Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

wrote:
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:43:01 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

It's very well written for an eighteenth century document. But it's now the
21st century and the principles of the constitution are now shrouded in
misinterpretation and circumstances and language have changed.

The ONLY circumstances that have changed are that "freedom of the press"
is extended to electronic media, which should be an obvious thing to do,
and we now have a new branch of the military.

As far as language, the 18th-Century meanings of the words haven't
changed and the interpretations are generally straight forward unless you
are an idiot liberal justice or an idiot liberal Congress critter.


It needs to be brought up to date.

Are you a US Citizen? If not, it is really NONE of your GD business!

You're acting as if I committed blasphemy. The constitution is not God and
even by its terms I have the right of free speech. As also guaranteed by
the European human rights laws.

Does the right to bar arms mean that individuals should be allowed to own
nuclear weapons?

Strawman argument. Hard to use a nuclear weapon against a burglar.

Burglars are not, as far as I know, mentioned in the constitution. But
arming the population to allow a militia is. The militia needs up to date
weapons.

That's just one example.

An idiotic one.

It needs to be brought up to date and then revised at least every 50 years.

Again, if you are not a US Citizen, it is NONE of your GD business!

I not giving you any instructions. Just a little advice from afar.

Maybe you should think about creating your OWN constitution, no?

I'm happy with the constitution we have.

wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:04:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to
be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the
nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the
property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax
upon the whole community.�
? James A. Garfield

There are, of course, many legitimate opinions on this subject. My own
is that religion should not even be mentioned in the Constitution.

Yours is not a "legitimate opinion," peterson, since you base your
opinions on false premises.


Of
course, making such a change (or any change) in the Constitution is
nearly impossible now.

That is a good thing.

That said, there is a vigorous debate going on around the country now
regarding taxing churches.

No, actually there isn't.

After all, a reasonable reading of the
First Amendment arguably suggests that allowing them to be tax exempt
is a violation, since it treats them differently than other
organizations.

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to an astronomy club or to a business.

Of course they are analogous. Both have members who look at the universe
and it's origins.

Silly argument, collins. These days astronomy clubs seem to be about
pushing buttons on GoTo telescopes. Yawn.

The last two astronomical society meetings I attended were of societies
which had no observatory and GOTO telescopes were not mentioned.

Churches and religions are about much more than that sort of thing.

Yes they always have collections or tithes.


But Astronomical Societies don't threaten their members
with eternal torture (cruel and unusual punishment) if they break the
rules.

I think we will see states starting to remove
exemptions from property taxes- this is eminently reasonable given
that churches utilize the same public services as other businesses and
organizations,

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to a business.

Both take money from the public but the churches don't offer a product in
exchange

That's just your opinion and not a very good one.

and don't pay taxes.

Under the Constitution they don't have to and for good reasons.


and are therefore seen as being subsidized by those
others.

In fact, they are not being "subsidized." Churchgoers have paid plenty
enough taxes to cover the cost of their common meeting place.

Non churchgoers pay the same taxes without a meeting place.

So?

Why should they
subsidise freeloaders.

Freeloaders? You mean like government bureaucrats?

There is no federal law that prevents states from taxing
churches.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents states from taxing churches.

I have little doubt that if states start doing this, we will
see churches suing, and it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if the
First Amendment does or does not allow such taxation-

It does not. Read it, peterson.

a determination
that has not yet been made and incorporated into legislation or case
law.

Such a law will be found to be unconstitutional, assuming a court not
packed with liberal clowns.


Your constitution seems very badly written if you need so many lawyers to
fight over its interpretation.

Actually it is very well written. It contains sensible limits on
government power, a system of checks and balances, and a tacit
acknowledgement of the existence of natural rights.

wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:03:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:17:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Along with US flag worship - a clear example of idolatory.

Children are not taught to "worship" the flag, but they do learn to
respect it and appreciate the country it represents, the country that
saved your sorry little *** from the Nazis and the USSR.

It is pretty standard practice in the U.S. to indoctrinate children
with flag worship.

They are not "worshiping" the flag, peterson. They are not praying to it.


To the outside world your flag worship and oath taking looks:
A) Sinister
B) Ludicrous

All the transgression listed below are commonly used for the British flag.
Anyone burning the flag for a protest is usually laughed at.

