absurd, jeanie. i realize you've had to wait for my reply but i happen to have other interests that take me away from dating site forums from time to time. i'll stand by my statement. mh, you may place your pretty feet upon my toes whenever it suites you.

ya think he uses the same line in all those ciies with mlk street signs, mh?

that fifty percent of federal prosecutions were directed at immigrants doesn't surprise me as the vast majority of all prosecutions are conducted by the states and local municipalities.

this thread's title, 'nfl compares obama to hitler', is in itself a false statement. the video showing exactly what hank said is readily accessable if you want to see what was said and who said it.

williams is a racist bigot. i attended a concert of his in oakland, ca., never again, where he made a sarcastic 'big deal' that oakland has a boulevard named after martin luther king and went on to say that nashville has a boulevard named after hank williams, his father. what was that all about if not racism? why did he not use washington ave. or lincoln boulevard or bob hope drive as a comparison? why mlk v hank williams?

i see espn's action as highly courageous. whether or not it pays off for them is irrelavent.

how did the word 'hate' get interjected into such a poll. therein lies the problem with politics in america today. way too much use of the word hate.

nothing suggests to me that devine intervention exists.

not theist, not atheist. won't even put a label on what i am as few can agree on definitions of labels. i do think that the human mind is incapable of knowing the existance of gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. that morals and ethics are derived out of simple common sense. that questions regarding the beginnings of the universe and the ascension of the species can best be explained, if that is even possible, by the scientific method. faith has no bearing on my thinking. i believe nothing. question everything. lable me as you choose.

nowhere in any dictionary have i seen the word 'believe' associated with the word 'suppose.' i see 'hypothesis', 'assume', but no 'belief' or any dirivitive of the word.

that's just it. hitler did not think that he was acting in a way that would have damaging negative effects upon society. in fact he felt the oposite. we could go on all day arguing whether or not republican actions or democrat actions in congress have damaging effects upon the american society at large and no two people would agree wholeheartedly. many would say that the action of the supremes in deciding roe v wade has damaging negative effects on society and many more think the decision to be completely justified.



so would you personally justify a man beating his wife in saudi arabia? there is a contigent among the society in that country, their public, that sees such an act to be justified.



but WE don't hold that self justification constitutes being justified. there is no WE in all of this. there are simply somewhat more than six billion individuals and counting on the planet each with his/her own ideas of what is and is not justified.

that is precisely why man made laws exist. so that a perp such as hitler cannot get away with his own self justification.



different societies, publics, have differing ideas on what is and is not justified. even among our own society, public, not everybody agrees. was bush justified in invading iraq? for every large group, public, you find that says he was, i'll find a very large group, public, that says he was not. so which public justification shall i find to be true justification and which false? shall i find saudi arabia's public justification, laws, of husbands beating wives justified or can i instead see that america's public justification, laws, that women are every bit the equal of men and shall be treated accordingly?



sure. so long as you accept the fact that public affairs don't always see justification the same.

agreed. you implied nothing regarding your own beliefs during this discussion.

christianity has nothing in the least to do with the topic.

as you wish. i'd never suggest such a thing about your views but then i'm not you.

not in the least.

as long as it spends i'm in love with however it looks.

your not saying that laws passed by the states are not subject to the constitution of the united states are you? are you really saying that? how do you explain roe v wade then? it was a texas state law that forbade abortion that was found unconstitutional based mainly on the fourteenth amendment. tell me this while we're on the subject of what is and is not in the cosntitution. does the constitution give you the right to vote?



not so in the least. the courts often refer to the federalist papers for the purpose of determining what the founders intended. if everyone can understand what the bill of rights say needing no interpretation then how do you explain the controversy over the second amendment? the amendment was interpreted to apply only to the state's right to form a militia. it was not until heller that it was further interpreted as protecting the right of individuals to bear arms for self defense.



well the courts have certainly told you as much on numerous occasions. a federal district court in pensylvania said just that when it struck down a local school board's scheme to include intelligent design in the science ciriculum. the court saw that it was a sham, disguising creation, a religious concept, as intelligent design.



actually that is exactly what they anticipated. the electoral college is a perfect example of how the founders viewed the stupidity of the country both then and in the future.

what i believe is indeed irrelevant. that's why i believe nothing. regardles, for me to consider it true that there is a bomb i must see the bomb, unil then it's all supposition. a supposition that suggests caution for sure but a supposition nonetheless. saying, 'he told me there's a bomb in the car and i suppose that if what he says is true, maybe it is, maybe not, it makes sense to err on the side of caution so i won't go near the car', would be a common sense approach to the situation. still, i've no way to know that his statement is true.

give it further attention as you wish.

truth is subjective to each individual. but we already know we disagree here.

hitler was justified in his actions is a true statement for him. his truth. hitler was justified in his actions is a false statement for me. my untruth if you will.

no, according to what you think my argument is. but that's not my argument. hitler was justified in his mind. hitler was not justified in my mind.