TH3

Don't want to say I told you so but..... "Chaz Stevens, who forced Florida Governor Rick Scott to allow him to display an eight-foot Festivus pole made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans next to Deerfield Beach’s nativity scene has written to the city asking that he be allowed to open a meeting with a prayer to his god. Stevens has converted to Satanism just in time to take advantage of the ruling. Stevens says that his change of faith is just as legitimate as Christianity. “At Christmas, I was a Pabstfestidian. It’s legitimate — it’s based in as much reality as the Catholics. But unlike Catholic priests, we don’t rape little boys.” However, he has converted to Satanism because, “Satan is a cool dude. Think of all the people he’s in charge of. Do you want to be stuck listening to harp music in the afterlife? Hell no. I want to drink beer and hang with hookers.” In a letter written to Deerfield Beach, he formally made his request: Dear City of Deerfield Beach; With the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing “prayer before Commission meetings” and seeking the rights granted to others, I hereby am requesting I be allowed to open a Commission meeting praying for my God, my divine spirit, my Dude in Charge. Be advised, I am a Satanist. Let me know when this is good for you. Besties Chaz Stevens, Calling in from Ring 6 of Dante’s Inferno” I told you so......let the circus begin!

I kind of like the view "At some point you have to start believing in yourself". With this move - the Bills have done that - which might well be part of the package.......

Comments like that say exactly what your agenda is.... Seriously....Polls? Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything?

What are you talking about...."Living Document" - its a document that gets interpreted ALL the time - call it what you want. In this particular case - Scotus has overturned about 60 years of what is an acceptable "prayer" or "invocation" content in a public government hearing...it was all settled and seemed to work quite well....now they have not only opened the door to a much more LIBERAL interpretation of what is acceptable....they have also removed all checks and balances to what is OK......

TTYT. You are good at arguing...but not seeing others points of view. What is so hard about understanding that if I - or anyone else goes to government meeting - and that meeting is opened with a very specific religious point of view - that I cannot feel that government is establishing that particular religion? How can it not be taken any other way? If one had never been to this country and showed up and went to a government hearing that opened with - pick you religion - a very specific prayer - whelp - without anyone prejudicing your opinion - you would think "Whelp - I guess that - pick your religion - is part of this government" I agree that every court is different. My view is that this current court is a very activist - not conservative - and has a very specific agenda.

Well TYTT, I just don't agree with you or your bullet points or the Scotus decision. I think specific religious acts in a government setting goes past "freedom of speech" and goes into government sanctioning of a religion. I think the decision - and if you read it - are - well bad policy. The Scotus decision bars anyone (gov't entities like state legislatures) from further deciding what is allowed and what is not in these "prayer moments". They took the governor off - I think that is going to lead to trouble. As I said on the page before - The Roberts court is extremely aggressive in their decisions - overturning decades of previous policy that has worked well and as well legislation strongly approved in a bipartisan manner. What is "allowed" in terms of prayer in public government settings has been clearly defined for the better part of a century - and people have seemed to live with it without Issue - now it is open game - all rules are out. Hugely popular - and bipartisan legislation regarding voting and minorities - overturned, Overwhelming bipartisan legislation regarding election funding - overturned. Heck - I even think the basis for the ACA being upheld was suspect. All of these decisions overturning decades of accepted policies, previous decisions, or bipartison and popular legilsation overturned 5-4. I guess they know best..... I will leave you with this: "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by others.....but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father in secret, and your father who sees you in secret shall reward you.

Whaa? It is now a government sanctioned religious opening And that would be exactly - when placed in a government setting - exactly using the government setting to sanction their religious viewpoints.... Let me try another way....If I went to that meeting and felt that I was in the middle of a governmen being a proponent of a religion.....Isn't that enough? Don't we err on the side of caution? You know...be .....conservative in these areas?

