Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/28/2015 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.
  2. 4 points
    Sometimes, the truest test of a law and/or resutling personal viewpoints is to observe the resulting possible situations in reverse... If a business which is operated under the ownership of Gay individuals was to expel customers based solely on the customer's heterosexual standing, would there be a public outcry or governmental action? If a business which is operated under the ownership of Atheistic individuals was to expel customers based solely on the customer's Christian (or Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.) standing, would there be a public outcry or governmental action? I suspect that, like Cinderella's Prince, we'd all find out that one size doesn't always fit all. I think what we simply need is to sit Steve Rondinaro down and teach him, a la Darryl Waltrip, "Boogity, boogity, boogity boys (and girls)....Let's Just Go Marching!!!
  3. 3 points
    I'd imagine that instead of the hat they'd use the Sorting Cone
  4. 3 points
    After actually READING the new law I think this is more of a "tempest in a tea cup" than anything else. How many businesses are going to turn away business? Perhaps I am making light of this because these laws are in many other states and I don't see the business community throwing business away for religious reasons. The other thing is that if you don't like the law, vote people in that will change it. Crying about something like this doesn't do much save add drama that may or not be warranted. People should NEVER be forced by the US government to do something under the threat of that oppressive hammer to do things they don't want to do save those things that are life threatening (which is covered I believe in law). I have fired MANY a customer for other reasons than sexual orientation etc..(not paying on time etc). Should I be forced to keep them? Certainly not. Time will tell how this all shakes out. Personally, I think it will be a big nothing at the end of the day with certain factions pointing out the remotest examples of being wronged to make a case. But that's just my opinion.
  5. 3 points
    As I sat here this morning, having my morning coffee (which, being Saturday, means I didn't have to slam it down for once, thus burning my mouth) and reading (and re-reading) this entire thread...twice...the overriding thought which has come to my mind is this: If the rest of humanity could share, discuss, differ, agree, and argue over its' myriad problems, concerns, petty differences and meaningful differentiations with even half the degree of respect, equanimity, and tolerance I've seen over 27 pages of opinion from individuals -- some (or many) of whom, I'd bet, haven't even met face-to-face once in their lives -- such as this group...well...I'd feel a ###### lot more secure about the world I currently live in. No, this isn't any kind of Pollyanna "Kum-Bah-Ya" moment. But by ######, people...everyone needs a pat on the back once in a while -- especially when it's earned and deserved. i do know that my coffee is tasting just a little bit better than usual right now. Thanks. EDIT: And sorry for the couple of "XXXXXX"'s...funny how the difference of one little letter (an r for an m) can be the one which makes one appear either a reasoned individual or a mindless zealot.
  6. 3 points
    When we speak of the respect " for the minority " view,( LGBT position on this ) this is of course a noble and worthy gesture. I assume here that most understand both this Nation's History and the World's history that religious persecution by the State has oftentimes raised its ugly head and the Religious throughout History have been tortured and murdered... with millions refusing to recant their strongly held religious Faith through to their last breath in their torturous death. Whether one believes it was the actual Messiah, or simply " another religious zealot", the fact remains that the State has literally crucified on crosses, those who took positions contrary to the State, and in some cases, that ran counter to the majority secular positions of those in their midst. Yes, there are those who claim religious liberties, yet practice some of the most vile intolerance for those different than themselves. That goes without saying too, of course. . And history is replete with bad things done to people in the name of Religion ( to this very day ). But the secular based State has likewise persecuted good people of Faith as well, throughout History too.. Lets not lose sight of the fact also, that to a much larger population of people of Faith, the state's policies sometimes does indeed intrude on aspects they they genuinely believe is not in the domain of the State, and such policies they genuinely believe do run counter to their genuinely held religious beliefs. Perhaps to some, those beliefs are misguided and wrong headed , and that's an entirely understandable position as well. There are agitators in the country on BOTH sides of this political hot button issue. But lets not also lose sight of the fact that there are reasonable and responsible and tolerant people on BOTH sides of this issue as well. When one's strongly held belief system ( religious or otherwise ) runs up against a societal, secular movement, there is bound to be some friction and some turmoil. But the rabble rousers on both sides of this issue are the minority. Lets not forget that. One hopes that the majority in the nation can come together to find a way to make both sides on this issue co-exist in a civil manner that allows both to feel their rights.. on BOTH sides of this issue... are not eroded by the strong arm of the Government. That might be an unrealistic expectation of mine. But thats my optimistic hope on this anyway. As for DCI's response to this out in Indiana, in my opinion, it was reasonable, measured, response.
  7. 3 points
    I've been lurking on this thread (I've been lurking on DCP since the end of the season really), and I've learn A LOT about a bunch of "regular posters" that continue to lower my opinion of them. This thread has really just cemented that lower opinion for me ( which is why I've almost stopped posting). This law has an obvious effect on DCI and the marching arts groups. DCI has a much higher proportion of LGBT people than society at large. I'm glad this law is being discussed, but I really think DCI's hands are tied. They would need to plan long term for a switch to another location if that is what they would choose to do.
  8. 3 points
    Thanks BRASSO! I really didn't want to read 26 pages of hyperbole and rhetoric. Saved me a lot of time. My question: Are we going to demand DCI to move every time a disagreeable law is passed? Every time a human rights violation occurs? Every time someone's delicate sensibilities are offended? One could find human rights violations in nearly every state. For example, we would have to rule out Missouri because of the Ferguson fiasco. What about child labor being used in tobacco states? Do we rule out Pennsylvania due to Kermit Gosnell's mutilation of women and children? Nevada for prostitution? Where does it end? DCI isn't responsible for Indiana's law. Don't hold them accountable for it. Write the legislators and the governor.
  9. 3 points
    One of the most disappointing things about this thread is that it has made me more aware of the thoughts of other posters, and perhaps naively so, I had little clue just exactly how such a diverse activity still had participants who were so not in tune with what DCI has become (though they make attempts to rationalize opinions). DCI has come a long way. There is quite a journey to go.
  10. 2 points
    That really is the crux of the matter. People clearly have different opinions on how you balance people's interests. In my opinion, free exercise of religion is fundamental to our democracy and shouldn't be set aside lightly. That is true not because God exists (though I am a believer) or because religious morals are necessary for a well functioning society. It is true, because the minute you start unnecessarily oppressing people's right to act in accordance with their conscience, you turn into an autocratic/totalitarian society. Who gets to decide which moral beliefs are acceptable and which ones aren't? There are certain circumstances where prohibiting free exercise is necessary--such as when someone's religiously motivated conduct causes physical harm or imposes serious burdens on those who have different beliefs. In my opinion, being prevented from buying a wedding cake does not constitute a burden that is substantial enough to justify prohibiting someone from declining to sale one because of their religious beliefs. Other people disagree, and I respect that. I believe that refusing to serve anyone because of their sexuality is disgusting and misguided. But I don't think it should be prohibited by law. The only thing the Indiana law says is that if complying with a generally applicable law forces you to do something that is against your sincere religious belief (and you do have to prove it is sincere), you have the right to argue, in court, that you should be exempted from the law. That doesn't automatically mean the law doesn't apply to you. It means that the government (or the party suing) has to come in and show that there is a compelling reason to make you comply with the law that outweighs your religious objection and that there isn't a more limited way to accomplish the purpose of the law without infringing on the person's right to exercise their religious beliefs. As pointed out in the letter I linked to earlier, there is a reasonable chance that the Indiana courts will decide that laws that prohibit discrimination of LGBT individuals serve a compelling interest that outweigh religious objections. If that is the case, then all this rhetoric will have been for naught. Are there bigots who support the Indiana law for bigoted reasons? Obviously the answer is yes. That doesn't mean the law itself is bad, especially when the alternative is forcing people to violate their conscience. I realize this post is way off topic for this board, but I have seen a lot of posts here that, while well-intentioned, don't really seem to address the real issue and don't seem to come from an understanding of what the law actually does and why it is important. It is something I feel strongly about, and have spent a long time studying, so I felt the need to cut through the rhetoric. I apologize if I offended anyone.
  11. 2 points
    I tip my hat to you, sir.
  12. 2 points
    Yup! We (those in the audience) had a grand time with that show. Lots of babies flying that weekend...
  13. 2 points
    Well I still love the show. :)
  14. 2 points
    Whoa. Not according to the Constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 2, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause. "It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions." There is the Tenth Amendment, of course, which reserves to the states powers not specifically assigned to the federal government. But this is not a blank check to the states. You may recall that spot of trouble when a group of states, invoking the 10th Amendment, announced they would not heed federal instruction on certain matters. We fought a civil war over that, settling the question of who has the Last Word. As for local law "trumping" state law, that's . . . inventive thinking. Many states do recognize the concept of "home rule," but that is a carve-out provision giving municipalities room to adopt their own ordinances on matters that otherwise would be left to the state. But that is not permission to ignore state law.
  15. 1 point
    Where did this notion of "I should be able to do whatever I feel like doing and you should celebrate it" come from? It's a very self-centered approach to life. IMO well all have rights AND responsibilities.
  16. 1 point
    I didn't mean to suggest that you thought anything. Sorry if you took offense.
  17. 1 point
    The perfect analogy!!
  18. 1 point
    I think this is an interesting statement - one which I do not entirely agree with. There are benefits to media analysis but I also think there are also dangers to listening to only one media outlet which happens so often. I think to get the most objective analysis one should listen to what multiple outlets are saying and then decide for themselves.
  19. 1 point
    Welcome….. Drum Corps Associates newest member the Erie Thunderbirds Drum and Bugle Corps from Erie, Pa. The evaluation has been going on for the past 2 months and with the combined efforts of Lois Tierno reviewing all the paperwork and Dick Fischette doing the on site evaluation, we are confident that they are ready to compete as a DCA corps! Please welcome their director Sean Bartlett and the entire staff and members to DCA! You can find information on their website: eriethunderbirds.org or on facebook.com/Erie Thunderbirds.
  20. 1 point
    We have a winner; well said!
  21. 1 point
    Thanks. I hadn't seen that. I think people who are actually interested in the substance of the law, rather than the overinflated, political rhetoric, should read this letter and the one I posted before jumping to conclusions.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Have you been to Boston? (*giggle*)
  24. 1 point
    re: "Miss: 1993. Final year a tad to bland" Wasn't this uniform intended to be minimalistic so to, for the time, align with and accent the unusual drill and body visuals John VD wrote for the program? I am remembering some such commentary in his description of the show and visuals. It definitely worked IMO.
  25. 1 point
    Good gosh, this is the singular point of it all, isn't it? The activity, and those in it, who have succeeded for 40 years by overcoming and, in some cases, ignoring our differences to create a product, an experience, a cult that we all seem to love, support, and partake. DCI should do nothing to take a stand on one side of the law or the other. Per its obligation until it's changed by the Board, it did exactly the correct thing.
  26. 1 point
    Nice summary Brasso To those who are essentially suggesting to people in groups who aren't in the majority to essentially "deal with it", I humbly suggest you read some history and political philosophy. In what way does it seem right or make sense that those who are numeric minorities shouldn't have a voice in a democracy? John Stuart Mills' thoughts on the Tyranny of the Majority in his classic essay on liberty is a nice start IMHO: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm IMO, DCI's response was tepid and political. IMO Madison's response was clear, appropriate and corageous. Kudos to the mods for keeping this thread open and kudos to contributors to largely keeping the conversation civil.
  27. 1 point
    2000 Cadets were great period. Actually the whole top 12 in 2000 were pretty enjoyable.
  28. 1 point
    A game of thrones themed show would be great.
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    +++++++ I'm going to edit this to take back some of my enthusiastic pluses, but only a few. The BD show rocked, I absolutely loved it. But Phantom sucked all of the oxygen out of the stadium that night. And from a fan perspective event PR '08 - in THAT stadium, in THAT competition - hits solidly in my top-5 ever, for life, most exciting drum corps moments.
  31. 1 point
    BDs horns sounded like ### at the end of the show in 08, over playing the horn, bad sounds, stick outs. Some big overhype from BD. But the crowd ate it up. Probably the 3rd most enthusiastic crowd response of the night. Behind Phantom then Crown. No one even touched Phantom though. The majority of the crowd was engaged 100% of the show. If that doesn't warrant a win, I don't know what does. Just being clean doesn't win you a championship. The tick era is long gone. Phantom was clean enough to win that night. And hey they really cleaned up a lot of that drill, a lot of it hit that night that didn't hit at all during the season... they pulled a visual show out of their ##### that surprised the heck out of me. Give credit where credit is due. And the way the numbers added up they ended up a smidge ahead. And being in that audience... most of the cheering i heard was pro Phantom. Didn't really hear much along the lines of negativity to BD, not much pro BD, but PR won that audience over emotionally. And it's possible they got to some judges... but the judges are also fans, and I think 2008 then the reactions to 2009 and 2010 really opened up some eyes on what should be rewarded by the judges. Now if you want to say there was negativity towards BD in 09 and especially in 10... I could agree with you. And if someone brings up "oh the kids!!! you can't act negatively towards the kids!" Ed Rendell thinks you're a wuss. At BD, they are mainly college "kids" who know what they are getting into. And you aren't going to bruise their ego. It's a competitive activity whether you like it or not... we need some thicker skin.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    1. You are clearly misrepresenting the Indiana law. If not, please explain to me explicitly what religion condones bigotry and exclusion (hint: not Christianity, which is why many Christian organizations in Indiana OPPOSED this law) 2. This proposed ballot measure in CA is more an exercise on how easy it is to get a ballot measure than it is a serious risk of this actually becoming law. The law giving free reign to discriminate against anyone for broad "religious reasons" excuse is signed into law: the CA law obviously has zero chance of passing and will likely never see a ballot
  34. 1 point
    yeah -- me too. none of those things were big enough to impact the experience of the live performance.
  35. 1 point
    I think where the controversy comes in is that diversity of opinion is one thing, diversity and opinions based on exclusion is quite another thing
  36. 1 point
    Seems many of you aren't so tolerant of diversity of opinion.
  37. 1 point
    "Any Fool Can Make A Rule... And Any Fool Will Mind It." --- Thoreau
  38. 1 point
    Mods: You have shown exceptional tolerance (see what I did there?) by allowing this thread to run. Thank you.
  39. 1 point
    Do you have good seats? Can I buy your tickets? I just decided to go to help counteract people like you that have chosen not to support a wonderful activity in order to make a political statement. Never mind the fact that the organization you're hurting has nothing to do with the percieved wrong you're trying to right. On second thought, I'll buy my tickets direct from DCI and let you eat yours.
  40. 1 point
    Pence took issue with accusations that the measure would allow discrimination. "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," he said. "In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana."
  41. 1 point
    "The conflicts over gay rights and contraception are polarizing the country and endangering religious liberty more generally," he wrote. "Neither side in these fights seems to have any respect for the liberty of the other." THIS is why DCI should not, in any way, be dragged into a debate regarding Indiana's law. I like my drum corp loud and tasty, without a single hint of political correctness.
  42. 1 point
    "These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."
  43. 1 point
    "Ho ho ho." That is what he said. That is what Kris Kringle said.
  44. 1 point
    Evidently the Allentown office reads DCP! (2012 and 2014)
  45. 1 point
    Not a miss at all. I have always liked these uniforms. I thought they helped to define Crown as they started to move up the ranks.
  46. 1 point
    I'd merge those "Demons" and "Angels" shows from 2011....
  47. 1 point
    Trying to think on a serious note......lol. Not good at that title thing. 2005 Glassmen + 1989 Phantom Regiment. Both takes on the New World Symphony that I REALLY enjoy. Bring the Glassmen's very unique take on it, and mixing it with that immense power that Phantom brought to it with that iconic show. Little of the old and the new I guess. 2013 Bluecoats + any Cadets Patriotic show. Cadets do Patriotic in a very old school really well done way that works. Really love 2002 myself, 1995 as well. 2014, not as big of a fan of, but they still produced what they were out to do, regardless of my views on it and I have a very high respect for how well they sold it. Mix in a little bit of something new, which I think the Bluecoats were VERY successful at in 2013 by doing a completely unconventional Patriotic show that I think is pretty genius, and I think it'd be really neat. 2013 Oregon Crusaders + 2014 Spirit of Atlanta. 2013 Oregon Crusaders, in my opinion, was spectacular. They presented their theme over a beautiful southern scene and overall southern essence in their show in a refreshing, and personally breathtaking way, which is what 2014 Spirit of Atlanta was missing, to me. 2011 The Academy + 2014 Bluecoats. Both shows I absolutely love, all time for sure. Both kinda similar in that they have a unifying concept throughout that is consistently present but not overwhelming. I'd love to see a little bit more of the quirkiness of 2011 Academy in a lot of shows, from the color palette they chose to the awesome Lollapalooza closer, but I think it'd fit in well with that......
  48. 1 point
    The crowd's solemn hush and explosion of affirmation as the Cadets entered "the zipper" in 2011 "Angels and Demons" until the performance was completed. Echoed again when second place score was announced.for the demons' cousins.
  49. 1 point
    08....the crowd reaction at Regiment's win.
  50. 1 point
    Madison 1999 cross into the star.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00