REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Christine O'Donnell, Constitutional Law Professor

POSTED BY: ELVISCHRIST
UPDATED: Thursday, November 4, 2010 05:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2698
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:19 PM

ELVISCHRIST




http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/19/130671265/christine
-o-donnell-stuns-crowd-with-1st-amendment-ignorance


Quote:

Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

Making matters worse, the audience was actually filled with people with presumably more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution: law professors and students.




Quote:

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.



Quote:

Not only is this extraordinary because O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate, but she represents a political movement, the Tea Party, that has made a fierce adherence to the Constitution one of its fiercest principles.






Dreamtrove may be right when he says that she's trying to lose to make more money.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Technically, she's correct, of course.

She wasn't asking if the 1st Amendment bars Congress from making laws establishing religion, but on the matter of the separation of Church and State. That phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, which is what she was trying to get across.

Mixed up in the silly issue of ID and Evolution being taught in schools, was the point SHE was trying to make that the Federal Gov't does not have any constitutional foundation for banning such teaching at the state or local level.

Senators shouldn't even be debating this issue, as it has next to no chance of ever entering into their area of influence, much like the President has no real direct involvement on the abortion issue.

I got no problem w/ religious doctrine being taught in public schools, if it's taught as a social science. But to interject 1 religious view ,or even several , into a natural science curriculum,instead of or in competition to actual science, would be nonsensical.



"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Y'know, the word "god" doesn't appear in the document either, but some still try to insist that we are a "christian" nation.


But anyway, Rappy, are you saying you'd have no problem at all if some local school wanted to teach the teachings of Mohammed in a public school? After all, if there's no separation of church and state, then who's to say WHOSE church teachings get taught?


By the way, the "separation of church and state" phrase comes from Jefferson's clarification of the First Amendment's intent:

Quote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:06 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Teach Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity,.... teach the word of Elvis, for all I care. Just make sure you do so in the proper context.

Again, separation of church and state does not appear in the ratified document. That's all Christine - the former teen age witch - was trying / DID say.

There's really no issue here, save for her clumsily communicating her view, and subsequent sophomoric reaction from a group of folks just waiting to pounce on her every word, with out actually listening to her point.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


What exactly is that "context" you refer to in such religious indoctrination in public schools? There are several local and state school districts currently trying to teach creationism as science. Teachers have been sued and fired in the past for teaching evolution instead of creationism.

The First Amendment quite firmly establishes a separation of church and state. Anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot, plain and simple. It's indisputable.

Listen to this dolt O'Donnell - the tone of her voice says she has no idea what the First Amendment even says. And she outright admits she has no idea what the 14th or 16th Amendments are.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:00 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, the "separation of church and state" phrase comes from Jefferson's clarification of the First Amendment's intent:

Quote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."



Christine O'Donnell asked: "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

She didn't ask: "Where in the Constitution are the words 'separation of church and state'?" Nor the equivalent.

To put it simply: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" MEANS (Equals; is the definition of) 'separation of church and state'.

('State', in this instance, means 'Government', not 'one of the 50'.)


--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:33 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:






Anderson Cooper tests the myth of O'Donnell's constitutional expertise.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:39 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Again, separation of church and state does not appear in the ratified document. That's all Christine - the former teen age witch - was trying / DID say.





Sure it was.

Suuuuure.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:13 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Again, separation of church and state does not appear in the ratified document. That's all Christine - the former teen age witch - was trying / DID say.


Sure it was.

Suuuuure.



Exactly! This BS excuse that she was only pointing out the absence of those exact words is ridiculous. I don't have a transcript handy, but anyone who's really watched it will notice that she mentions the Supreme Court and interpretation of the Constitution, etc. She was NOT just talking about the presence or absence of five little words. She was talking about the concept, the principle.

I will find a transcript and post it... maybe...

Oh, and her "Fellowship in Constitutional Government" that she's been bragging about was a seven day course at a conservative think tank. Which didn't even teach her the damned Amendments.

Oh. My. God.

There hasn't been such a gift to the Democrats since Palin entered the picture. I don't whether to feel relieved that the truth has been revealed or completely horrified that an idiot like this has been able to reach such a level of recognition.

