant case of "racial" injustice was the Rodney King trial. The officers convicted in that case were tried solely to appease public opinion. You'll remember that they were first tried and acquitted, then retried on "different" (but really identical) charges after the LA riots. If that's not misuse of the judicial system, I don't know what is.

As for the Second Amendment, Clarence Thomas would probably uphold a law like the one you suggest because he feels strongly that it was meant to be interpreted as clearly as it was written. That is, the 2nd Amendment: a) is an individual right (just like every other right in the Bill of Rights - not some collective "militia" law), and b) says "shall not be infringed" and means just that. He clearly stated that in the same Q&A session. (On the other hand, he might NOT uphold such a law because he would think it was redundant. (If you think about it, state gun restrictions already are illegal). However, you need an activist court to make "judicial law," not just one activist judge. It sure would be nice to have more like him.
Yes and No.53T
Nov 24, 2002 2:14 PM
Don't confuse slavery with segregation. The framers foresaw teh end of slavery, but did not publish their thoughts on the rise of segregation. It was in fact an activist court that interpreted the post-civil war amendments as extending the restrictions on the federal government contained in the Bill of Rights to the States. This, and the NAACP, is what ended institutional segregation in the US.
Nov 24, 2002 4:26 PM
You're right in pointing out the distinction.

One other distinction I would make is between gov't sanctioned segregation and private discrimination. Both can be bad, but the former is a violation of rights while the latter is an absolute right. As much as I disagree with racial bigotry, I find the current laws forbidding discrimination (in hiring, firing, etc) to be far more dangerous. When people are forced to hire against their will, we no longer have a free market (that's already our current situation). It's kind of depressing to see how far the whole "discrimination" fiasco has gone. Extending it to "Americans with disabilities" is just plain wrong. My uncle was sued on the basis of discrimination because he wouldn't hire an HIV positive person to a health care position. The guy was just trolling for money (the real reason he wasn't hired was because he didn't have ANY job experience or a single reference that was less than 10 years old - both required for the job, but that didn't stop the lawsuit). It ended up costing my uncle a lot of time and money to get the issue resolved even though it was a clear cut case of abuse of the law by this guy.
That almost sounds like wisdom.czardonic
Nov 25, 2002 1:41 PM
"History always repeats itself."

Uh-oh! I hope the planet isn't overrun by dinosaurs in my lifetime. Especially since, due to our disavowal of gun ownership, Liberals like me will be the first to be devoured!

Indeed, only and idiot Liberal could look at human history and suppose that things would change. Frankly, who could look at the rampant prosperity we see in the world at large and think that we needed change? Clearly, everyone deserving of opportunity already has it in spades. (I'm sure you get the joke there, Matno.)
Nov 24, 2002 9:46 PM
as a lawyer (13 years out of Boalt Hall) from the other end of the political spectrum, I'd say ... why not Scalia?

Seriously... you can get both the ideology you desire with the smarts to write the opinions AND the political savvy to draft compelling public policy arguments.

Clarence Thomas, even for the right wing, has been a dud on the court. A reliable vote, I suppose, but virtually never a leader, and even more rarely a drafter of majority opinions on significant constitutional issues. Don't let your ideology blind your analysis... even for a conservative scholar it would seem to me that Thomas is no role model. Scalia I can at least begrudgingly respect.
Nov 25, 2002 4:55 AM
I like Scalia. I think he's a good man who usually votes well. Unfortunately, sometimes he surprises me with liberal views. He's still good, and like you said, he is more of a leader than Clarence Thomas. That could change with time since Clarence Thomas is still a "junior" judge... As for being a role model, I don't really agree that he has been a "dud." Far from it. In fact, I think he's written some of the clearest, most articulate opinions we've seen in the last 10 years.

Surprises work both ways. Remember when "Whizzer" White, a fairly staunch liberal, was the only liberal vote against Roe v. Wade? Even S.D.O'Connor occasionally votes conservative (it always surprises me since she's really a die-hard liberal).
Instant lobotomy for liberals, that sucking sound! (nm)Breakfast
Nov 23, 2002 6:36 AM
Instant lobotomy for liberals, that sucking sound! (nm)Matno
Nov 23, 2002 2:51 PM
Lobotomy isn't really a removal of anything, just a disconnection. However, if it were a removal, and if they were a mandatory requirement for liberals like you suggested, there sure wouldn't be much to remove!
I'm not quite up to the job, but here are some suggestionstrekkie1
Nov 22, 2002 7:19 AM
Before you play God, you need to be as smart (omniscient) as God; without that, it's a little dangerous.

Nonetheless, my suggestions:

1. mind your own business, unless it affects you

2. don't lie, cheat, steal, or do anything dishonest

3. you don't get to tell other people what to do, unless they want you to

4. don't be an asshole

5. don't pretend you know what I think unless I make it clear to you; when I want you to know something, I'll tell you

6. don't go taking people's money in My Name and living high on the hog

7. there is a Heaven and Hell; eternity is a very long time, believe me

8. I don't care how you worship Me; the love, faith, and living a good life is what counts, not what you call yourself, where you congregate, or what little customs you follow; don't fight about the different ways to worship

9. killing is never authorized in My Name; I don't like it

10. I do not care who wins the local high school football game; don't go bothering me with prayers to win sporting events
re: If you could play Godmohair_chair
Nov 22, 2002 7:48 AM
1. If thou cannot say anything nice, thou shalt say nothing at all.

2. Thou shalt live thy life with great consideration towards others.

3. In case there is any doubt, #2 includes driving.

4. Thou shalt not screw over others simply because thou can.

5. A clarification for corporate officers: Thou shall not steal does include cooking the books.
re: If you could play GodJon Billheimer
Nov 22, 2002 8:28 AM
1. Thou shalt not invent, fabricate, or participate in any kind of organized religion.

2. Thou shalt not use me--or your idea of me--to justify any of your stupid, barbaric, or evil behaviours.
Nov 22, 2002 11:31 AM
I've posted this before about you....but here are a right thinking person.

I think God would be really POed over all the actions in 'his' name from the local 'holier than thou' preacher to the Islamic nutcases.
Paul...Jon Billheimer
Nov 22, 2002 11:53 AM
Great minds think alike:)- In spite of the tone of some of my remarks I'm not as anti-religious/spiritual as I may sound to some. But the anthropomorphising of God and the use of religious sanction to drive human behaviour is, in my opinion, among the most unsavoury of human traits.
condensed versionColnagoFE
Nov 22, 2002 9:38 AM
Assume there are only two real motivators of people--love and fear. Make sure everything you do is motivated by love and not fear.
Sounds like "Conversations with God I, II, III" Probably true.rtyszko
Nov 23, 2002 7:39 AM