Separation of chuch/state? Not really it seems - fed court orders cross down - Bush signs law transferring cross to DOD

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101.

Flaming the guy because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make you right. It is pretty broad as it should be. The only problem is when you get people who view it literally on both extremes. IMO it doesn't prohibit people from putting a cross up because people of other faiths can put whatever they want up as well. To me if the Jewish veterans cared about it so much, put up a star of david or whatever, that is their right. People need to stop bitching everytime they are offended by something they see. It's like saying I am offended that kittens exist so they should be killed. Its like going to Arlington National Cemetary and bitching because most of the graves have crosses on them. Oh noes the government is endorsing a religion!

Also, I had to laugh. The ACLU says that the Cross was put up by catholics and thus is a latin Cross specifically endorsing catholicism yet on the next post you put this "The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances." Seems like they are infering more than one to me...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101.

Flaming the guy because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make you right. It is pretty broad as it should be. The only problem is when you get people who view it literally on both extremes. IMO it doesn't prohibit people from putting a cross up because people of other faiths can put whatever they want up as well. To me if the Jewish veterans cared about it so much, put up a star of david or whatever, that is their right. People need to stop bitching everytime they are offended by something they see. It's like saying I am offended that kittens exist so they should be killed. Its like going to Arlington National Cemetary and bitching because most of the graves have crosses on them. Oh noes the government is endorsing a religion!

Also, I had to laugh. The ACLU says that the Cross was put up by catholics and thus is a latin Cross specifically endorsing catholicism yet on the next post you put this "The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances." Seems like they are infering more than one to me...

Umm, it wasn't flaming... I corrected his wrong information and ignorance.

Please point out ONE thing in my reply that was an opinion.

Your post says not ONE THING to even address my post! Your post was just an emotional rant of your opinion that said nothing to dispute my factual claims... Go read the letters pre-constitution.. go read case law...

Again, the writing of the founding fathers' intentions and ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LEGAL PRECEDENT uphold the separation of church and state. This to you is a disagreement of OPINION? How could what I posted be construed as an opinion?

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101.

Flaming the guy because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make you right. It is pretty broad as it should be. The only problem is when you get people who view it literally on both extremes. IMO it doesn't prohibit people from putting a cross up because people of other faiths can put whatever they want up as well. To me if the Jewish veterans cared about it so much, put up a star of david or whatever, that is their right. People need to stop bitching everytime they are offended by something they see. It's like saying I am offended that kittens exist so they should be killed. Its like going to Arlington National Cemetary and bitching because most of the graves have crosses on them. Oh noes the government is endorsing a religion!

Also, I had to laugh. The ACLU says that the Cross was put up by catholics and thus is a latin Cross specifically endorsing catholicism yet on the next post you put this "The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances." Seems like they are infering more than one to me...

Umm, it wasn't flaming... I corrected his wrong information and ignorance.

Please point out ONE thing in my reply that was an opinion.

Your post says not ONE THING to even address my post! Your post was just an emotional rant of your opinion that said nothing to dispute my factual claims... Go read the letters pre-constitution.. go read case law...

Again, the writing of the founding fathers' intentions and ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LEGAL PRECEDENT uphold the separation of church and state. This to you is a disagreement of OPINION? How could what I posted be construed as an opinion?

Everyone agrees that the constitution is the ultimate law. Because someone disagrees with you they are ignorant? Their intent was to create a place where the religious wars of Europe would not be repeated. Thus, a freedom of all peoples to Express their religion and the government not to sponsor one religoin over another via a state religion. It is construed as Opinion because it IS. There is a reason legal rulings by judges are also called "Opinions." In your opinion they are violating the law because you see it as a case of state endorsed religion. I don't. End of story.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101.

Flaming the guy because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make you right. It is pretty broad as it should be. The only problem is when you get people who view it literally on both extremes. IMO it doesn't prohibit people from putting a cross up because people of other faiths can put whatever they want up as well. To me if the Jewish veterans cared about it so much, put up a star of david or whatever, that is their right. People need to stop bitching everytime they are offended by something they see. It's like saying I am offended that kittens exist so they should be killed. Its like going to Arlington National Cemetary and bitching because most of the graves have crosses on them. Oh noes the government is endorsing a religion!

Also, I had to laugh. The ACLU says that the Cross was put up by catholics and thus is a latin Cross specifically endorsing catholicism yet on the next post you put this "The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances." Seems like they are infering more than one to me...

Umm, it wasn't flaming... I corrected his wrong information and ignorance.

Please point out ONE thing in my reply that was an opinion.

Your post says not ONE THING to even address my post! Your post was just an emotional rant of your opinion that said nothing to dispute my factual claims... Go read the letters pre-constitution.. go read case law...

Again, the writing of the founding fathers' intentions and ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LEGAL PRECEDENT uphold the separation of church and state. This to you is a disagreement of OPINION? How could what I posted be construed as an opinion?

Everyone agrees that the constitution is the ultimate law. Because someone disagrees with you they are ignorant? Their intent was to create a place where the religious wars of Europe would not be repeated. Thus, a freedom of all peoples to Express their religion and the government not to sponsor one religoin over another via a state religion. It is construed as Opinion because it IS. There is a reason legal rulings by judges are also called "Opinions." In your opinion they are violating the law because you see it as a case of state endorsed religion. I don't. End of story.

That is twice you have mentioned my opinion... PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE STATED MY OPINION.

You claim "In your opinion they are violating the law because you see it as a case of state endorsed religion. I don't. End of story"

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED SUCH AN OPINION! I have stated no such opinion!

And NO, everyone does NOT agree that the constitution is the ultimate law... do you even KNOW what case law and precedent is?

He(and you) are ignorant because you do not have a firm grasp on law in this country(legal precedent's, etc.). Correcting your false information is not flaming. But posting information without understanding the subject matter is ignorant. To develop an opinion without understanding the subject matter(laws and how it applies here) defines ignorance.

Seriously, I would like to know... did you read my post?

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

That is twice you have mentioned my opinion... PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE STATED MY OPINION.

You claim "In your opinion they are violating the law because you see it as a case of state endorsed religion. I don't. End of story"

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED SUCH AN OPINION! I have stated no such opinion!

And NO, everyone does NOT agree that the constitution is the ultimate law... do you even KNOW what case law and precedent is?

He(and you) are ignorant because you do not have a firm grasp on law in this country(legal precedent's, etc.). Correcting your false information is not flaming. But posting information without understanding the subject matter is ignorant. To develop an opinion without understanding the subject matter(laws and how it applies here) defines ignorance.

Seriously, I would like to know... did you read my post?

<sigh> this is why we have warnings on hair dryers so people like you who don't understand don't hurt themselves. You say this: "In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years," with the implication that he somehow has to be wrong, ie you are using it to try and show your opinion that it is illegal is correct. That = your opinion. Just so you are clear.

I sincerely hope you aren't as stupid as you sound. You lecture me on case law, yet don't recognise that every law this country has must be in compliance with the constitution. Are you kidding me? Is it the sole law of the US, no. Is it the base law that validates or invalidates all others? yes.

Precedent, I know how it works, but does it make it right? Should we still segregate because Plessy vs Ferguson said it was ok. Should Brown v Board of Education voted against them bc others had before? Please. You need to get real. And I would like to know not only did you read my post, but have you read the Constitution? Show me where it says religious groups can't erect symbols. Show me where it says people don't have the freedom to express themselves on public land.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

That is twice you have mentioned my opinion... PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE STATED MY OPINION.

You claim "In your opinion they are violating the law because you see it as a case of state endorsed religion. I don't. End of story"

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED SUCH AN OPINION! I have stated no such opinion!

And NO, everyone does NOT agree that the constitution is the ultimate law... do you even KNOW what case law and precedent is?

He(and you) are ignorant because you do not have a firm grasp on law in this country(legal precedent's, etc.). Correcting your false information is not flaming. But posting information without understanding the subject matter is ignorant. To develop an opinion without understanding the subject matter(laws and how it applies here) defines ignorance.