So I'm settled with just looking forward to this week's SNL. How much fun are they going to have with this?



-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:37 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Again, separation of church and state does not appear in the ratified document. That's all Christine - the former teen age witch - was trying / DID say.


Sure it was.

Suuuuure.



Exactly! This BS excuse that she was only pointing out the absence of those exact words is ridiculous. I don't have a transcript handy, but anyone who's really watched it will notice that she mentions the Supreme Court and interpretation of the Constitution, etc. She was NOT just talking about the presence or absence of five little words. She was talking about the concept, the principle.

I will find a transcript and post it... maybe...

Oh, and her "Fellowship in Constitutional Government" that she's been bragging about was a seven day course at a conservative think tank. Which didn't even teach her the damned Amendments.

Oh. My. God.

There hasn't been such a gift to the Democrats since Palin entered the picture. I don't whether to feel relieved that the truth has been revealed or completely horrified that an idiot like this has been able to reach such a level of recognition.

So I'm settled with just looking forward to this week's SNL. How much fun are they going to have with this?



-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left




She claims graduate level studies in Constitutional Government at the Clairmont Institute.

She doesn't bother to mention that those weren't classes at any university, because Clairmont Institute isn't a university. It isn't any kind of accredited school. And you're right, her graduate level classes were one seven day seminar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:55 PM

MAL4PREZ


Here you go:

O’Donnell: The Supreme Court has always said that it is up to local communities to decide their standards, the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because our so-called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable doctr— principles of our founding as truly that…

Coons: One of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state.

O’Donnell: Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

Audience of REAL real, bona-fide constitutional scholars, who’ve spent more than 7 days studying it: BWAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

There you go – Coons brought up the SoCaS as a *principle*. So OD asked about the *principle*. Personally, I think she was coached to go after the absence of those five words, not the principle. And that would have worked fine for her at Faux News. But, in front of an educated audience, not so much. And she’s too stupid to frame her debate properly.

So she deserves all the ridicule she gets for this. Not to mention the grin she gives the audience right after that. No honey. They’re laughing AT you.

Keep in mind – this exchange involves O’Connell herself mentioning the importance of the Supreme Court. This proves her absolute ignorance. The Constitution was intended to be a living, growing document, continually defined by the SC. And the SC has been very clear about the separation of church and state and where that principle comes from. Hell, I learned this stuff in my lame history class in as red a state as anyone could wish.

Where in the world did O'Donnell get the idea that the Constitution isn’t a living document, and that centuries of the SC hasn’t defined it, exactly as the framers wanted?

Oh right. That 7 day course with the wingnuts.


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Again, separation of church and state does not appear in the ratified document. That's all Christine - the former teen age witch - was trying / DID say.





Sure it was.

Suuuuure.



That's EXACTLY what she was doing. To try to say otherwise is to show your intellectual dishonesty as well as your immaturity.

Talk show host Michael Medved, who is no fan of O'Donnell's, never the less grudgingly admitted as such. He said she was clumsy in her initial explanation, but the heart of her argument was sound.

She was, and is , correct.


"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:38 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.



Thanks to 501c3 tax-exemption contract, 99% of churches are run by the US Govt and the jewish IRS, requiring preachers to censor the Christian Bible or go to prison. Mainly so faggots and jews can suck each others dicks, as their religious doodie.

40,000 preachers are currently employed by the US Dept of Fatherland Security, to inform on their sheeple and send them to the FEMA death camps, as proven after Hurricane Katrina.

If the witch were actually a member of the Tea Party instead of the kosher NeoCON Decaf Tea Party counterfeit, she'd have said that.

It's time to kill the jewish religions once and for all: Communism (Govt is God), Socialism, Kaballah, Zohar, Tamudism, Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove. If the jews cant be re-educated in concentratio ncamps, deport them, and shoot to kill if they try to infiltrate USA again. Or USA can die. Take your pick.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


What I actually found most amusing of all was O'Donnel harping on it, and turning to the laughing audience and smirking...she actually thought they were laughing WITH her. No grasp that she's made HERSELF the butt of the joke at all. Wow. The deliberate ignorance of the "candidates" (I use the term advisedly) the right has put up this year is staggering, and they don't even get it when they're wrong.

