bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
37 cases of Natty Light? Sweet mother of god.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
37 cases of Natty Light? Sweet mother of god.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet © 2009
- Thread starter thebrain
- Start date
- Status
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Clearly no Class at all.
If you're going to go thru that much Natty Lite, at least get it from a keg.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Clearly no Class at all.
If you're going to go thru that much Natty Lite, at least get it from a keg.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
People wonder why I have such a low opinion of Greek Life?
The only surprising thing to me is that this was a SORORITY. I've only heard of stuff of this kind (though markedly less extreme) being hosted or put on by fraternities but...wow. Oh wait. it is a "Fraternity for women." Isn't that a sorority? Well, hell. It is to me.
Oh, and the writer of the letter is an idiot.
Sorry, but proud alum or not, what these fools did was inexcusable. They should have charged the University up the Ying yang for the damages, inconveniences (cost of cleanup, rental fees for the carpet cleaner, time and labor, etc.), and so on.
In turn, I think the University should have charged the Sorority AND the National Chapter for the damages.
Then comes the fun part: The sanctions.
The University should throw the book at this Sorority AND make the whole **** thing public. Heck: Put the proceedings on Public Access TV!
Make it so that if they even fart in the wrong direction and the smell reaches the authorities, the whole place will be disassembled and sold to the highest bidder and the Sorority will be put on permanent hiatus.
I'd send this letter to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT AND PARENT that belongs to that Sorority EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE PARTY.
Let's face it folks. I know that Greek Life isn't all like this but... stuff like this makes it INCREDIBLY EASY to build a strong movement to eliminate Greek Life completely... or at least make it so that they aren't a part of the Universities.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Sorority formal at Miami.
http://deadspin.com/5534166/miami-u...t-sexiest-spring-formal-ever?skyline=true&s=i
Best comment:
People wonder why I have such a low opinion of Greek Life?
The only surprising thing to me is that this was a SORORITY. I've only heard of stuff of this kind (though markedly less extreme) being hosted or put on by fraternities but...wow. Oh wait. it is a "Fraternity for women." Isn't that a sorority? Well, hell. It is to me.
Oh, and the writer of the letter is an idiot.
Sorry, but proud alum or not, what these fools did was inexcusable. They should have charged the University up the Ying yang for the damages, inconveniences (cost of cleanup, rental fees for the carpet cleaner, time and labor, etc.), and so on.
In turn, I think the University should have charged the Sorority AND the National Chapter for the damages.
Then comes the fun part: The sanctions.
The University should throw the book at this Sorority AND make the whole **** thing public. Heck: Put the proceedings on Public Access TV!
Make it so that if they even fart in the wrong direction and the smell reaches the authorities, the whole place will be disassembled and sold to the highest bidder and the Sorority will be put on permanent hiatus.
I'd send this letter to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT AND PARENT that belongs to that Sorority EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE PARTY.
Let's face it folks. I know that Greek Life isn't all like this but... stuff like this makes it INCREDIBLY EASY to build a strong movement to eliminate Greek Life completely... or at least make it so that they aren't a part of the Universities.
Beer Pong Horn
soldier of fortune
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
College kids do stupid stuff, but for Pete's sake, you're making your entire college, Fraternity (or Sorority) and generation look bad, and jeopardizing that Brother/Sisterhood that you swore to defend. This is the kind of stuff that gives ulcers to college administrators ulcers, and nightmares to Fraternity officers.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
College kids do stupid stuff, but for Pete's sake, you're making your entire college, Fraternity (or Sorority) and generation look bad, and jeopardizing that Brother/Sisterhood that you swore to defend. This is the kind of stuff that gives ulcers to college administrators ulcers, and nightmares to Fraternity officers.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I'm about as anti-Greek as they come, but I don't think eliminating their official relationship with the universities would help anything, and it might even hurt. At least now the school has the authority to sanction them for violations of the campus codes of conduct, etc. If these sorts of shenanigans were carried out by a private, off-campus club, what recourse would the university have?
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I'm about as anti-Greek as they come, but I don't think eliminating their official relationship with the universities would help anything, and it might even hurt. At least now the school has the authority to sanction them for violations of the campus codes of conduct, etc. If these sorts of shenanigans were carried out by a private, off-campus club, what recourse would the university have?
