"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|Over the past better part of a decade, Jim Alison (a.k.a. buckeye) and I
:|have gone through several rounds of debate regarding the constitutionality
:|of including religious schools in a voucher program. In our most recent
:|round, Jim argued in effect that because I am not a lawyer, I am totally
:|unqualified to interpret Supreme Court opinions and that my interpretations
:|of them should be considered completely irrelevant.
Man they are coming out of the woodwork lately Gardiner and now you
Actually dude there has been two of us that have trashed
your biased, unqualified, agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda
Bob LeChevalier and myself. If you want him in the fray again he only posts
and reads from alt.education.
I suspect you might want to avoid that newsgroup
64. Aug 28 2004, 7:54 am
Newsgroups: alt.education, misc.education, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.parenting.solutions, misc.kids, alt.activism.children,
alt.parenting.spanking
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 07:54:51 -0400
Local: Sat, Aug 28 2004 7:54 am
Subject: Re: Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarc...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|If Buckeye would not keep posting the same basic legal and historical
:|arguments with the same gaping holes in their logic as applied to vouchers,
:|I would have no reason to keep posting the same basic arguments in response.
LOL. Once again, backwards.
Google will support the following.
Barclay posts his opinion which is full of barclayism
Buckeye replies deleting the barclayism propaganda, but addressing most
historical and legal inaccuracies that barclay sprinkled in his post as he
tried unsuccessfully to play historian or legal beagle on line. But hark,
one major difference in styles: Barclay posts barclayisms (his personal
opinions, thoughts etc unsupported by anything outside of himself showing a
serious lack of any real research or study on the topic.
Buckeye realizing (1) his own limitations with regards to much of the
knowledge out there, (2) personal unsubstantiated opinions, even his own,
are meaningless, uses a variety of primary source and secondary source
sources to make his case with only a minor amount commentary based on his
own informed conclusions as a result of vast amounts of study and research.
Barclay then replies with pretty much the same bull all over again, right
away, or maybe months later or even years later.
Buckeye replies back with the same material that he used the last time
barclay posted the same inaccurate crap.
As long as buckeye finds posts from barclay that are inaccurate in certain
areas he will reply with the same material he replied with before to the
same inaccurate barclayims showing where, why and how barclay is
inaccurate.
It is quite evidence that actual facts, actual truth, reality is of no
concern to barclay. What is important to him is his biased, unqualified,
agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda.
:|At least I go to the trouble of directly addressing the particular points
:|that I am responding to, something that Buckeye often makes no real attempt
:|to do.
Too bad, so sad.
I don't recognize thus do not bother to acknowledge or reply to comments a
person might make that the world is flat either. Now, there really is a
lesson there if you are smart enough to figure it out
I address your inaccuracies in the two areas I care about history and
legal with regards to church and state.
I pay absolutely no attention to your "flat earth" *****.
:|So I see no basis for claiming that my redundancy is rude while
:|Buckeye's is not.
Your redundancy is founded and based on this:
biased, unqualified, agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda.
My "redundancy" is correcting your biased, unqualified, agenda driven
ideological barclayism propaganda historically and legally speaking on the
topic of church state or establishment clause.
:| If he doesn't want to hear the same arguments from me, he
:|can post something genuinely new that calls for a different response,
:|something that my usual responses will not work to refute.
None of your responses refute it.
A LESSON YOU HAVE YET TO LEARN, PROBABLY WILL
NEVER LEARN IS THIS:
Your biased, unqualified, agenda driven ideological barclayism propaganda
carries no weight.
I don't think you have really ever took the time to really read and
understand what the following really says and really means:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You saying something doesn't make it so, especially since you have no
credentials, no recognition as any kind of expert in the field, etc and is
trumped by the informed conclusions of respected recognized experts in the
field.
Your so called legal and historical analysis of court opinions and
historical documents carry no weight because you have no background in
those fields, you have not done any extensive study or research ion those
areas, you present no primary and/or secondary data backing up your
opinion.
Outside of perhaps die hard libberarians, ultra right conservatives,
religious right people, no one takes your discourses very seriously.
:|
:|> Your postings are floods of raw opinion for which you make not even
:|> the slightest attempt to establish relevance to LAW, which is the
:|> topic which you appear to be addressing. LAW is what is done by
:|> Congress, courts and lawyers, NOT what is done by random uninformed
:|> Usenet posters with ideological opinions.
:|
:|You ignore the fact that law itself is generally based on underlying
:|concepts of fairness and justice.
Oh?
Can you give some examples of this underlying concept of fairness and
justice?
It is said that law is based on such things, but is it really? Our legal
system is based on a adversarial system. Do you think losers thing there
was justice and fairness. Do you thing the ACLJ or the Beckett Foundation
things there was justice and fairness in Locke v Davey?
Do you think the families of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman thinks
there was justice and fairness with the acquittal of O J Simpson? Being
fair here, on the other hand do you think that families of blacks that were
killed or railroaded into prison by whites in this country and those whites
got away with it thinks there is fairness and justice in the law?
Do you think gays being deprived of rights all others have as a matter of
course think there is fairness and justice in the law?
Then there is this major problem of defining fairness and justice.
What seems fair and just to one doesn't seem fair and just to another.
:|The way that I establish relevance to law
:|is much like how Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance established relevance
:|to law, pointing out facts and principles and arguing how they ought to be
:|applied in the making of law.
The law that document helped to establish is the very law you want to
overthrow. So much for that argument. LOL
:| If people focused exclusively on current law
:|and never went beyond current law to consider whether something else would
:|be more fair and just, we would still have slavery and numerous other evils.
Read Locke v Davey
*************************************************
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
