You stated that the aurora shooter shouldnt have even been questioned about statements to his psychiatrist but this politician should be arrested for something similar? It is terrorism to some effect and illegal in most states. If she was serious or something happened she could be arrested.  
    The boy scouts are a private group right? At some point doesnt a group have the right to handle their own business? They arent an employer so do you have the right to control them? I think they'll have to change to survive and maybe thats the best way to effect change?
     The bible promotes slavery? You need to read more of it if that s what you think.  
        First, it should be noted that far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Timothy 1:10).
 
Furthermore, slavery within the Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could thus use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exodus 22:3)

Ok, early slavery where you willingly entered into service for a period of time happened fairly often in almost every society. In roman society a debtor could be exacuted or his children taken and entering into slavery for a period of time was a way out.  
     Here is a history of the churches stance on slavery.  
      http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
     What I said was as a private group the boy scouts had the right to make their own choices good or bad. Just like the black panthers and the kkk, or catholic church. No one has to agree with your ideology right or wrong. Ranting about it wont help you express your point.

END OF MESSAGE

Believe what you want than. I'm not catholic but do know my history pretty well. The history of the catholic church isnt perfect. Islam allowed slavery until the 19th century as well.  
    Muslim slavery continued for centuries

The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

I would not under any circumstances  allow tea bagger leaders to take my young children  
   on a camping trip and take a chance on indoctrination  or force  to submit to their  * minoric  views .  
  I wouldn't have a problem with same age  tea baggers camping with my children . My children could fight  
back against unwanted advances from another child .

  * minoric : A moron in the minority , normally white trash .  

   

Name one society that didnt have slavery when these passages were written?
     The Catholic Church and slavery  

What about the charge that the Catholic Church did not condemn slavery until the 1890s and actually approved of it before then? In fact, the popes vigorously condemned African and Indian thralldom three and four centuries earlier — a fact amply documented by Fr. Joel Panzer in his book, The Popes and Slavery. The argument that follows is largely based on his study.  

Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”  

A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.  

When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.  

Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.  

Despite this evidence, critics still insist the Magisterium did too little too late regarding slavery. Why? One reason is the critics’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust forms of servitude. The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just tide slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery.
 
The matter is further muddled by certain nineteenth century American clergy — including some bishops and theologians — who tried to defend the American slave system. They contended that the long-standing papal condemnations of slavery didn’t apply to the United States. The slave trade, some argued, had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, but not slavery itself.  

Historians critical of the papacy on this matter often make that same argument. But papal teaching condemned both the slave trade and chattel slavery itself (leaving aside “just tide” servitude, which wasn’t at issue). It was certain members of the American hierarchy of the time who “explained away” that teaching. “Thus,” according to Fr. Panzer, “we can look to the practice of non-compliance with the teachings of the papal Magisterium as a key reason why slavery was not directly opposed by the Church in the United States.”  

Another reason may have been the precarious position of the Catholic Church in America before the twentieth century. Catholics were a small and much-despised minority. They were subject to repeated, sometimes violent attacks by Protestant “Nativists.” In many ways, the American hierarchy of the day was trying to protect the Catholics immigrating to the U.S. and did not regard itself as in a position to be the leader in a major social crusade

When someone is so far right or left that there is no compromise then there is no place for them to be in politics. The majority of teabaggers dont believe in government to begin with so why do any of them or you want them to be in office?                                                                                Dold in the 10th district in illinois is gone replaced by schneider (kirks held for 10 years)              joe walsh is gone in the 8th district replaced by tammy duckworth (crain held this for years also)  and then the guy in dupage county is gone.                                                                            The 8th district and 10th district have been held by republicans for years and finally even the moderate republicans have had it with these far right conservative teabaggers.                 Americans in general are not far left or far right they are usually moderates and are smack dab in the middle.                                                                                                                            My question to all you conservatives posting here? why are you hobbiests and providers? Isnt that a liberal ideology? Are you guys confused? Remember conservatives want to regulate sex, ie gay marriage, dildos in alabama (not allowed to be sold, bought or owned), abortions and especially escorts.                                                                                                                                     All I can do is truly laugh at the repeated rhetoric that the conservatives are posting on here...       I have one last question how come not one conservative president has ever had a balanced budget and or surplus and they have crashed the stock market 3 times (hoover, reagan and bush) and the democrats have had 6 balanced budgets and or surpluses?                                                                                                                                I vote with my pocket book and I know that I can bet on the history of the dems never crashing the stock market and destroying my retirement plan.