The quote that she said
Quote:

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?
disproves your point, Raptor. She asked where IS the separation of church and state; if she'd said "where are the WORDS separation of church and state", you'd be right, but she asked about the PRINCIPLE, and the principle is clearly covered. Are you capable of undestanding the difference? I kind of wonder, since the point has been clearly made by others and you're still ranting on that she was "right". You're gonna tie yourself up in knots, if you haven't already.

As to specific language, that's a hilarious defense. Doesn't say "you can't rob a grocery store" or "Your governor can't put you in jail for speaking up", either, but bother are fully understood. To say the specific wording isn't there is an ignorant, assinine attempt to make some kind of ridiculous point.

Also amusing that she all but cloned Palin's answer to any Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. Buncha nutcase nobodies with no clue what being a legislator entails come out of the woodwork and are hailed by the Tea Party, nominated by the Tea Party and crashing the Republican Party, doing their very best to make it irrelevant and a geographical joke. Amazing.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Didn't she claim she'd attended Oxford or something, too, when all she did was audit one class? Lady has a loos relationship with the truth, it would seem...

Too bad the Tea Party folk didn't stop to think, and wonder why she'd been beaten handily twice before...actually, too bad they didn't stop to THINK (and not just when it comes to this crazy...)


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:06 PM

ELVISCHRIST


She tried to audit graduate level classes at Princeton (she has claimed that she was getting her Master's from Princeton, which she never attended in any capacity). When they refused because she hadn't finished an undergrad program, she tried to sue the school for negatively impacting her "future earnings" by not letting her attend a class she was unqualified to attend.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:19 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To try to say otherwise is to show your intellectual dishonesty as well as your immaturity.




I love how you've just adopted that as your catch-all. "If you don't agree with me, you're dishonest and/or immature."

Sure, she's verifiable wrong in most of her claims, has lied about her education, and spouts truly stupid things on a semi-regular basis. But THIS time, she was totally on the up-and-up.

Whatever. You just keep telling yourself that, and we'll keep laughing at your inanity. Your ability to self delude is impressive.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 5:21 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To try to say otherwise is to show your intellectual dishonesty as well as your immaturity.




I love how you've just adopted that as your catch-all. "If you don't agree with me, you're dishonest and/or immature."



Perhaps my sarcasm detector is off, I cannot tell if you are pretending to be dumb, or if you really do not comprehend the meaning of "intellectual honesty" and it's converse.


On another facet, I was hoping to also see the transcript where she asked her opponent to identify the rights granted under the First Amendment (which is not, BTW, a "founding principle" of the ratified Constitution, no matter how much Jefferson wanted it to be - it's called an Amendment for a reason), and Coons failed to identify 4 of the 5 rights. Not only had she already been proven to understand more than he about the lack of seperation of Church and State, but also about the others (Press, Religion, Speech, Right to Assemble and Petition).
Unlikely to get an unbiased report from the lib media or their lackeys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 5:24 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
She tried to audit graduate level classes at Princeton (she has claimed that she was getting her Master's from Princeton, which she never attended in any capacity). When they refused because she hadn't finished an undergrad program, she tried to sue the school for negatively impacting her "future earnings" by not letting her attend a class she was unqualified to attend.






She sounds like a liberal to me....Well, it's true....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 5:34 AM

KANEMAN


Mal4prez..."And that would have worked fine for her at Faux News. But, in front of an educated audience, not so much. And she’s too stupid to frame her debate properly."


Tea Party education level:

The New York Times/CBS News poll took the temperature of Tea Party supporters on a number of topics, and turned up some results that might seem apparent -- Tea Partiers mostly describe themselves as "very conservative," they say President Obama's policies favor the poor and they describe the president as "very liberal."

But in a number of areas, their responses mirrored the general public's. And, according to the poll, their incomes and education levels are well above average.

Of the Tea Party supporters who responded, 20 percent make more than $100,000, versus 14 percent for the general pool of people polled. Fourteen percent of Tea Party supporters have a post-graduate education, compared with 10 percent for the general public. Twenty-three percent of Tea Party supporters have a college degree, compared with 15 percent for the general public, according to the poll.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 7:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Wait - did you just quote a NYT poll? After all the time you've wasted flappin' your jaws about how everything they say is a lie? Really?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!



Quote:

Fourteen percent of Tea Party supporters have a post-graduate education...


Compared with exactly ZERO percent of Christine O'Donnells!


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Small fact overlooked about your poll numbers. The Tea Partiers represent in large part white, middle-incme or above people. For all they like to present themselves as "reg'lar folk", the fact is they do NOT represent regular Americans, which is what your poll shows. The "general public" includes those who cannot afford college, work at menial jobs, etc. The Tea Party does not.

What the poll actually shows is that a greater percentage of white, middle class Americans make up the Tea Party, which we already knew. Given the fact that there is a fair amount of racism within the Tea Party, as has been coming out more and more recently, and that they represent the "I've got mine, screw you" segment of society, it's not at all surprising that they've had more opportunities and make more money than the general public.

I don't think it's anything to crow about, however.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To try to say otherwise is to show your intellectual dishonesty as well as your immaturity.




I love how you've just adopted that as your catch-all. "If you don't agree with me, you're dishonest and/or immature."



Perhaps my sarcasm detector is off, I cannot tell if you are pretending to be dumb, or if you really do not comprehend the meaning of "intellectual honesty" and it's converse.



It is?

Quote:


On another facet, I was hoping to also see the transcript where she asked her opponent to identify the rights granted under the First Amendment (which is not, BTW, a "founding principle" of the ratified Constitution, no matter how much Jefferson wanted it to be - it's called an Amendment for a reason), and Coons failed to identify 4 of the 5 rights. Not only had she already been proven to understand more than he about the lack of seperation of Church and State, but also about the others (Press, Religion, Speech, Right to Assemble and Petition).
Unlikely to get an unbiased report from the lib media or their lackeys.




So post up the transcript. Surely your "unbiased" con media and their lackeys have it, right? You claim Coons missed four of five; that would still put him far ahead of her understanding of the document.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Small fact overlooked about your poll numbers. The Tea Partiers represent in large part white, middle-incme or above people. For all they like to present themselves as "reg'lar folk", the fact is they do NOT represent regular Americans, which is what your poll shows. The "general public" includes those who cannot afford college, work at menial jobs, etc. The Tea Party does not.

What the poll actually shows is that a greater percentage of white, middle class Americans make up the Tea Party, which we already knew. Given the fact that there is a fair amount of racism within the Tea Party, as has been coming out more and more recently, and that they represent the "I've got mine, screw you" segment of society, it's not at all surprising that they've had more opportunities and make more money than the general public.

I don't think it's anything to crow about, however.





KKKaney loves to claim that there's no racism in the Tea Party, of which he's a proud member. Then he goes off on rants about "niggers", "sand niggars"[sic], etc. (See his post on Juan Williams, for example)

Wulfie does the exact same thing.

And not one single tea-bagger calls them on their bullshit.

That's all the proof you need of the racism inherent in the tea parties.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:21 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


The Clash says Know Your Rights with Homicide: Life on the Street:
www.radio4all.net/files/skidmarkbob@rattlebrain.com/124-1-01_Know.Your.Rights.mp3

Police Officer Jack McLamb says you have a Constitutional right to travel without a driver license internal passport tax contract:
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html


Libertarian Party presidential nominee's Constitutional Law class:



Funny how the only Constitutional right Liberals say you have is the right to kill your kids and worship Satan.

Funny how Dictator Hussein Obama Soetoro was a "Communist constitutional law professor" who never attended college and never got a legit law license, who believes torturing without arrest and genociding millions of people is "constitutional", whose witchy mother in law worships voodoo in the White House.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 8:30 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
She asked where IS the separation of church and state; if she'd said "where are the WORDS separation of church and state", you'd be right, but she asked about the PRINCIPLE, and the principle is clearly covered. Are you capable of undestanding the difference?