One man's positive influence is another's not.....I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable.....this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors.... Discretion is the better part of valor

Geez, I can't help but feel the Roberts court gets just about everything exactly wrong.....and more worrisome - looks like the operate with no rudder or logic in the 5 "conservative" majority. Think of the ramifications of this ruling.....it is really a liberalization of specific religions expressing their specific views in a goverment setting. Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling. Further to the liberal and activist rulings.....the overturning of the election funding laws. These laws were near unaminous in their bipartison support....but this court saw to be actvist, overturn them from the bench and actually liberalize how our elections are funded. Does anyone here feel more freedom in their speech lately. Or do you feel like legislation is even more easily purchased? Maybe a victory for the religious right.....but for separating goverment condoned religon....how can it be? Forgive typos ipad

OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose? Single payer only means that there is single source of payment - It would mean something like a VAT that the government collects but the options on how that gets spent could be numerous. It could be a voucher given to people for them to spend on how they see fit - or spend in a defined manner - or it could be spent by the govt on insurance. Universal is more like Medicaire for everyone.

Where do they sell those glasses?

Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim?

Any of you regular posters black?

If white guys had been in slavery for 250 years and the next 100 in government legislated racism and apartheid.......he might just get banned That's the discussion isn't it? SCOTUS has recently decided that it is not in the government's realm to respond to racism - but clearly it pervades in society and other private entities have taken upon themselves to respond. Maybe not so easy to move on from 350 years of government legislated racism....

might be appropriate to add ".....from the government"

The private sector and market have spoken.

You really need the link? Seriously? What do you think my "true colors are"? My point is that NEITHER party is what I would think of as "conservative". The GOP is as activist and as involved in picking winners as the DEM's. Yes there are the Solyndra's but he biggest source of economic activism is the tax code - and that is what I find disappointing about Ryan's budget proposal - it makes NO moves to reform the the revenue side of the budget. Federal tax revenues are pretty much at an all time low - 17 percent GDP (excluding 2002-2012- the Bush tax cut years - 15%) - so why do we all complain about paying high taxes? (BTW Reagan years taxes were 20+ percent of GDP). The reason is - the tax code has been formed by special interests on BOTH sides of the aisle...... My true colors? Make sure you walk the walk (GOP) before you talk the talk......

Ummm not at all - don't put intent in my words . What it means is that you can't see the unimpeded actions/rights of an individual may impede on the rights of others......get back to the zoning....if you can do anything on your property - such as open a crematorium and stinking up the neighborhood (actually happened)....that action is the one infringing..... Who is infringing on who? You can parse privileges/rights...who cares....society is better off with rules - its just a balance....

The problem with TYTT is the libertarian myth - sounds great, works great.....in your mind....when the rubber meets the road society has decided that actual rules are needed for the common good. Yes - its a balance.

"Texas offered Toyota $40 million to move, part of a Texas Enterprise Fund incentive program run out of the governor's office. At $10,000 a job, it was one of the largest incentives handed out in the decade-old program and cost more per job created than any other large award. Last year, Texas spent about $6,800 to lure each of 1,700 Chevron Corp. CVX +1.40% positions to Houston and $5,800 for each of 3,600 Apple Inc. AAPL +3.87% jobs shifted to Austin." Guess it ain't liberal if its good for you!

Including those who can't see joke about a seldom used word.... As far as the article I posted......there is hardly anything "conservative" or "constructionist" about that cave womens views......orthodox 19 century church going maybe......

So getting birth control included as part of a standard health policy is bad? Plus I beleive it is the GOP that is not interested in legislative efforts to even pay out.....but then again you have this to fall back on: http://www.christianpost.com/news/facts-and-fallacies-about-paycheck-fairness-117959/ Did the word hypergamy really exist prior to this column?

Yes - it is so unjust to ask for rent......there is a system for determining what is not just....called the courts, appellate courts....SCOTUS....commonly called the rule of law..... There is nothing about this case worth defending.....and the more anyone defends this case the less credibility they have....

So you don't want the government to be able to execute the rule of law?

How is this an example of federal over reach? Dumb ass racist rancher who thinks he lives in the 1850's breaks laws for 20 years, loses court fight, flouts the rule of law, his defenders want to shield themselves with their wives, gets embraced as a shining example of federal over reach? Which part of this situation does the right want to be hypocritical on? Rule of law?, Freeloading? Taking something for nothing?Racism? Heroism? Are you saying you are willing to overlook the simply grotesque aspects of this situation to glom on to the dubious angle of federal overreach in it? THAT is why I am registered independent.....