Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Both are open to interpretation by mere mortals.  Not that large of a distinction.
5/10/2012 5:34 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Both are open to interpretation by mere mortals.  Not that large of a distinction.
Laws that violate the bible are perfectly ok.  Laws that violate the constitution are not.
5/10/2012 5:35 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 5/10/2012 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Do you think the founding fathers were in favor of same-sex marriage?

Why are you being selective in how deeply you interpret what was written 230 years ago by old, white dudes?
Many of the founders were in favor of slavery.  Doesn't make slavery constitutional.
5/10/2012 5:36 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Both are open to interpretation by mere mortals.  Not that large of a distinction.
Laws that violate the bible are perfectly ok.  Laws that violate the constitution are not.

Sez you.  Some say God's law takes precedent over man's.

5/10/2012 8:35 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Both are open to interpretation by mere mortals.  Not that large of a distinction.
Laws that violate the bible are perfectly ok.  Laws that violate the constitution are not.

Sez you.  Some say God's law takes precedent over man's.

Individuals are free to think that, but when it comes to US law, what the bible, the koran, the hindu texts, and any other religious books say is irrelevant.
5/10/2012 8:57 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 8:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Both are open to interpretation by mere mortals.  Not that large of a distinction.
Laws that violate the bible are perfectly ok.  Laws that violate the constitution are not.

Sez you.  Some say God's law takes precedent over man's.

Individuals are free to think that, but when it comes to US law, what the bible, the koran, the hindu texts, and any other religious books say is irrelevant.
Funny how when the President takes his oath of office, he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" while placing his hand on the Bible.



Yet, according to jrd, there's no correlation between the Constitution and the Bible.
5/10/2012 9:56 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
The president isn't required to swear on a bible, or swear at all. He can simply affirm. Not all presidents have sworn on the bible, it's their choice.
5/10/2012 10:11 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's funny that you think everything is so black and white.   There are a lot of rich lawyers who disagree.
5/10/2012 10:51 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:11:00 PM (view original):
The president isn't required to swear on a bible, or swear at all. He can simply affirm. Not all presidents have sworn on the bible, it's their choice.
Yet most of them do.  Why?
5/10/2012 11:05 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/10/2012 11:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:11:00 PM (view original):
The president isn't required to swear on a bible, or swear at all. He can simply affirm. Not all presidents have sworn on the bible, it's their choice.
Yet most of them do.  Why?
Most presidents are christian.
5/10/2012 11:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/10/2012 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Were they passing Jim Crow laws in some states while others were going thru a repeal process?

The point is that some lawmakers, supported by the people, believe they have ground to stand on wrt SSM. 
Lawmaker or popular support are irrelevant if the law is unconstitutional.
And who determines if a law is constitutional or not?  Either elected officials, or political appointees who have been specifically selected because of their political leanings.

Nope, no potential bias there.
So, jrdx, with this in mind and you noting that most Presidents are Christians(and one would assume most politicians/judges are also), do you think SSM laws are open to interpretation by men with a potential bias towards the religious objections?
5/11/2012 8:55 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
I'm not sure what your asking. Everyone has their own personal religious beliefs. But laws aren't validated/invalidated by judicial review based on whether or not the law violates something in a religious text.
5/11/2012 9:36 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
And we're really getting off topic. Same sex marriage bans are under review right now and likely headed to the supreme court. Whether or not they are upheld has nothing to do with the bible.
5/11/2012 9:38 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So you don't think men have any bias in interpreting laws based on religious beliefs?   Are you implying that the law, and constitution, are so cut and dry, black and white, that there is no chance for different interpretations?

Just out of curiousity, what color is the sky in your world?
5/11/2012 9:59 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You're funny in a sad sort of way.

I don't disagree that the way you say things are is how they should be.  But it's just laughable to think that's the way they are.   Something as simple as killing someone has to go thru the courts.  Murder(in what degree), manslaughter, self-defense are all options.   And the sentence could range from electric chair to time served and probation to nothing. 

So, if you'd like, just keep repeating "has nothing to do with" over and over again if it makes you happy.    But it's just funny sad if you really believe that.
5/11/2012 10:08 AM
◂ Prev 1...16|17|18|19|20...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.