She is more then technically correct. There is no question, seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. That is a technical distinction and an important one.

Once past the technical aspect of this issue her response becomes philosphical and is actually very sophisticated. She is a Strict Constructionist. In other words its not in there and because its not in there she believes that you can't simply ignore the language that is present and substitute language you feel is more appropriate or reflective of the times. This is as much a conservative principal as cutting taxes.

So we have a technically correct answer and a philosophical position shared by millions of Americans, anything else? Yes, its also a statement against judicial activism. "What do you mean?", says you.

Seperation of church and state was a mere anecdote until the Supreme Court reached out and set it up in big, black, artificially created law. In 'Reynolds v. United States'(1878) the Supreme Court used the term for the first time in order to establish that religon could not be a defense for violating a "social duty"...in this case bigamy was illegal and the defense was the fella's religon required it. Later Courts expanded on the principal. This sort of activism can be very destructive, especially since it allows the Constitution's express amendment process to simply be bypassed by finding nuance to plain language.

So as you can see her answer was correct and true to her convictions.

Her opponant and the audience displayed a shocking lack of knowledge on the subject. That the media has this backwards in neither shocking nor unexpected...it is in fact typical and a big part of what is fueling the Tea Party's fire in the first place.

My own opinion about the Bill of Rights is summed up by one word..."penumbra"...and I thank the Supreme Court for teaching me that term.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 10:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I believe your argument contains fallacies.

According to your belief in penumbra, the sepAration of church and state is guaranteed BY IMPLICATION, so your argument, by ignoring the implication of the First Amendment, falls apart. Given that the implication might be different for each person, the government would be free to interpret it any way it wants.

Of course, if you want to reject all the amendments, in my opinion we’d be in a pretty pickle, with the power of organized CHRISTIAN religion and how much they’d love to insert it into our government, schools and lives. Or, again, the government would be free to make any religion illegal, or do whatever it wanted with regard to religion. I don't think there's anything in the Constitution denying the government that right, if you toss out the First Amendment, is there?

How about the Second Amendment, which you apparently reject? In the first place, there is nothing in the original Constitution about keeping guns, so anyone could be arrested for having a gun if the government felt like passing a law against it.

If you accept the Second Amendment only for its SPECIFIC wording
Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
then, given the obvious caveat, keeping and bearing arms, by implication or even by the specific wording, is only for purposes of a well-regulated militia (which does not exist), so guns should not otherwise be legal. There's no "implication" that the Second Amendment means every citizen can keep and bear arms just 'cuz, in the Second Amendment or the original Constitution, is there?

How about free speech? The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century. Ergo, according to your belief in only abiding by the original constitution, that aspect of the First Amendment should also be null and void, and free speech shouldn’t be guaranteed to any citizen.

Many times, prior to the First Amendment’s free-speech wording, people were imprisoned (and worse) for free speech criticizing the government. Benjamin Gitlow, for example, after he advocated the "necessity and propriety of overthrowing and overturning organized government by force, violence and unlawful means". Were it not for the courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment, that would mean that all those politicians and Tea Partiers advocating “Second Amendment solutions” (or in other terms, if you toss out the Second Amendment) to what they don’t like would be imprisoned.

Yes, you said penumbria was how you felt about the Bill of Rights, but whether you extend that to the Constitution or reject any of the Amendments, you run up against dichotomies with how you apparentl view things should be. I believe that's the reason for the Amendments and the reason for looking to the courts to interpret the penumbria/implications of the Constitution and its amendments.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 1:55 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
She tried to audit graduate level classes at Princeton (she has claimed that she was getting her Master's from Princeton, which she never attended in any capacity). When they refused because she hadn't finished an undergrad program, she tried to sue the school for negatively impacting her "future earnings" by not letting her attend a class she was unqualified to attend.






She sounds like a liberal to me....Well, it's true....




Odd that you're still so vocally supporting her, isn't it?


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 5:58 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
She tried to audit graduate level classes at Princeton (she has claimed that she was getting her Master's from Princeton, which she never attended in any capacity). When they refused because she hadn't finished an undergrad program, she tried to sue the school for negatively impacting her "future earnings" by not letting her attend a class she was unqualified to attend.