Cant help you if you refuse to read anything Ive posted. Chattel slavery was condemmed very early in church history . Criminals were often sentenced into slavery for a period of time instead of exacution. I never once stated that slavery was right but there were many different distinctions. Families could place their children in indentured servatude as opposed to letting them starve. It was a choice that many were faced with. Looking back on it you fail to realize the different distinctions. In america free black men actually owned slaves too. You never hear mention of it but it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).  
     Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-testament.html#ixzz2R83M5feV  The Purpose of Slavery - In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.  God enacted several laws to prevent the need for slavery in the first place. Many of these laws are found in Deuteronomy 24:  Verse 6: a piece of equipment used in the survival of a family may not be taken in pledge for a loan.  Verses 12, 17: if a poor man gives his cloak in pledge, it must be returned at night so he won't be cold; a widow's cloak must not be taken in pledge at all.   Verses 14-15: a poor hired man must receive his wages daily. - Verses 19-21: when harvesting wheat, olives, or grapes, some must be left over for the poor to take for themselves.  Slavery was to be a last resort. Israel was to “remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there” (Deuteronomy 24:18).  Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one's family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn't starve. Types of Slaves  The Old Testament recognized different types of slaves depending on their circumstances. None of them correspond to modern chattel slaves.  The Old Testament Law gave the procedure for taking foreigners (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). When making war against a city, Israel was to first extend an offer of peace, in which the city’s inhabitants could voluntarily bind themselves over as slaves to Israel. This was more like serfdom than slavery. Foreign women and children could be taken in war, but the women could also be taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21:10-13; Rahab—Matthew 1:5).  Debtors  A poor man could sell himself to a richer man if there was famine and the poor man had no way to provide for himself. Or a debtor could sell himself to the one he owed money to. If the debtor owed money to several people, he could sell himself to a rich man who agreed to pay off the debts. Similarly, the head of a household could sell a family member in exchange for any of the above.

I think I'll have to agree with Spades on this one. His research in quite in-depth, and I think where you are getting stuck is in your term "promoted slavery." In a loose sense, as in, the Bible maintained and elaborated the religious law involving the ownership of slaves, you'd be correct. However, if you are saying it "promote slavery" above and beyond what the cultural norm was at the time, given what I've learned about history, you'd be wrong. There were many wars between tribes and nations during the early days of the Israelite', and before and after. If you were one of the unfortunate one's who had your country over taken by a conquering army, there were no jobs for you to apply for after they took your land, your shop, etc. If they let you and your family live, you most likely would become a slave, most typically for the rest of your life. The writings of Leviticus reflect the consequences of the reality of the Israelites entering into the Land of Canaan and conquering it's people. The Israelites needed some religious law to guide them in what to do with those whom they conquered. They religious law did stray from from the predominant customs of the tribes and nations of the the Middle East. And, in the time of the early Christian Church, much of the Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern countries had been conquered by the Romans, and many of their citizen's taken into slavery. Jesus did buck that system, politically any more than when it came to paying taxes. "Then Jesus said to them, 'Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.' And they were amazed at him." Mark 12:17; NIV. They were amazed at him because they believed that he had come to overthrow the Romans.

You dont look at any retorts, you crucify the catholic church on your own distrorted mis-conceptions. Slavery as we know it in america and most of the world knows it today was never promoted or even condoned in the bible. Indentured servitude and other forms of it were not prohibited but also not truly promoted. The church actually work very hard to get serfs/slaves freedoms and basic human rights. They also had a large hand in ending thrawldom, being born into slavery.  
      I am NOT saying that the bible and church are without flaws, I am stating that your black and white personal views of it are as bad as the bible thumper you bitch incessantly about. You preach tolerance and gay rights but fail to even tolerate anothers view point or consider their arguements. Instead of using clear concise arguements you insult and belittle.  

First all I never said you said: "above and beyond," in reference to your term "promote." I was just giving you two different ways someone could interpret your meaning. See definition:  "pro·mote  
/prəˈmōt/
Verb

    Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
    Give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.

Synonyms
advance - further - raise - boost"

Second, you keep switching rails between God and Bible. Yes, I know many Christians and Muslims use it to justify their behaviors and actions; it's called rationalization. And, many more use it the attempt to predict what they should do next; often they'd be just as well off to read tea leaves, or toss bones, because the Golden Rule of treating others as yourself pretty much is a constant and global path to any behavior that is of benefit to human society, or dictates of any gods that there might be.

However,  I'm not discussing God; I'm discussing the historical context of the book of the Bible called Leviticus. If you do not believe in God, why concern yourself over the Bible. However, the Biblical has some historical validity to it, and its books are studied as literature. Historically, the Israelites were conquering the people of Canaan, and they needed some guidelines as to what to do with the people they conquered; kill all of them, let them starve to death, or enslave them. In those days, conquering was for the purpose of obtaining land and resources. Conquering the people meant taking the lands and resources away from them and making them your own. Yes, being a slave could be a very grim life, however, many slaves lived lives they could live with. The reality is, if all of those who were enslaved felt they'd be better of running away, there would be little manpower and resources to stop them all. Now, whether one believes the book of Leviticus was inspired or not, does not remove the historical context it was addressing in the reality of that time.

If you want to continue to throw God in the mix, I have nothing further to say on the matter.   ;

Promote - Synonyms - advance - further - raise - boost"  I haven't read anything that you've had to say that changes my agreement with Spades!  You can have the last word!  

-- Modified on 4/21/2013 7:21:10 PM

I guess I'll try to read this post since you asked me a question.

1) I never said I'm allowed to have any gun I want. The Miller decision ruled that we're not allowed to have "unusual" weapons, like say a sawed off shot gun. If you ever bothered to read Federalist #46, you see that Madison made it very clear that common citizens should own the same kind of weapons that your standard Army infantryman would have. Today that would be a Beretta M9 9mm pistol and a full auto M16. I'll settle for a 9mm pistol of my choice and a semi-auto AR-15.

2) Read the Heller decision. There is no requirement to be in a militia to own a gun.

3) I am a member of the unorganized militia for the Commonwealth of Virginia. YOU are a member of the unorganized militia for YOUR state. Don't believe me? Each of the 13 original states had their own "2nd amendments". For instance, the Constitution of my home state of Virginia has a Bill of Rights. Section 13 of that document states the following:

"That a well-regulated militia, COMPOSED OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (emphasis added with caps)

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm

4) Wrong, "well-regulated" does not mean "government regulations". Such a phrase did not exist in the late 18th century. Just as "having a right to privacy" back then would have meant a right of privacy as we today understand it, but rather back then it would mean the right to use the outhouse. The words "well regulated" means "well regimented" or "well trained" or "well armed".

5) Again, read Federalist #46. Madison said that the danger is that "the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition." Madison went on to say that "let a regular army...be formed", but that it "still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

Madison said, "to these would be opposed a militia" amounting to millions of citizens "with arms in their hands" and "fighting for their common liberties". Madison went on to say, "it may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

Madison continued saying, "besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation", it would form "a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." And that "the several kingdoms of Europe" are "afraid to trust the people with arms." Madison concluded by saying, "Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

In other words, Madison was saying that no army could defeat an armed insurgency. And when you look back into history, Madison was right. An armed insurgency took out the Libyan gov't. An armed insurgency is why the US lost the Vietnam War. During WW2, Hitler invaded every single nation of Europe that wasn't their ally. With ONE sole exception: Switzerland while lies right on Germany's southern border. Why did Hitler not invade Switzerland? Could it be that they have an armed populace?

You make the mistake of lumping all conservatives a far right wing. I am a conservative and NRA member, but that doesn't make me right wing. Abortion: no problem, but it can't be unlimited. Take my guns: Fuck you. Legalize marijuana and prostitution: Do it makes since. Fiscal responsibility from our government: Hell yeah, works me.  

You seize to easily on a word and lump a bunch of people into it. That is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Keep spewing your venom that will make it better.

I wasn't aware there was a competition of any sort. I was merely pointing out why I was in agreement with Spade rather than you! I know you don't value to opinion of anyone on this board, so what could you possibly win or lose. I feel I've neither lost or won anything. However, if you want to believe you won something, go right ahead; though if you want a reality check, let's let the board make the determination who "won."  

Also, what did I make up?

And, I can't remember the last time I had difficulty in getting a goodnight sleep; and that's without the aid of any prescription, alcohol or controlled substance.

I had planned on giving you the last word, however your last response was just too rich to pass up!

I'm saying good night for now, so that I can get that good nights sleep!  

Have you tried using another browser? I've edited posts over an hour after I've posted before. Try this instead: Before you post, gather your thoughts first.

The unusual weapon used in the Miller case was a sawed off shotgun. To this day, there are weird legal definitions of how many inches a rifle barrel has to be.

Assault rifles are already illegal. If you're referring to the AR-15, it's the most popular rifle in America.

I have no idea what you mean by "super clips".

No, I don't expect to fight the gov't with a 9mm. MY purpose in owning a gun is self-protection. Madison's reasoning for having a 2nd amendment is to ensure that Americans can protect their own rights. It's not the only thing that ensures it. Voting helps ensure it. Having state and local governments helps ensure it. Having the Commander In Chief of the military being a civilian helps ensure it. And you better believe that an armed citizenry has throughout our nation's history acted as a deterrent against those who would have preferred to take this nation in a tyrannical direction.

The Miller decision established the first gun control laws. Maybe before you roll your eyes, maybe you ought to learn something about it, you dumb shit.

I've never said we need to take the Constitution word for word. The Constitution has many flaws, but I won't go into that, since that would fly right the fuck over your head.

Your problem is that you're not understanding what the Constitution is actually saying. Nor do you have a modicum of understanding of Enlightenment principles which founded this nation. I have no doubt that you've never heard of, much less read Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes or Hume. You're simply not privy to the debate between Burke and Paine. You have no understanding of the ideas of Humboldt or Montesquieu. You're like someone twice as retarded as Sarah Palin trying to understand Steven Hawkings.

This is why you repeat yourself with this "well-regulated" tripe when I already explained to you in plain English why you're wrong, not just factually, but historically as well.

Did you miss that part of the Virginia Constitution that says, "composed of the body of the people"? What the fuck do you think that means? It means everyfuckingbody. How hard is that to grasp? I'm in a militia, you're in a milita, Gag's in a militia, ALL AMERICANS are members of the militia. That's what citizenship is. That's what it means. It means that all of us are bound with the duty to protect our country and to protect our fellow countrymen. That is the explicit reason why we have a 2nd amendment. Why the fuck do you think the 2nd amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

It is so that WE the PEOPLE can rule as the dictators of ourselves. WE THE PEOPLE, give gov't the permission to exist, we are the arbiters of our own destiny. And WE the People are, as Rousseau put it, the Sovereigns. Now I realize that's over your fucking head, but it's not my fault you're a dumb shit.

Yes, they did have the concept of gov't regulations back then, but they didn't call it "government regulations". I already debunked your "they didn't have super guns" argument when I told you that if you bothered to read Federalist #46, you can see that Madison was clear that common citizens should have the same kind of weapons as your standard infantrymen.

No, it does not mean that everyone has to be trained before they can get a gun. The BILL OF RIGHTS is a document that does not limit the behaviors of citizens. After all, it's called THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Rather it limits what GOVERNMENT can do. That is why it does not say "you have free speech", but rather "Congress shall make no law". That is why is does not say "you can have a gun", but rather it says, "shall not be infringed".

If you fear getting shot by some dumbass, then that's your problem, not mine. Here's an idea! Maybe if you learned your manners and behaved like a decent human being, then you wouldn't worry about people wanting to put a cap in your sorry ass.