D). Something tells me that there's only one "bag" of Mr. Rekers's that was handled by Mr. Roman...Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I see that state wide IQ reduction program in Alabama continues.* "We can't be a-havin' them old folks a-praying' before meals at the senior citizens center, no sir."
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23495797/detail.html
*hat tip to Dennis Wolfberg.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I see that state wide IQ reduction program in Alabama continues.* "We can't be a-havin' them old folks a-praying' before meals at the senior citizens center, no sir."
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23495797/detail.html
*hat tip to Dennis Wolfberg.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Looks like I blamed Alabama for Georgia's crimes. Brain cramp. But that Dennis Wolfberg line is still funny. More importantly, someone has seen the light, and the seniors can go back to giving thanks before meals. Chalk one up for common sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/10/prayers-answered/
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Looks like I blamed Alabama for Georgia's crimes. Brain cramp. But that Dennis Wolfberg line is still funny. More importantly, someone has seen the light, and the seniors can go back to giving thanks before meals. Chalk one up for common sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/10/prayers-answered/
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I don't know what's more remarkable:
1) The fact that so many people interpret their first amendment freedoms (specifally: that the government can't prohibit the free exercise of religion) as saying that we need to have state-sanctioned atheism in the name of "seperation of church and state", or
2) The fact that so many other people seem to keep falling for it.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I don't know what's more remarkable:
1) The fact that so many people interpret their first amendment freedoms (specifally: that the government can't prohibit the free exercise of religion) as saying that we need to have state-sanctioned atheism in the name of "seperation of church and state", or
2) The fact that so many other people seem to keep falling for it.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The government has to be neutral on religion, period. To dyed-in-the-wool Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians, non-endorsement of their particular religion probably feels like an endorsement of atheism, but it absolutely is not.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
You're wrong. Separation of church and state derives from the "establishment" clause, not the "free exercise" clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The government has to be neutral on religion, period. To dyed-in-the-wool Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians, non-endorsement of their particular religion probably feels like an endorsement of atheism, but it absolutely is not.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Reaction #1: With that last sentence, you almost make seem as though, from the religious perspective, this is an issue of religious people demanding that the government conform to their own worldview. As if what they're really complaining about is whether the government will formally endorse them, like Theodosius establishing Christianity in Rome.
Reaction #2: You're close, I'll give you that, but I think you're a little off the mark. There is a major difference between the government advocating a particular faith and the government advocating for no faith. It's not as though the act of prayer is limited to one demonination. We could take for granted that every religious option in the world involves some form of prayer, and we'd probably be right.
So if the government- or any organization for that matter- tells you that you cannot pray (or restricts your ability to pray), what option is left? These sorts of policies tell us that its okay to restrict the freedoms of religious people, yet these policies are limited only to those with some form of faith.
Reaction #3: Let's pretend that everyone has the right to choose their favorite Beatle. But... uh... because we don't want to influence people, we probably shouldn't allow people to listen to Beatles albums. Even the solo albums. After all, we wouldn't want to offend the people who don't like the Beatles by allowing other people to listen to their music.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Interesting angle...
Reaction #1: With that last sentence, you almost make seem as though, from the religious perspective, this is an issue of religious people demanding that the government conform to their own worldview. As if what they're really complaining about is whether the government will formally endorse them, like Theodosius establishing Christianity in Rome.
Reaction #2: You're close, I'll give you that, but I think you're a little off the mark. There is a major difference between the government advocating a particular faith and the government advocating for no faith. It's not as though the act of prayer is limited to one demonination. We could take for granted that every religious option in the world involves some form of prayer, and we'd probably be right.
So if the government- or any organization for that matter- tells you that you cannot pray (or restricts your ability to pray), what option is left? These sorts of policies tell us that its okay to restrict the freedoms of religious people, yet these policies are limited only to those with some form of faith.
Reaction #3: Let's pretend that everyone has the right to choose their favorite Beatle. But... uh... because we don't want to influence people, we probably shouldn't allow people to listen to Beatles albums. Even the solo albums. After all, we wouldn't want to offend the people who don't like the Beatles by allowing other people to listen to their music.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
See, you bolded one phrase, but not the key one in this case "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not allowing prayer before meals sure feels like "prohibiting the free exercise."
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
See, you bolded one phrase, but not the key one in this case "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not allowing prayer before meals sure feels like "prohibiting the free exercise."