She sounds like a liberal to me....Well, it's true....




Odd that you're still so vocally supporting her, isn't it?


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.




I think she's hot. Well, at least pretty.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2010 7:55 PM

STORYMARK


It doesn't matter what she does or stands for. As long as she says she's with the Tea Party, simple minded automatons like Kane the twat will follow along.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2010 2:17 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




Full audio: John Quade on the Common Law
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3150298931467182492#

Quote:



John Quade (April 1, 1938 – August 9, 2009)

Quade attended Washburn University in the fall semester of 1956. He worked for the Santa Fe Railway repair shop in Topeka and as an aerospace engineer before his movie debut in 1972.

Quade starred in High Plains Drifter and The Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood. He appeared in Papillon with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. He appeared in many television movies and mini-series including Roots and Dream West. Quade starred in two short-lived television series: Flatbush (1979) and Lucky Luke (1991).

He made many guest appearances on television shows ranging from Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Knight Rider (in the pilot episode "Knight of the Phoenix"), Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (in the two-part episode "The Plot to Kill a City" as a telekinetic supervillain),Roots (TV miniseries),The A-Team to On the Air.

Quade was an outspoken opponent of the U.S. government and believed it had become drastically different from the founding fathers' intent. He gave numerous lectures on the New World Order of the current government. In short, he was opposed to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Social Security numbers, and driver's licenses. He was often referred to as an "actor, aerospace engineer, and Christian activist". He was a supporter of the Allodial Title belief in common law.

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



Excellent speaker and scholar on the Constitution. So simple even a rocket scientist can lern it.

And a good comedic straight man.

In comparison, Hussein Obama Soetoro is no law professor, because he never attended nor graduated from college, since he was a member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan for those 4 years:


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 5:23 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
She asked where IS the separation of church and state; if she'd said "where are the WORDS separation of church and state", you'd be right, but she asked about the PRINCIPLE, and the principle is clearly covered. Are you capable of undestanding the difference?


She is more then technically correct. There is no question, seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. That is a technical distinction and an important one.

Once past the technical aspect of this issue her response becomes philosphical and is actually very sophisticated. She is a Strict Constructionist. In other words its not in there and because its not in there she believes that you can't simply ignore the language that is present and substitute language you feel is more appropriate or reflective of the times. This is as much a conservative principal as cutting taxes.

So we have a technically correct answer and a philosophical position shared by millions of Americans, anything else? Yes, its also a statement against judicial activism. "What do you mean?", says you.

Seperation of church and state was a mere anecdote until the Supreme Court reached out and set it up in big, black, artificially created law. In 'Reynolds v. United States'(1878) the Supreme Court used the term for the first time in order to establish that religon could not be a defense for violating a "social duty"...in this case bigamy was illegal and the defense was the fella's religon required it. Later Courts expanded on the principal. This sort of activism can be very destructive, especially since it allows the Constitution's express amendment process to simply be bypassed by finding nuance to plain language.

So as you can see her answer was correct and true to her convictions.

Her opponant and the audience displayed a shocking lack of knowledge on the subject. That the media has this backwards in neither shocking nor unexpected...it is in fact typical and a big part of what is fueling the Tea Party's fire in the first place.

My own opinion about the Bill of Rights is summed up by one word..."penumbra"...and I thank the Supreme Court for teaching me that term.

H



Thanks for your input for this thread.
Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.
Jefferson then tried to insert Seperation of Church and State into the Bill of Rights, and again refusal was the result until a watered down and much less intrusive Freedom was given as Religion in the First Amendment. However, even this simple, rudimentary right was of tremendous volitility, there was much rancor and controversy just to get this greatly reduced and simplified idea into the Amendment.

