What's new
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.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kep I'm sorry but you sound like a trust fund baby which I don't believe you are. I would have liked to have achieved enlightenment while I was commuting to school for the first couple of years while washing dishes on nights and weekends, but somehow I couldn't find the time. :rolleyes: The accomplishment of busting your butt and getting that degree and job (which go hand and hand - getting a degree and then going back home and living off of mom and dad for another 20 years isn't success in my book) is what expands your mind as that tends to take effort for most of us. Its not the 60's anymore where people go to school to smoke dope, avoid the draft, and "find themselves" for 12 years. I loved Animal House as well, but I didn't have the option of going the Bluto Blutarski route (and for the record he did become a US Senator :eek:).

So much wrong with this.

First and most importantly, the guys in Animals House would have been rock ribbed conservatives. It was 1964 and Faber was in western Pennsylvania (right next door to Kefauver High School in Dacron, OH), and it was based on the real life college adventures of a bunch of Dartmouth a-holes like P.J. O'Rourke who went on to recruit the Reagan Youth. Hoover had a confederate flag and Otter played Sinatra make out music and became a gynecologist in Beverly Hills. The only guy in that crowd who would obviously become a liberal is Pinto. Bonus points if you know why his name was Pinto. (Hint: (belch) "Why not?!" is not the correct answer)

Secondly, the liberal arts and social science identification with the woolly-headed set is a nonsense cliche. Most of the leading figures in second half 20th C American arts and social science were first gen college students with blue collar families who only got to college on the G.I. Bill. The Trust Fund d-bags at Cornell went in for Business and Law -- they weren't interested in an MFA.

Thirdly, the credential of a degree gets you in the front door for jobs other than the professional degreed professions, and it gets you in the door for the grad programs for those.

Fourthly, as many have pointed out here, school is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. I guarantee I put more work into my pansy liberal arts degree (with Comp Sci and Math double minor just so you won't look down on me from your Very Serious Perch) than 80% of my classmates did in their lucrative job launch majors.

Fifthly, each of my parents were the first to go to college in their families.

The "Trust Fund Slur" is inane, but worse than that, it's just false. You are capable of better.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So much wrong with this.

No kidding! The original problem raised was a discussion of admissions standards, yet all the replies have extolled (for various reasons) the value of a degree. There is a really big difference between the two. The two in five who are admitted yet don't end up with a degree are really hurting twice over, used, chewed up, spit out, fodder for others' feel-good-about-self narratives.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So much wrong with this.

First and most importantly, the guys in Animals House would have been rock ribbed conservatives. It was 1964 and Faber was in western Pennsylvania (right next door to Kefauver High School in Dacron, OH), and it was based on the real life college adventures of a bunch of Dartmouth a-holes like P.J. O'Rourke who went on to recruit the Reagan Youth. Hoover had a confederate flag and Otter played Sinatra make out music and became a gynecologist in Beverly Hills. The only guy in that crowd who would obviously become a liberal is Pinto. Bonus points if you know why his name was Pinto. (Hint: (belch) "Why not?!" is not the correct answer)

Secondly, the liberal arts and social science identification with the woolly-headed set is a nonsense cliche. Most of the leading figures in second half 20th C American arts and social science were first gen college students with blue collar families who only got to college on the G.I. Bill. The Trust Fund d-bags at Cornell went in for Business and Law -- they weren't interested in an MFA.

Thirdly, the credential of a degree gets you in the front door for jobs other than the professional degreed professions, and it gets you in the door for the grad programs for those.

Fourthly, as many have pointed out here, school is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. I guarantee I put more work into my pansy liberal arts degree (with Comp Sci and Math double minor just so you won't look down on me from your Very Serious Perch) than 80% of my classmates did in their lucrative job launch majors.

Fifthly, each of my parents were the first to go to college in their families.

The "Trust Fund Slur" is inane, but worse than that, it's just false. You are capable of better.

None of this has anything to do with the point, so I'm starting to wonder if you just have a bunch of speeches saved up that you post out here whether they are on point to the topic at hand or not! :eek:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

None of this has anything to do with the point

Not following your script isn't the same thing as not being on point. Though I do agree your original point didn't even warrant a response -- it should have been ignored with mild embarrassment.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Scalia is an idiot, but not because he has a faith.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Scalia is an idiot, but not because he has a faith.