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
The general idea of both the establishment and the free exercise clauses is to prevent religious sectionalism lapping over into political sectionalism -- exactly what we're seeing now. Anything that defuses that time bomb is a good thing. Keeping public space neutral on religion prevents the particularly insane knife fights people have when religious observance becomes a public, and thus a political, matter, because it isn't long before the loudmouths on all sides start acting like soccer hooligans.
Keep it at home.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
The general idea of both the establishment and the free exercise clauses is to prevent religious sectionalism lapping over into political sectionalism -- exactly what we're seeing now. Anything that defuses that time bomb is a good thing. Keeping public space neutral on religion prevents the particularly insane knife fights people have when religious observance becomes a public, and thus a political, matter, because it isn't long before the loudmouths on all sides start acting like soccer hooligans.
Keep it at home.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
But the government does not advocate for "no faith." The government does not advocate for "any faith," and there is a gigantic difference. If you have actual evidence of a government official telling someone that he "cannot pray," then I'm sure that the ACLU, the US Commission on Civil Rights, and the Justice Department would love to speak to you.
This analogy is rather tortured, and I think it includes a couple of poor word choices (e.g. "allowing"). For this "right" to be analogous to religious freedom, you would also have to clarify that someone has the right NOT to like any of the Beatles. And let's further say that the majority of people in the country have historically preferred John Lennon over all the others. Would it then be fair for the government to play ONLY John Lennon records at official government functions? Or, given that people have a right not to like the Beatles at all, would it be fair for the government to set aside particular times as "Beatle-listening moments" and forcing (not allowing) everyone to listen to the Beatles? No and no.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
However, if there were an atheist senior who objected, I do think he would have a case. And that case would be based on the establishment clause - prayer that is endorsed or required by the government is an "establishment" of that religion, and that is illegal. However, I'm not 100% sure that he would win that case. It's much more black-and-white in situations like having 10 Commandments in court rooms or opening town hall meetings with prayers to the Christian God - in those situations, people acting in their capacity as government officials simply cannot endorse any particular religion, period. In this particular case, though, these are private citizens praying out loud at an event which happens to be government funded, which is just enough different to allow some wiggle room.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
I hadn't actually clicked on the link before. This specific case falls into a gray area for me, and I'm glad that they will allow the prayer, since all of the seniors seem to be in favor of it.See, you bolded one phrase, but not the key one in this case "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not allowing prayer before meals sure feels like "prohibiting the free exercise."
However, if there were an atheist senior who objected, I do think he would have a case. And that case would be based on the establishment clause - prayer that is endorsed or required by the government is an "establishment" of that religion, and that is illegal. However, I'm not 100% sure that he would win that case. It's much more black-and-white in situations like having 10 Commandments in court rooms or opening town hall meetings with prayers to the Christian God - in those situations, people acting in their capacity as government officials simply cannot endorse any particular religion, period. In this particular case, though, these are private citizens praying out loud at an event which happens to be government funded, which is just enough different to allow some wiggle room.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
All of this entertaining, informative and high tone discussion over Grandma and Grandpa saying grace before they dive into their beef tips. It's right that they've been allowed to resume their prayers--and all of the "slippery slope" and "camel's nose inside the tent" arguments to me just sound silly and preposterous. The old folks weren't hurting anyone and nobody was forced to join them and they aren't out on the street demanding that everyone else say their prayers before lunch. So leave 'em alone, IMHO.
There's probably a better example of the need to "separate church and state" than this. This just strikes me as mean spirited and, you should pardon the expression, soulless.
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
All of this entertaining, informative and high tone discussion over Grandma and Grandpa saying grace before they dive into their beef tips. It's right that they've been allowed to resume their prayers--and all of the "slippery slope" and "camel's nose inside the tent" arguments to me just sound silly and preposterous. The old folks weren't hurting anyone and nobody was forced to join them and they aren't out on the street demanding that everyone else say their prayers before lunch. So leave 'em alone, IMHO.
There's probably a better example of the need to "separate church and state" than this. This just strikes me as mean spirited and, you should pardon the expression, soulless.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Re: Nice Planet © 2009
Obviously it's hard to realize that it was the fact that the prayer was organized and not just ol gramma and granpa saying a prayer before they dug in, that was at issue (and a small issue it was). But then it's obvious that misrepresenting it as "kind old seniors being forced not to pray" will get more knee jerk religious reaction.
- Status