Later Jefferson pens about what "was intended" when he wrote that the Freedom of Religion should mean "seperation of Church and State." Well, whip-de-doo!! Jefferson was not the sole creator of the Constitution nor the Amendments, and his many attempts to insinuate this concept was repeatedly, clearly, and officially repelled by the entirety of the "Founding Fathers" - not just the Liberal's Favorite one. His attempts at retroactivly subverting the clear acts and votes of his peers seems quite unseemly. Remember that life expectancy was not great in the age. Just because he might outlive many of those Founding Fathers does not mean he should be allowed to have greater influence after many of them have died off. Arguing in his vein is also quite weak.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 5:35 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I believe your argument contains fallacies.


I was defending and explaining her opinions as a Strict Constuctionalist. I stated my own opinion briefly at the end to put in context the idea that while I understand her position, it is not one I share.

I am what I call a reasonable constructionist. I pay attention to the language AND the intent. For example, the Bill of Rights contain no right to privacy, but they clearly create a penumbra into which privacy would naturally fall.

In many ways my reasonable construction stance is a "strict" interpretation of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What is reasonable? That is a matter of perspective. Privacy, however, seems reasonable. The right to free pizza on Mondays, is not reasonably in the penumbra created by the Bill of Rights.

H


"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 5:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
The right to free pizza on Mondays, is not reasonably in the penumbra created by the Bill of Rights.


Can we make it Fridays, then?


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 5:47 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.


He did not. He was in France doing the ambassador thing. His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.

"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 5:50 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Can we make it Fridays, then?


If God says its ok...and I suspect we'll have to limit toppings so as not to offend certain folks.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 6:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.


He did not. He was in France doing the ambassador thing. His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.

"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.




Zero, you can't possibly be this dense. Jefferson HIMSELF coined the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when he quite clearly DID say that the First Amendment was intended to build a clear wall of separation between church and state.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 6:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I understand your position more clearly now; I do believe separation of church and state is extremely necessary, and that people tend to interpret the Constitution subjectively, just as many do the Bible, so I accept your position.

From what I've seen here, the argument can be made pro and con many things in the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers intended, and such debates can go on for quite a while. I still think O'Donnell didn't understand what she was actually asking, and I still think she's too ignorant of the workings of the law to ever be a worthwhile legislator, but that's my opinion.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 6:44 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.


He did not. He was in France doing the ambassador thing. His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.

"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.




Zero, you can't possibly be this dense. Jefferson HIMSELF coined the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when he quite clearly DID say that the First Amendment was intended to build a clear wall of separation between church and state.



In this rare moment when you might have made a minor error, it appears you jumped too quickly.
I suspect Hero was specifically addressing the time frame prior to the completion of the Constitutional Congress, which I had referred to. Your reference is far after. The Constitution was composed long after Jefferson had defended the Baptists, I thought. I may have confused the sequence, but I had thought Jefferson had lobbied for far stronger language in the Constitution itself. Regardless, that language was in fact declined by the Congress, despite his chastisement. I also still thought it was heavily assaulted during debate of the Amendments.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 7:42 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.


He did not. He was in France doing the ambassador thing. His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.

"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.

H



Perhaps you have caught me in a confusion. I am not sure.
As I understand, following the war, Virginia proposes a law effectively making Christianity the State Religion, and Jefferson and Madison vigorously object, and Jefferson proposes a bill enforcing Seperation of Church and State as the only way to protect citizens from religious persecution. Jefferson heads to France in 1784. His lobbying and influence through Madison results in Virginia passing Jefferson's bill in 1786.
The Constitution is drafted and presented in Sep 1787, and the Seperation of Church and State was kept out, against the efforts of Madison and Jefferson.
With Jefferson's lobbying and influence, Madison tries to include Seperation of Church and State (already clearly spelled out by Jefferson in his Bill which Virginia passed) in the Amendments (Bill of Rights) but can only get ratified the simpler and less intrusive "Freedom of Religion" in Ammendment 1.
The Bill of Rights is Presented for ratification on 25 Sep 1789.
Jefferson departs France on 26 Sep 1789, ending his term as Ambassador (Minister).

As President in 1802 his letter was an explanation and reasoning (or rationalization) for not Proclaming a Thanksgiving Holiday, as the Baptists had wanted.