Seriously, I would like to know... did you read my post?

<sigh> this is why we have warnings on hair dryers so people like you who don't understand don't hurt themselves. You say this: "In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years," with the implication that he somehow has to be wrong, ie you are using it to try and show your opinion that it is illegal is correct. That = your opinion. Just so you are clear.

I sincerely hope you aren't as stupid as you sound. You lecture me on case law, yet don't recognise that every law this country has must be in compliance with the constitution. Are you kidding me? Is it the sole law of the US, no. Is it the base law that validates or invalidates all others? yes.

Precedent, I know how it works, but does it make it right? Should we still segregate because Plessy vs Ferguson said it was ok. Should Brown v Board of Education voted against them bc others had before? Please. You need to get real. And I would like to know not only did you read my post, but have you read the Constitution? Show me where it says religious groups can't erect symbols. Show me where it says people don't have the freedom to express themselves on public land.

I love how I point out that you ASSumed wrong... and then you have the audacity to then be condescending to me...

You say this: "In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years," with the implication that he somehow has to be wrong, ie you are using it to try and show your opinion that it is illegal is correct.

He was saying that separation of church and state is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I explained where separation of church and state comes in. This has the implication that his idea that separation of church and state doesn't exist is wrong.

I have absolutely no opinion on this case, because I do not care. However, it irritates me that people pretend that there is no such thing as separation of church and state.

Your holier than thou complex is laughable considering YOU just ASSume nonsense to argue against!

I am shocked and dismayed at your pure ignorant audacity that you continue to act superior when you are so quick to ASSume things to continue your attacking argument. It is sad and pathetic.

WHy does someone need to have an opinion on the 'cross ordeal' to correct someone's misinformation on separation of church and state!? I'll tell you why! Because in your small mind there are only 2 sides.. THOSE THAT ARE WITH US and THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST US... This is as ignorant as you could get...

I hope you learn to stop and examine each situation and poster as different people instead of immediately jumping the shark and filling in the blanks in your own mind to label them either a friendly or an enemy.

 

[LEDominator]

First of all, you are the one who acted like an ass to me, I just returned the favor.

Secondly, I don't think he was refering to the clause in and of itself, rather that the government has gone to an extreme position. I'll give you that it wasn't very clear and I could see how you would take it the way that you did.

"I have absolutely no opinion on this case, because I do not care." You cared enough to post

"I am shocked and dismayed at your pure ignorant audacity that you continue to act superior when you are so quick to ASSume things to continue your attacking argument." Attacking argument? mmmk... I take a view and I put forth my views. By definition an argument has opposite sides... to say I am attacking shows you know nothing of debate as I offered you my position (which btw, you have yet to refute, only call me ignorant, and imply I am an ASS.)

If you could possibly explain how one could have an opinion that would differ from for the cross or against it I'd love to hear it. But calling me ignorant because I see it that way and then offering no alternative leaves you in a rather weak position. Examine each poster as different people... Honestly, what does that have anothing to do with the topic? I respond to what PEOPLE say. If I wanted to get lovey dovey and want to "get to know an anandtech member" I'd make a thread about it. IMO I responded to you via what you said. I didn't label you or anyone else for that matter as a "friend or foe." There are people on here I have agreed on one thing with and differed on another. I don't look at a member name and go OMG an friend/enemy is on, rather I look at their opinion

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
First of all, you are the one who acted like an ass to me, I just returned the favor.

Secondly, I don't think he was refering to the clause in and of itself, rather that the government has gone to an extreme position. I'll give you that it wasn't very clear and I could see how you would take it the way that you did.

"I have absolutely no opinion on this case, because I do not care." You cared enough to post

"I am shocked and dismayed at your pure ignorant audacity that you continue to act superior when you are so quick to ASSume things to continue your attacking argument." Attacking argument? mmmk... I take a view and I put forth my views. By definition an argument has opposite sides... to say I am attacking shows you know nothing of debate as I offered you my position (which btw, you have yet to refute, only call me ignorant, and imply I am an ASS.)