He's an idiot because he allows his faith to override his knowledge of Constitutional history. It's obvious that the First Amendment prohibits state discrimination against atheists for the same reason as it prohibits state discrimination against any particular religion: the Founders were recoiling from the religious wars of the prior 250 years and understood that the separation of church and state was vital for a free society.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Roosevelt invoke God's aid during hs war declaration speech?

During one of the Mercury flights (Glenn's?) people went into church during the day when it was thought the flight was in trouble.

We prayed to God a lot back then.

Kep - we are (were) a religious country that does not favor one religion over the other. That is different than, say Europe, with had (has?) concordats with the Vatican that established Roman Catholicism as the state religion or the church tax in Germany that keeps the Lutherans and Catholics rolling in Euros. Or Saudi Arabia where it's Islam or nothing.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Didn't Roosevelt invoke God's aid during hs war declaration speech?

During one of the Mercury flights (Glenn's?) people went into church during the day when it was thought the flight was in trouble.

We prayed to God a lot back then.

Kep - we are (were) a religious country that does not favor one religion over the other.

Pols kiss babies for votes. The people without the babies roll their eyes, but we know what they're doing.

The agreement has always been that you can keep your myths as long as you don't foist them on others. Nobody wants to be that guy to tell kids there's no Santa Claus, and it's not hurting anything, so let it be. The people who need it need it; the people who don't can be magnanimous and let them have it.

But you don't get to publicly discriminate against those who don't need the myths. You can (and do) do it privately all you want, and we put up with it because the mob is large and dangerous and we know not to push our luck. But you can't get the gubmint in on the act. Says so right there in black and white in the Constitution.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

He's an idiot because he allows his faith to override his knowledge of Constitutional history.

Better said.

I'm as concerned about a war on Atheists as I am about a war on Christians...i.e., not.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Didn't Roosevelt invoke God's aid during hs war declaration speech?

During one of the Mercury flights (Glenn's?) people went into church during the day when it was thought the flight was in trouble.

We prayed to God a lot back then.

Kep - we are (were) a religious country that does not favor one religion over the other. That is different than, say Europe, with had (has?) concordats with the Vatican that established Roman Catholicism as the state religion or the church tax in Germany that keeps the Lutherans and Catholics rolling in Euros. Or Saudi Arabia where it's Islam or nothing.

So then all the losers in every battle in every war didnt pray hard enough? You actually studied in college right?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

From Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address....

" Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Didn't Roosevelt invoke God's aid during hs war declaration speech?

During one of the Mercury flights (Glenn's?) people went into church during the day when it was thought the flight was in trouble.

We prayed to God a lot back then.

Kep - we are (were) a religious country that does not favor one religion over the other. That is different than, say Europe, with had (has?) concordats with the Vatican that established Roman Catholicism as the state religion or the church tax in Germany that keeps the Lutherans and Catholics rolling in Euros. Or Saudi Arabia where it's Islam or nothing.

1. Roosevelt did invoke God but did he lean on Him or Marshall, Eiesenhower, Bradley, MacArthur, Clark, Nimitz and Halsey for victory in the Pacific and Europe?
2. Did God bring back Apollo 13 or did Kranz, Cooper, Lovell, Swigert and Haise?
3. We still pray to God now.
4. People like Scalia do favor one religion - or perhaps all religions except one.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kep - we are (were) a religious country that does not favor one religion over the other. That is different than, say Europe, with had (has?) concordats with the Vatican that established Roman Catholicism as the state religion or the church tax in Germany that keeps the Lutherans and Catholics rolling in Euros. Or Saudi Arabia where it's Islam or nothing.

We are NOT a religious country, we are a country that the individual is allowed to choose their religion (or not), but the government can't choose one (or none). BIG difference. Even farther away from your European or Middle East examples.

Edit- individuals are allowed to use God, ask for his help, etc. Being President does not take that right away. But it also does not give you the right to impose anything on anyone.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

For a deep and abiding sense of the Almighty I need go no further than my own home. You don't have to be President to understand absolute sovereignty.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Elections have consequences.

Reason #486 why the Democrats have to hold the White House. The bringers of whatever misery the plutes want party continues to gradually repeal the 20th century. We can't stop hacks like Scalia and Thomas right now, but we can reverse their decisions before they're even cold in the ground.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Elections have consequences.

Reason #486 why the Democrats have to hold the White House. The bringers of whatever misery the plutes want party continues to gradually repeal the 20th century. We can't stop hacks like Scalia and Thomas right now, but we can reverse their decisions before they're even cold in the ground.

I get your meaning...but its probably reason #1 or #2 (behind an increased potential of war).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top