Christine O'Donnell: Some mice have fully-functioning Human Brains

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Yep,

Learning I think on my own really pisses you libs off

Good lesson

Marc, old fellow ... learning on your own might be a hard job. You're much too old for that.

OTOH: I really don't care. I'm not American, I'm not the *lib* you're hating so much. I'm a German Lib, dear. That's another world, completely different. You will not understand it.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yep,

Learning I think on my own really pisses you libs off

Good lesson

Marc, old fellow ... learning on your own might be a hard job. You're much too old for that.

OTOH: I really don't care. I'm not American, I'm not the *lib* you're hating so much. I'm a German Lib, dear. That's another world, completely different. You will not understand it.

If you didnt really care you would not post to me so much

But, if you need someone to disrespect it can be me if you wish

You already have burned that bridge with me

And a lib is a lib

small difference world wide but mostly the same

And I dont hate anyone, It is the libs that think they have the right to lable what is and what is not hate

You performed perfectly here my dear

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
Next

I guess I just havn't been on this forum long enough and I am just now finding out that this guy is not worth debating with? I guess I had to find out some how...

Translation

You cant do it

International translation:

He's got it. And he found out by himself early enough.

Not bad.



Yep,

Learning I think on my own really pisses you libs off

Good lesson
Oh the irony, you said yourself that assumptions are "dangerous" yet you just like to assume everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal?

B.A.S.E. #1734

[christelsabine 1]

rushmc, as much as you'd probably like: I do not post to you so much. It's quite rare. You know it.

You're no adequate discussion partner. Dream on.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[skipbelt 0]

this assumption may prove absolutely true !

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yes those words are there

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that.

The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that.

Quote

So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery!

In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there.

You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better.

How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men?

Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?

[skipbelt 0]

CO was bashed incorrectly for pointing out separation isn't in the 1st amendment .
CC WASN'T chastised for not knowing even 1 freedom guaranteed in the 1st amendment . he got partial credit for "separation" !

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

CO was bashed incorrectly for pointing out separation isn't in the 1st amendment .
CC WASN'T chastised for not knowing even 1 freedom guaranteed in the 1st amendment . he got partial credit for "separation" !

Does Alvin Greene even know there is a constitution?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skycop 0]

Haven't you ever seen Stuart Little?

Duh...........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skipbelt 0]

CC is for censorship , kinda mousey , but has fully developed lib brain...
http://americanglob.com/2010/10/20/news-chris-coons-was-sued-three-times-in-2007-for-retaliating-against-public-employees-for-their-political-views/

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

CC is for censorship , kinda mousey , but has fully developed lib brain...

http://americanglob.com/2010/10/20/news-chris-coons-was-sued-three-times-in-2007-for-retaliating-against-public-employees-for-their-political-views/

Translation into coherent English, please?

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes those words are there

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that.

The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that.

Quote

So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery!

In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there.

You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better.

How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men?

Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?

It is established that the first amendment recognizes and enforces the separation of church and state, that is not my opinion, that is just a fact. I don't see why this is even up for discussion.

When CO is bashed about this you guys immediately start justifying her by bringing up topics about Obama, I never mentioned Obama and he has nothing to do with her, I don't really care about him. Keep this thread on topic.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes those words are there

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that.

The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that.

Quote

So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery!

In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there.

You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better.

How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men?

Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?

It is established that the first amendment recognizes and enforces the separation of church and state no, it does not. That is an interpitation. It does state that the state/congres shall make no law, that is not my opinion ,which makes it your opinion that is just a fact.sorry, try again I don't see why this is even up for discussion.

When CO is bashed about this you guys immediately start justifying her by bringing up topics about Obama, I never mentioned Obama and he has nothing to do with her, I don't really care about him. Keep this thread on topic.

I didnt, and no one was able to provide what I asked for

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes those words are there

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that.

The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that.

Quote

So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery!

In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there.

You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better.

How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men?

Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?

It is established that the first amendment recognizes and enforces the separation of church and state no, it does not. That is an interpitation. It does state that the state/congres shall make no law, that is not my opinion ,which makes it your opinion that is just a fact.sorry, try again I don't see why this is even up for discussion.

When CO is bashed about this you guys immediately start justifying her by bringing up topics about Obama, I never mentioned Obama and he has nothing to do with her, I don't really care about him. Keep this thread on topic.

I didnt, and no one was able to provide what I asked for

Tell me rush, what does the first amendment mean when it says the government shall not establish a religion? Give me your interpretation of the first amendment instead of just telling me I'm wrong all the time.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes those words are there

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that.

The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that.

Quote

So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery!

