Will you also provide air fare and lodging for all who plan on celebrating dpenguins appreciation day "with" you?

Do we even get a day off work for this crap holiday?

You'll have to provide a link to your race for someone to rate it.

Thanks for the heads up, LP.

Congrats, Key: I'm putting you on an ignore list in politics for complete disregard for fair, honest discourse within the politics forum, and specifically for the act of blatantly ignoring otherwise relevant arguments while having ample opportunity to respond (i.e., because you were both warned by me beforehand, had arguments flagged as "previously ignored" and continued to ignore them, and yet still made posts to respond to the same posts in which those indictments existed).

Consider this part of my effort to promote a better debate on the Politics forum.  Part of the process involves identifying those people who actively hurt the process by preventing the deep analysis of issues.  I will only discuss with Key the matter of the nature and justification for this ban.

I would encourage other people to do the same, primarily because it is in their own interest: Key has indicated that if you try to actively engage in a debate with him, he will actively ignore key arguments, while still claiming to be participating in the discussion.  That largely results in a waste of  the time of anyone trying to talk with him.

> Gimmix wrote:

> just because people who used to play it sill do doesnt mean new people will want to start.

Then why are you still here? 

Does it show up in family news if he was killed off by your family members?

Is a closet communist

> Key wrote:

> "The 10 commandments, followed by the ordinances "   Uhhhh, there were no ordinances added in with the 10 commandments.  And if you think about it the translation of the 10 commandments are the King James Bible version.  Not the original translations.

Okay, I used the wrong term when stating "ordinances."  Consider them "lesser rules."  That being said, are you sure there's none?  Look around either Exodus or the book after that.  Not sure which one it is.  That being said, where do you think the ban against eating pork, the demand for circumcision,, specific rules regarding slavery, etc., came from?  They're specifically demanded in the Bible.

> It's not that hard.  The politicians we have keep going to rally's and telling the newsies to quote them.  In these quotes they state, "It's our god given right to free speech.  It's our god given right to take up arms.  It's our god given right...." so on and so forth.  Besides the 10 commandments, if you want to believe that's a CATCH ALL for every right you have, does it state in the bible, is our rights stated?

And i'm stating for a fact, that nowhere in the bible does it state what our god given rights are.  None.  The 10 commandments were supposed to be gods laws and gods rules, and gods guidelines on how to live your life?  But those 10 commandments does not state you have the god given right to equal rights.  Doesn't state you have the god given right to insurance.  And the politicians have stated it is your god given right to not be denied health coverage....

So... are you saying that there is no purpose to obey "Thou shalt not kill," except "Because God said so?"

> The King James Bible translation of the 10 commandments are DIRECT.  There are no additions, no bylaws, no sub paragraph A section 2, line 3.  There are no ORDINANCES of any kind.  The only ordances which have been handed down were by Catholic Popes and Bishops.

Thou shalt not use condoms.  But someone like you would probably put that under the commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill.  It's a fricken sperm and an egg.  But you would lump sump that under, Thou Shalt Not Kill.  Unfortunately, there is no Commandment stating thou shalt not wear a condom.

Actually, the ban against condoms is to protect the sanctity of sex, demanded both as part of the ban against adultery and specifically in other bans against sex acts, such as sodomy, rather than a ban against killing.  But that's not really the point.  The point, essentially, is the need for lawyers and legislators.

Could the United States really have coherent law without a Supreme Court, or any legal facsimile to one?  The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting how the US Constitution is to be enforced, what it means, and how to deal with conflicts in the law.  Is one individual's freedom from illegal search or seizure violated by X?  How do you weigh one right against another?  The Supreme Court gets into these nitty gritty details, creating coherent legal standards.  And they're generally bogged down all year with cases, just from a document 200 years old.

The completed Bible is almost 2,000 years old.  You can't possibly expect it to specifically address questions of the day.  Otherwise, the following would happen:

God: Okay, there's your 10 commandments.  Now I want to move on to arms control.  As I understand it, you have a relatively free arms policy?
Moses: We require all males to keep swords on hand to protect against a possible return of the Egyptians.
God: What about assault rifles?
Moses: Well... what?
God: While I do sanction the right to bear arms, we need a reasonable definition of what is permissible to prevent anarchy.
Moses: Huh?
God: Honestly, you wouldn't want someone to claim a general "right to bear arms" means they can keep a nuclear weapon in their backyard, right?
Moses: Um... I... guess not?
God: An individual's right to bear arms serves two functions: protection against foreign invasion and protection of their household against domestic threats, like criminals.  A nuclear weapon obviously wouldn't protect the latter, and it would probably be safer for a central authority to coordinate the former, rather than risking such a destructive weapon being turned against the government.
Moses: Uh... yeah...
God: Besides, the government could technically issue those weapons to individuals in a time of threat from foreign invasion.
Moses: ...
God: We obviously can't just outright claim "assault rifles are banned," so we'll need a definition.  I thought we could reference some specific components of assault rifles.  Hmm... there's firing rate, magazine capacity, reload rate, the presence of a scope...
Moses: Okay, God, I'll be honest.  I have absolutely no idea of what's going on.  How about I just bring these two tablets down with me.  That will give you time to brainstorm what you're about to write.  Then I'll come back for the rest.  Does that work?
God: That's probably a better idea.  Oh, and you might want to ask a few people to come up here with you.  We're going to need a lot of tablets.  By then, I'll be able to get my thoughts on health care reform written down.

In the same way that Supreme Court justices act as interpreters for the US Constitution, the Pope and the college of Cardinals acts as an interpreters for the Bible.  They help to explain how a vague rule such as "thou shalt not kill" would be applied in all cases, including warfare (if "thou shalt not kill" was to be interpreted strictly, why did Judea ever go to war?), the sabbath (strictly interpreted, it would require Christian nations to shut down everything once a week), etc.

You're expecting the Bible to be cut and dry treasure map, "Go here, X marks the spot, spend wisely."  The Bible isn't a piece of legislation.  It's literature.  There isn't a single piece of great literature which doesn't require one to read between the lines.  If you only read a book for face value, rather than looking into the meaning of each sentence, you're missing 90% of the story.

Jesus didn't operate through outright legislation.  He used parables to explain his views, asking the listeners to look at the parable and understand what it means.

Long story short, it's not a problem with the Bible.  It's not necessarily a problem with all legislators (though granted, it could be a problem with some legislators).  Rather, the simpler interpretation is that it's a problem with you.

"WHERE in the bible does it state your god given rights.  There is no one way around this one.  It's a simple question.  Show me the stated paragraph from the bible where it states what your rights are which have been handed down by god.  If you look at the 10 commandments it's a lot of You Shalt not do this, You shalt not do that.  It doesn't say, Thou hast the right to free speach.  Thou hast the right to jury by your peers.  It doesn't now does it.

Oh, and since you're ignoring key points that multiple people have made, that's pretty much a concession of defeat, and blatant proof you are not here to honestly debate an issue.  Long story short, talking to you is useless.  I'm done with this thread, and anyone expecting honest debate should similarly be done.

Europa Universalis, Arocalex?  Oh, I just found my new best friend! 

No, Justinian, wasn't being sarcastic.  Honestly wasn't expecting a source, much less a detailed legal analysis. 

Nice source!