Flag Etiquette

STANDARDS of RESPECT
The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which
we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the
flag is not to be used. They a

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside
down only as a distress signal.
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk,
draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue,
white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of
the bunting should be on the top.
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be
embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions,
handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after
temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or
halyard
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform,
except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel,
fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark,
insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding,
carrying, or delivering anything.
When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any
other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the
flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.

The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.

When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our
country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.

wrote:
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:28:18 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Free exercise of religion. You have to ask yourself what did they mean by
free.

Free from any government interference whatsoever. (Well, maybe human
sacrifices might be regulated.)

If you want to propose that this means no taxes then this should
apply to the press too.

There is no tax on free speech and the press is a business.

It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain
that "free" in this case means without coercion.

So, you just barely qualify.

It doesn't mean allowing
these organisations to freeload on the taxes of the rest of the population.

They aren't freeloading. The congregation pays taxes already.



I paid taxes. So did most of the other member of the astronomical society.
Yet we had to pay council tax on the observatory and grounds and pay fees
to the library where we held our monthly meetings.
Is this different to the USA?

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 7:47:29 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Turns out for all you chatter about courage and Newton, you are just another airhead with nothing to say -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

If you want to know about the dual surface rotations that go into the variations in the total length of the natural noon cycle then just ask but there is a milestone in 4 days as the surface rotation component which accounts variations shows up in dramatic style at the South pole.

Courage indeed !, another corpse among many.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 7:47:29 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Turns out for all you chatter about courage and Newton, you are just
another airhead with nothing to say -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are
commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers
correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial
motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a
phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum
clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

If you want to know about the dual surface rotations that go into the
variations in the total length of the natural noon cycle then just ask
but there is a milestone in 4 days as the surface rotation component
which accounts variations shows up in dramatic style at the South pole.

Courage indeed !, another corpse among many.







Your mythical dual rotations are another of your personal superstitions
based on ignorance, arrogance and misunderstanding.
The Earth's axis does not tilt or circle on an annual basis. The Poles
point to the same two points in space close to Polaris and Sigma Octantis.
As the Earth moves round the Sun this does not change. So, as everyone but
you can visualise, the north and south poles are illuminated. Even you can
visualise this if you just play around with a lamp and a globe or the
world. Just make sure you keep the poles aligned with a distant object.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:22:08 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

Don't be shy, if you want to talk courage then let's go through the timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time seeing they made such a fuss about it for the last 100 years.

You all waste your time talking about what you dislike so now you get an opportunity to talk about what you do like, in this case Newton's expression of the difference between natural noon and 24 hour noon as absolute/relative time.

Then we can move on to the other things you like such as absolute/relative space and motion.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:05:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:35:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:33:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."

What of it? A juvenile statement that conveys nothing but you complete
lack of respect for everyone who thinks differently than you do. It
isn't worth a reply.

Reply? You just did! Not very well, of course.

Only because you didn't understand (and probably still don't) that the
comment was just drivel unrelated to anything else.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your dogma, of course, makes it impossible for you to accept that not
everyone believes what you believe.

Incorrect. Obviously, I see your opinions as different, and not legitimate because they are based on false premises.

Opinions need not have any premises at all, beyond personal values.

Yours ARE based on false premises, however.

Well, we already know that logic isn't one of your strong points.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 9:32:43 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The judiciary needs to understand the Consititution and to understand
society. It then seeks an interpretation most consistent with both.
Otherwise, the Constitution ends up being just another immoral
obsolete document like the Bible.

Did you mean "immoral", or was that a typo for "immortal", since both are
consistent with the context?

The Constitution can be amended, and given that a democratic government is
supposed to operate with each branch of government remaining within its own
assigned powers and responsibilities - _not_ with one branch having an
opportunity to abuse its power so as to take over the functions of the other
two branches - for the Supreme Court to take it on itself to wield the power of
the Constitution according to its own will, rather than for the Constitution
and not the justices to retain its assigned powers is... *highly* suspect, to
say the least.

I mean, what happened in Venezuela, where the President ignored legislative
elections, and then replaced the Supreme Court with his buddies who then said
this was OK, is _more obvious_, but it's the same general principle, although
here it's the executive branch that took over.

John Savard