In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there.

You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better.

How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men?

Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?

It is established that the first amendment recognizes and enforces the separation of church and state no, it does not. That is an interpitation. It does state that the state/congres shall make no law, that is not my opinion ,which makes it your opinion that is just a fact.sorry, try again I don't see why this is even up for discussion.

When CO is bashed about this you guys immediately start justifying her by bringing up topics about Obama, I never mentioned Obama and he has nothing to do with her, I don't really care about him. Keep this thread on topic.

I didnt, and no one was able to provide what I asked for

Tell me rush, what does the first amendment mean when it says the government shall not establish a religion? Give me your interpretation of the first amendment instead of just telling me I'm wrong all the time.

What it actually says is

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#original

If you care to take a look you will see your opinion has many who disagree with it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

In reading that very interesting website, it appeared to me that while there are people who want to have more religion in our life, the court system, including the Supreme Court, has ruled fairly consistently to ensure that a particular religious view is not enshrined in the laws or government institutions.

The case of Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (I live about 15 miles from Santa Fe) seems to highlight this:

Quote

As with the Lee case's directives for the delivery of the invocation, the Court was troubled by the student-based election system, which was put in place to ensure that there was popular support for the plan:

Santa Fe's student election system ensures that only those messages deemed "appropriate" under the District's policy may be delivered. That is, the majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.... [the] student election does nothing to protect minority views but rather places the students who hold such views at the mercy of the majority.

Despite all of the above, the school district had a trump card in its attempt to continue to allow prayer at the games: attendance at the football games is not compulsory. The Court was unconvinced — they noted that some students were compelled to attend games, such as cheerleaders, band members, and members of the team itself. The Court also raised the issue of peer pressure as making attendance less than completely voluntary. Leaving all of that aside, the Court still felt the policy violated precedent: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

So there is disagreement, as there was when the Constitution was drafted. But the fact that there are, in fact, a significant number of people in the US who are not either Christians or Jews, and who are not automatically comfortable with a casual reference to God as having relevance to their life, fits comfortably into the Constitution.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Gentlemen - believe it or not, your two positions need not be seen in complete conflict; in fact, they can be harmonized, at least to some degree. Here's as good a starting point as any for further study and analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Forgive my not cherry-picking out the parts dealing with the US in particular; it's a long article. I suggest you concentrate on the various parts dealing with the US.

[Prior23 0]

Even if it doesn't say no separation of church and state there still has to be this separation because as soon as you endorse a certain religion you are breaking the first amendment because if you endorse Islam more than Christianity or Judaism more than Hinduism, you have therefore committed the act of establishing a religion under the united states so it violates the first amendment. If you do not separate church and state in America, you are essentially taking out the support columns of this country and what it stands for.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[skipbelt 0]

condescend much ?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Even if it doesn't say no separation of church and state there still has to be this separation because as soon as you endorse a certain religion you are breaking the first amendment because if you endorse Islam more than Christianity or Judaism more than Hinduism, you have therefore committed the act of establishing a religion under the united states so it violates the first amendment. If you do not separate church and state in America, you are essentially taking out the support columns of this country and what it stands for.

Thanks for at least admiting what is or is not in it
As for what it stands for? Well, what you state is the common lefty talking point.

The seperation is only that the congress shall make no law, which is exactly what the SC has done

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

Rush, I'm interested in what you see in that site, because I saw a lot of trending towards the separation of church and state.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Rush, I'm interested in what you see in that site, because I saw a lot of trending towards the separation of church and state.

Wendy P.

Wendy, this started by comments made early in the thread. I called them out and I have shown why I believe what I do

Of course there is a level of seperation. There has to be but, it was never intended to go to the level we have today.

It is the establishment clause, not the sep of church and state clause

I also asked for the concrete proof mentioned toward evolution. I have yet to see that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

How far do you think the wall between church and state should come down?

Obviously we can't require that office holders be of specific religions, as that's specifically mentioned in the Constitution, not just the Bill of Rights. Which means that we can't require a particular or religious oath of office of anyone, or else we'd be requiring a particular religion.

The Constitution and its amendments are the framework, which has to be filled in. The Legislatures are in charge of filling it in, and the courts are in charge of making sure that the way they were filled is is consistent.

Without all that "filling in" theft is also not illegal; it's not called out in the Constitution.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

concrete proof mentioned toward evolution

This site has a pretty good discussion of specific evidence, including this video.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

concrete proof mentioned toward evolution

This site has a pretty good discussion of specific evidence, including this video.

Wendy P.

Thanks Wendy

I will take a look when I get a chance

At least you offered up something.

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln