Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, I know why Rowan County is losing population. Thanks to them, they have made North Carolina look like the New Alabama in international news. A bunch of Bamas....
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarheelhombre
Now, I know why Rowan County is losing population. Thanks to them, they have made North Carolina look like the New Alabama in international news. A bunch of Bamas....
Yup. There's been something about this going on in the news for some time.
The thing is that religion played a part in the American revolution. There were 2 categories of people. Anglicans & dissidents. Dissidents had lesser rights in the royal colonies. That is why there is to be separation of church & state.
Like the rest of the crap coming out of Raleigh, the only connection to their mantra of jobs, jobs, job is this will create work for lawyers.
April fools? I'll tell you about April's fools. I'm pooling the emergency brake on this thread. For the second time in two days I've given actual credence to a title thread that is based on usually reliable news outlets that have in fact confused, mislead or outright lied on a subject that's been picked up here.
Looks look at the subject line:
2 lawmakers from Rowan push for state religion
Untrue.
The headline to the article listed in message one:
First Amendment doesn't apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion
Untrue.
The first line of the article:
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion
Untrue.
We've been hoodwinked. Just like I was hoodwinked on the thread about the lawsuit that was filed against the city that wasn't only not filed but was never contemplated to be filed. Stupid local hick media outlets (NBC and UPI).
It doesn't help that lines 15-19 of the resolution are nutty but doesn't change the facts that nothing in the bill leads to the establishment of anything, or push for anything, or that two state house members are pushing for a state religion.
Nutty? Yes. But it isn't what everyone thinks it is and has zero weight in law even if it was passed which it isn't going to be because it's already been rejected based upon it's symbolic nature.
And it by no means rejects the 1st amendment. I guess we could diagram the sentences on a white board to make the words mean what we want them to mean, but going on the plain language of the claims I posted, they simply are false.
April fools? I'll tell you about April's fools. I'm pooling the emergency brake on this thread. For the second time in two days I've given actual credence to a title thread that is based on usually reliable news outlets that have in fact confused, mislead or outright lied on a subject that's been picked up here.
Looks look at the subject line:
2 lawmakers from Rowan push for state religion
Untrue.
The headline to the article listed in message one:
First Amendment doesn't apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion
Untrue.
The first line of the article:
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion
Untrue.
We've been hoodwinked. Just like I was hoodwinked on the thread about the lawsuit that was filed against the city that wasn't only not filed but was never contemplated to be filed. Stupid local hick media outlets (NBC and UPI).
It doesn't help that lines 15-19 of the resolution are nutty but doesn't change the facts that nothing in the bill leads to the establishment of anything, or push for anything, or that two state house members are pushing for a state religion.
Nutty? Yes. But it isn't what everyone thinks it is and has zero weight in law even if it was passed which it isn't going to be because it's already been rejected based upon it's symbolic nature.
And it by no means rejects the 1st amendment. I guess we could diagram the sentences on a white board to make the words mean what we want them to mean, but going on the plain language of the claims I posted, they simply are false.
No one is trying to "hoodwink" you by posting a link to a news story.
Just because it is important to you does not mean that it is important to everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Nutty? Yes. But it isn't what everyone thinks it is and has zero weight in law even if it was passed which it isn't going to be because it's already been rejected based upon it's symbolic nature.
So then that raises another point. Why are our elected officials wasting their time and effort on something so "nutty," rather than doing their jobs and trying to handle real issues affecting our state?
Just because it is important to you does not mean that it is important to everyone.
So then that raises another point. Why are our elected officials wasting their time and effort on something so "nutty," rather than doing their jobs and trying to handle real issues affecting our state?
We all know that the GOP is all about "GUNS, GAYS & GOD!" They're for less government except when it comes to what people do behind closed doors, that's when they want more government; to intrude on people's personal lives, in the name of God of course!
Last edited by prwfromnc; 04-04-2013 at 10:06 AM..
No one is trying to "hoodwink" you by posting a link to a news story.
I think I was clear where the hoodwink was. It's in the deceptive (aka untrue) subject line. That + the deception in the content of the article and the implied endorsement by the poster is what makes it bad.
I never said a URL by itself is hoodwinkable.
I also didn't question intentions. I question accuracy though I do doubt the intentions.
Just because it is important to you does not mean that it is important to everyone.
So then that raises another point. Why are our elected officials wasting their time and effort on something so "nutty," rather than doing their jobs and trying to handle real issues affecting our state?
Really? When I said it was important to everyone I meant it. Wait, where did I say that again?
For your question, I can only guess that for those in Rowan county, it has something to do with radical atheism.
I think I was clear where the hoodwink was. It's in the deceptive (aka untrue) subject line. That + the deception in the content of the article and the implied endorsement by the poster is what makes it bad.
I never said a URL by itself is hoodwinkable.
I also didn't question intentions. I question accuracy though I do doubt the intentions.
I guess we should run all thread titles by you before posting...
I guess we should run all thread titles by you before posting...
Oh no, that would be a bad idea considering my track record this week. I don't know the solution for this deception. It's the fault of the press and then us for not vetting them closer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