If you could possibly explain how one could have an opinion that would differ from for the cross or against it I'd love to hear it. But calling me ignorant because I see it that way and then offering no alternative leaves you in a rather weak position. Examine each poster as different people... Honestly, what does that have anothing to do with the topic? I respond to what PEOPLE say. If I wanted to get lovey dovey and want to "get to know an anandtech member" I'd make a thread about it. IMO I responded to you via what you said. I didn't label you or anyone else for that matter as a "friend or foe." There are people on here I have agreed on one thing with and differed on another. I don't look at a member name and go OMG an friend/enemy is on, rather I look at their opinion

Few things.. as I said and you chose to ignore(again), I cared because his information on church and state was WRONG.. hence I posted... I don't know why that baffles you...

Second-"If you could possibly explain how one could have an opinion that would differ from for the cross or against it I'd love to hear it."

I said I don't have an opinion because I don't care. Again, what do you not get?

You are ignorant because you keep assuming things just so you could argue against me. You assumed my opinion when I never stated one and you were/are unwilling to accept that you ASSumed WRONG!

"By definition an argument has opposite sides.."
Yes, I responded to someone about his misinformation on the separation of church and state. Nothing more. You then took off on that and continued to assume a position I didn't have.

Let's take your very very first response... I correct someone's misinformation on the separation of church and state(someone claimed it didn't exist anywhere and therefore doesn't apply).

I said, "Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101."


This was your response.

"Flaming the guy because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make you right. It is pretty broad as it should be. The only problem is when you get people who view it literally on both extremes. IMO it doesn't prohibit people from putting a cross up because people of other faiths can put whatever they want up as well. To me if the Jewish veterans cared about it so much, put up a star of david or whatever, that is their right. People need to stop bitching everytime they are offended by something they see. It's like saying I am offended that kittens exist so they should be killed. Its like going to Arlington National Cemetary and bitching because most of the graves have crosses on them. Oh noes the government is endorsing a religion! "

Since I never made a comment or gave an opinion on this situation and only corrected some misinformation on separation of church and state, your ENTIRE response is meaningless... it was/is almost like you can't grasp that someone could actually not care about this cross incident... can you not grasp that I only care that some people do not understand the importance of the term separation of church and state? The guy claimed it didn't exist anywhere relevant to law! And I said that through legal precedence and interpreting the founding fathers' words, you could see its relevance.

You took what I said, ignored it, created a "if he is not with me, he is against me" mentality, and attacked. I don't get how after 6 responses you still fail to see the problem...

 

[maluckey]

shadow9d9,

If you don't care about this (your own words) , then please stop posting drivel in this thread.

Nuff Said!!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: maluckey
shadow9d9,

If you don't care about this (your own words) , then please stop posting drivel in this thread.

Nuff Said!!

I have every right to post a response to someone's misinformation.. I made one supposed to be passing by comment and led came in with a whole rant about something irrelevant to my post.

Thanks for your helpful addition.

 

[Jeff7]

Yes, our tax dollars are being spent wisely to pay 6 guys to stand there and smile while someone else signs a piece of paper. I don't get so much publicity when I have to fill out a tax or insurance form. Hell, I don't even get paid to do it. They want me to send money instead!

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Christians have crosses at their places of worship, why do they feel the need to impose their symbols on non-christians as they move about San Diego?
I don't see other religions erecting gigantic symbols of their religions.

Just think of it as a giant lower case "t" and get over it.

Just think of a swastika as a sacred Hindu symbol.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yes, our tax dollars are being spent wisely to pay 6 guys to stand there and smile while someone else signs a piece of paper. I don't get so much publicity when I have to fill out a tax or insurance form. Hell, I don't even get paid to do it. They want me to send money instead!

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Christians have crosses at their places of worship, why do they feel the need to impose their symbols on non-christians as they move about San Diego?
I don't see other religions erecting gigantic symbols of their religions.

Just think of it as a giant lower case "t" and get over it.

Just think of a swastika as a sacred Hindu symbol.

lol, its a native american symbol too

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: maluckey
shadow9d9,

If you don't care about this (your own words) , then please stop posting drivel in this thread.

