Nice Green

You're on a public message board. If you don't want anyone to comment on what you say, say it to yourself and not on here.

What is the "true cost of living," anyway? Do workers deserve enough pay to afford cable TV? Nike shoes for the whole family? iPhones for all their kids? Buying luxuries (and yes, cable TV is a luxury) is one mistake the lower class is guilty of making. Granted, it's much easier to spend money on cable and have something to watch when you get home than to spend the money on a college education, which requires work behind it to pay off. And if you can't live on the pay of a 30-hour workweek, get two 30-hour jobs. Sixty hours at most jobs today is much better than the sunup-to-sundown sc

Agreed. And look at a store like Walmart that has installed self-checkout lanes (though I never understood it when WM would have some of the self-checkout lanes closed because they can't hire one person to oversee four lanes). If a process like checking out can be virtually automated, why should they hire more cashiers than needed? And who is to say Walmart doesn't have a promotion system where part-time cashiers can move up to earn more hours, or even a management position?

Why would someone making $16,000 a year make the choice to have two children? If you don't have the education nor the skills or background to get a better job than a Walmart associate at $16,000/yr., you should've made better choices in life. Exactly.

Notice I bolded all the I's and me's you put in your opening post. This thread is about you—and you should know, because you started it. And yet you complain when someone calls you out on what you say and the way you say it and your other character traits. When you start a discussion thread about you, you lose the right to privacy or to not be talked about. On another note, there's plenty of suffering in the world. Just because someone doesn't whine about every tragic happening that occurs (and I'd argue that each of the 7+ billion people on this earth have at least one problem or

To whom? The people bringing you drinks during the holiday? Those putting on the fireworks show? I'm glad you think of yourself as a hero for putting out this call to action. But as far as I can tell, you don't practice what you preach. Do you do anything besides post on here? Who are you standing up to?

How many dead horses do you keep in your barn? I've lost count. This coming from a guy saying he wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who was following him. Hey folks, remind me not to follow TP into a public restroom, because he might shoot me. I have no idea what this experience of yours was, and it doesn't matter. If you're telling others to STAND UP and SPEAK OUT, you should have the balls to get off the computer and do it yourself on occasion. I've never once seen you offer any details of you doing just that. You feel strongly about something? Go outside and protest. Run fo

If you're so upset with the way he runs things, why don't you actually do something about it instead of beating the same dead horse over and over on an out-of-county message board? All you're doing is SPEAKING UP and TALKING BACK in your little online diary. Do you ever get off the computer and actually DO SOMETHING?

You mean you can't stand seeing the same messages over and over AND OVER AND OVER? You don't say! The irony here is killing me.

So what happened to one of the troll's latest threads?

The "rapest's," as you call them, have faced the court system. From Business Insider: "Two of the football players were actually charged and found guilty of rape. They were sentenced to one and two years of juvenile detention. (It's possible more people could be charged in the case.)" From the same article: "A 26-year-old cybersecurity consultant who made the rape of a 16-year-old in Steubenville, Ohio a national outrage has been raided by the FBI, Mother Jones reports. ... Deric Lostutter — previously known as KYAnonymous — identified himself in an exclusive interview to Mother Jones. The yo

It's not misusing the legal system if one has legal standing to build their argument upon. Neither removing the Bibles nor placing atheist literature or tomes of other religions alongside the Bible would constitute forcing beliefs on you.

Pretty sure several Founding Fathers owned slaves, while our founding documents didn't outlaw slavery.

If you're only argument to anything I've said in this thread is courtroom procedure, then I guess we're done here.

Alright, go on then. Why is it irrelevant? Where's your case to back up your argument? Unless you can see the future and the court documents that will be produced from a case on this, how do you know the case I cited won't be cited in those documents? Our laws are complex, and attorneys can choose to cite any in a case. That doesn't mean they'll prove one thing over another, but that's for the courts to decide.

Well, case law is moot right now if there if this doesn't go to court. Only time will tell if it does. But I've cited an argument that could very well be used in that case. I don't have to prove that other books are not allowed. It seems to be general knowledge that Bibles are the only religious tomes that are in cabins now. If Deal actually allows other books into the cabins, then I don't see a problem (saying that he would and actually seeing them go into the cabins are two different things).

I cited a court case in my argument. Where's yours? And "left-wing propaganda?" Seriously? Have you read any of my diatribes against TP? Never said I was an atheist.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Establishment_of_religion): In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994),[11] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." The presence of the Christian Bibles is showing preference to one religion over another, at least until a second religion, or lack thereof, is allowed to place their literature in cabins. Is it a strong preference? Maybe not. I'm not sure we know if other groups years ago

It is until they place at least one other book in the drawer or somewhere else in the cabin.

Our country was also founded on slavery. What's your point? Whether or not our country was founded on Christianity isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not a government entity should be endorsing one and only one religion (even if it is Christianity) by allowing only one religious book to be placed in park cabins.

And yet, groups like the ACLU have made it where Christmas decorations have had to be taken down from city halls and other public places (not all, but in some areas where they've fought the presence of them). The right to "not be subjected to the presence of a Bible," or lack thereof, is really at the heart of this issue of the Bibles in the park cabins. Deal has said he'd allow other books in cabins, yet we've yet to see such books placed in all the cabins. As it stands now, having park rangers place those books in the cabins, even if it was many years ago, and allowing them to stay in th

Hotel rooms have nothing to do with this issue. Hotels are a private entity. Park cabins are public as they're paid for by public funds. As for your pizza ad comparison, if there are pizza ads in a park cabin, then perhaps the government bid out the advertising rights. It's no comparison to the state allowing one group or religion to freely advertise (by placing the Bibles).

The atheists fighting this battle, and likely the ACLU, would respectfully disagree.

"Supply" may not have been the right word. The state has allowed them to be placed in the cabins. It's still a use of a public space to advertise one and only one religion, which constitutes a de facto endorsement of that religion until we actually see a second religion's book given a place in the cabins.

If I don't have to read the Bible, then why can't the state supply books on other religions? I wouldn't have to read those either. By excluding them, they're endorsing only one viewpoint. I DO support the free exercise of religion. But that's not what we're arguing here. We're arguing the correctness or legality of a government providing the means for folks to practice only one religion. That's not freedom in my book. Freedom would be a government that would have information on any religion in the room—or simply none. And who's to say people wouldn't be comforted by the teachings of Bu