These People Are Allowed To Operate Machinery

I was at a hiway truck stop other day. It was in Phila . I was looking for a NY road atlas with GPS coordinates. (I cant jump states in my GPS). SO the guy in charge of the sales areas came over and I asked for same and he told me that they only keep atlases of states that contact Pa an they don't have any of them New England States.

I didn't ask whether he was a Glenn Beck Fan or not .

Which New England states border Pennsylvania?

I believe that FM was pointing out that the merchant to whom he spoke believes that New York is a part of New England, and was unaware that New York and Pennsylvania border one another.

I bet you're right.

FYI A cousin of mine also insisted that NY was a part of New England. I then rattled off all 6 NE states.

"But ...."

"Nope, it's still not a part of New England."

SMH.

I was born in New York. Now, obviously, i wasn't paying much attention at first--but since then, i have encountered no Englishmen there, new or used.

I once knew a Massachusetts native who kept insisting that Holland was one of the Scandinavian countries. (I doubt that he could have located the Scandinavian peninsula on any world map even though he had a surname which sounded suspiciously Norwegian.)

He was ignorant in geography, Merry, you're ignorant in the English language and USA history.

I don t care much for Glen Beck, particularly.
I am a big supporter of the Sons of Liberty
who executed the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

I vote against supporters of authoritarianism
(against which we fought in The American Revolution)
and against collectivism or communitarianism. Accordingly,
I will eagerly vote for candidates of the Tea Party in November of 2014


Thay are REAL Americans.





David

Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

If you truly oppose authoritarianism, then you need to address the issue of the Supreme Court, the most authoritarian institution in the country. There is no appeal from the rulings of the Court, other than constitutional amendment. But what happens when, as in The Town of Greece, New York versus Galloway, the Court overthrows a clause of an existing amendment? The Supreme Court is the most authoritarian body in the United States, but given your loony political views, i suspect you approve of that ruling.

What the heck is this. If they overthrow part of an existing amendment, aren't they declaring part of the constitution to be unconstitutional?

This should be good.

More of them there folks that are allowed to operate machinery.

I am trying to maintain my natural optimism.

This is how u deny that I am anti-authoritarian??
If u had known me thru out the course of my life,
including childhood, u 'd know that I have been much, much more actively
anti-authoritarian than the average citizen. Concerning public school teachers,
continually challenging them and challenging the principal, on the radio,
challenging parental jurisdiction (not my own parents,
who gave me nothing to challenge) n challenging
governmental jurisdiction in newspapers.
Did u?? I suspect that u were probably on the other side.





If we are going to tolerate the existence of a government,
then SOMEONE must have the last word to decide what will be done.
Do u prefer endless debate??
There have been some decisions of the USSC
that in my mind, I reject as foolish and egregiously in error
(e.g., Barron v. Baltimore, the Slaughterhouse Cases
and Wickard v. Filburn), but I know that we r stuck with them
for a while anyway. The 14th Amendment ameliorated the effect of Barron
qua the Bill of Rights. The Slaughterhouse Cases subverted the effect
of the 14th Amendment (qua application of the Bill of Rights).


The court wud not be supreme
if another court had the last word.
Do u want another court to be added to the appellate process?
Maybe a court composed of the Chief Justice of each of the 5O States
shud rule finally on Constitutional questions.


Yes, that 's how it works.
The USSC, in theory, is explaining
the intendment of the Supreme Law of the Land.


Objection as to form,
in that the question assumes facts not in evidence.


Your post implies that because: "The Supreme Court is the most authoritarian body
in the United States" I shud, therefore, condemn all of its rulings.
I don t. I triage them on the basis of merit. I'd expect u to do likewise.

I see no problem with the ruling. It seems to me
that a government needs to do a lot more than the litigated point
in order to create an establishment of religion; contrast England.

I don t deem the subject matter to be of great import
in my hierarchy of values. I don t consider it likely
that Divine intervention advocating for or against a bill,
will be forthcoming. As an atheist, Y shud u care???
From your perspective, it is a moot point,
in that legislation will not be affected. Yes?

Your point reminded me of a mild objection that I had
when I was in high school, to a kid being designated
to represent the entire student body in petitioning the Supreme Being,
reading prayer from the Bible at large student assemblies.
I was not consulted qua that application.
I thought it was a little nervy of the school administration
to claim to represent my views, without consulting me,
or to represent the whole student body without taking a vote.

I take exception to your having tacitly re-defined
authoritarianism. I have understood that to mean the application
of coercive oppression either to force someone to do something
or to PREVENT someone from doing something.

In the case at bar, the USSC just said that
the town can and may do it, if it chooses to do so.
To me, that sounds like a freedom-oriented result: thay can do what thay want.

It was a question of WHAT constitutes an establishment of religion.
The Court merely held that opening with a prayer
did not have the effect of creating one. It did not hold
that the establishment clause was no longer operative, as u imply.

If the Town enacts an ordinance that the citizens
have to worship the mayor, then thay can check back with the USSC.





David

Popping corn. Pouring beer. Watching with interest.

U imply that if voters r more intelligent,
THEN thay will reject the freedom-based filosofy
of the Sons of Liberty and adopt a more Marxist,
pro-authoritarian and pro-collectivist political persona;
that INTELLIGENCE, is the key to the rejection of liberty.
If that is true, then Mensa shud be a hotbed of communism,
nazism, or something close to those; right????
Its members are well known among themselves
as being singularly Individualistic. Thay 've said that:
"leading Mensans is like herding cats."
Libertarianism is disproportionally well represented in Mensa,
which of course includes very well educated members.

Since the earliest beginnings of my life, I have espoused
personal liberty, mocking n rejecting authority (in many cases), not all.

I vote in support of the Tea Party
and rejecting Roosevelt-Kennedy liberalism.
I have been successful in my life. U imply that
supporters of liberty are stupid hicks.
I lived most of my life in NYC for many decades.

Do u deny that stupidity can be found
among supporters of the Kennedys and of obama??
Do u think that's impossible???? I can remember
stupidities from the mouths (and from the deeds) of liberals.





David

Essentially, yes, they are. It is gross legislation from the bench.

Your assertion is un-justified and it is false.

SOMEONE must decide what constitutes
an establishment of religion; no surprize.





David

It has already been decided in numerous rulings on school prayer and prayer at publicly sponsored and funded events. This Court, a rogue body, has willfully and arbitrarily overturned those rulings. There is no appeal from such a decision, other than constitutional amendment. What sort of amendment would one propose? One which reasserts the no establishment clause?

Thay r merely holding, in effect,
that the practice of the Town
was below the necessary threshold to invoke or to activate
the anti-establishment clause. It is easy logic to follow.

As a practical matter, what 's the difference? A brief waste of time ?





David