Nuff Said!!

I have every right to post a response to someone's misinformation.. I made one supposed to be passing by comment and led came in with a whole rant about something irrelevant to my post.

Thanks for your helpful addition.

It had every relevancy. You just don't get it and there isn't much more I can say

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yes, our tax dollars are being spent wisely to pay 6 guys to stand there and smile while someone else signs a piece of paper. I don't get so much publicity when I have to fill out a tax or insurance form. Hell, I don't even get paid to do it. They want me to send money instead!

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Christians have crosses at their places of worship, why do they feel the need to impose their symbols on non-christians as they move about San Diego?
I don't see other religions erecting gigantic symbols of their religions.

Just think of it as a giant lower case "t" and get over it.

Just think of a swastika as a sacred Hindu symbol.

Because the Nazis perverted a holy symbol it should be banned? I also find it offensive (in a mild way) that you associate the swastika as a Hindu symbol as if Hitler's perversion has now made all swastikas (other than Nazi symbol) evil or corrupt. Didn't he do enough damage? By the way the Nazi swastika is not identical to the Buddhist/Hindu/Jainist swastikas in most cases. Here you go for more information on how wide spread the swastika is utilized

I think having a cross on public land is not correct if every other faith does not have some representation as well. Having said that, I, though not Christian, in no way find it offensive to have the cross up (because I take from the cross the universal love of a man for everyone) and not the ideological patriarchal/hierarchal drivel that the cross has come to represent in many cases. Since Christianity is a majority religion there is bound to be some favoritism but that does absolve the government from ensuring equal access to all faiths (of those who served).

In other words, I see both sides and agree with both. That is right I am for both of you. :laugh:

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: maluckey
shadow9d9,

If you don't care about this (your own words) , then please stop posting drivel in this thread.

Nuff Said!!

I have every right to post a response to someone's misinformation.. I made one supposed to be passing by comment and led came in with a whole rant about something irrelevant to my post.

Thanks for your helpful addition.

It had every relevancy. You just don't get it and there isn't much more I can say

Wow, you are sad. Unable to admit that your ASSumption was wrong. I guess I shouldn't expect integrity from this forum.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Wow, you are sad. Unable to admit that your ASSumption was wrong. I guess I shouldn't expect integrity from this forum.

Then go troll somewhere else.

 

[DealMonkey]

Unfortunately for Bush, taking federal control of the land doesn't change the issue. It merely delays the inevitable. Which is what Bush is famous for - meaningless short term gestures that do nothing in the long-term (or simply make things worse).

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Wow, you are sad. Unable to admit that your ASSumption was wrong. I guess I shouldn't expect integrity from this forum.

Then go troll somewhere else.

Correcting misinformation is trolling.. gotcha.. and trying to argue with someone by making up what you think their opinion might be and continuing as if this opinion is real.. that is not trolling...

 

[maluckey]

shadow9d9

Please add something regarding the thread or argue in OT. You are bloating the thread for nothing more than arguments sake.

In other words, I see both sides and agree with both. That is right I am for both of you.

See the signature below.... N.M. thought of this very thing!

I feel that it's fine to understand anothers point of view, but quite another to agree with polar opposites. In the end you finally support neither, and are mistrusted and denied allegiance by both.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: maluckey
shadow9d9

Please add something regarding the thread or argue in OT. You are bloating the thread for nothing more than arguments sake.

In other words, I see both sides and agree with both. That is right I am for both of you.

See the signature below.... N.M. thought of this very thing!

I feel that it's fine to understand anothers point of view, but quite another to agree with polar opposites. In the end you finally support neither, and are mistrusted and denied allegiance by both.

Critisize LED, he is the one who started the argument with me and I am finishing it... yet it is my fault? Are you his friend or something? lol.

 

[maluckey]

I couldn't care less for either of you:beer:

I just wish one of you would be man enough to either take it to OT, or let it go that one of you is more thick-headed than the other!

Arguments are for OT. P&N is for exploring Politics and News, thus it's title.........:Q