For him to write years later that his intention of writing "Freedom of Religion" really meant "Seperation of Church and State" when he was not in America during the creation of Constitution or Bill of Rights and then you claim he really did not try to get his phrase included in each document seems disingenuous.

Did I get the timeline wrong?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 8:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Jefferson tried to include Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The other "Fathers" balked and refused to include it, refused to ratify it, and it never survived the Constitutional Congress, hence it is not in the Constitution.


He did not. He was in France doing the ambassador thing. His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.

"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.




Zero, you can't possibly be this dense. Jefferson HIMSELF coined the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when he quite clearly DID say that the First Amendment was intended to build a clear wall of separation between church and state.



In this rare moment when you might have made a minor error, it appears you jumped too quickly.
I suspect Hero was specifically addressing the time frame prior to the completion of the Constitutional Congress, which I had referred to. Your reference is far after.


If Zero wants to "specifically" address a particular time frame, he should quite clearly state that he's addressing a particular time frame. He didn't. He claimed that "His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state."

In that, he is quite clearly, and quite provably, wrong.


Quote:

The Constitution was composed long after Jefferson had defended the Baptists, I thought.


Then you thought wrong, and you should stop commenting until AFTER you go and do some research. The Constitution was ratified in 1789; Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802. *AFTER* the Constitution, but not "long after", and certainly not BEFORE his letter to the Baptists.



The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 8:07 AM

DREAMTROVE


Exhibit A for my theory:



I like the Twilight background in particular. Reaching out for the split Wicca vote?

I suspect she's having a blast, and getting rich at the same time. She wants to be just like Sarah.

Also, here's my call: Sarah Palin next head of the RNC.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 8:08 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


By the way, if y'all are going to argue the specifics of such things, can we all agree to at least spell the "Separation" part correctly? It rankles, just as when people who claim to be such super-patriots prattle on about the "Decleration of Independance".

The GOP wants a "literacy test" to vote; it seems like they should at least be able to correctly spell the principles they claim to hold so dear.

Just sayin'.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 1:48 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zero, you can't possibly be this dense. Jefferson HIMSELF coined the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when he quite clearly DID say that the First Amendment was intended to build a clear wall of separation between church and state.


You'll note that you said 1802...the original comment was that Jefferson wanted it included in the Constitution during the original convention. I noted that he did not attend, he was however the leading proponant of the Bill of Rights and not once during that argument did he mention seperation of Church and State instead focusing entirely on the phrase 'Freedom of Religon'.

Simply put, the 1802 letter you cite was written AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

I note for the record that Jefferson himself would have opposed retroactively changing the meaning of the language. He was instead a leading proponant of the Amendment process as the sole means of keeping the Constitution current.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2010 2:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And you'll note that YOU said

Quote:

His letters frequently refer to various rights including "Freedom of Religon" but not a seperation of church and state.



You referenced "his letters", not "his letters at the time". You were attempting to mislead people into believing that Jefferson never referenced the separation issue in his letters.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You referenced "his letters", not "his letters at the time". You were attempting to mislead people into believing that Jefferson never referenced the separation issue in his letters.


We were discussing the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why would I need to mention letters that occur so long afterward?

You obviously blundered into the middle of an ongoing discussion and did not bother to review the entire discussion for context. I was not being misleading, you were being ignorant and looking to nitpick.

Tell you what...I'll concede your one letter in 1802 if you'll concede he NEVER used the term during the thousands of letters, essays, the hundreds of debates and discussions during the huge national debate that occurred before, during, or after (till 1802) the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then maybe the intent of 'Freedom of Religon' might be more clear and obvious. If Jefferson wanted as definative a seperation as is now being advocated...he'd have used the Amendment process, which he felt was among the most important parts of the Constitution.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Chris, I agree. She's not even slightly "me", or any other of the vast majority of Americans. She's a kook, who tried two previous times to get elected and fell on her face, but used the money to her campaign to live off until she could try again. This time, it's "vote for the nutbag!", so she figured she had a chance. She doesn't.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 5:36 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You referenced "his letters", not "his letters at the time". You were attempting to mislead people into believing that Jefferson never referenced the separation issue in his letters.


We were discussing the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why would I need to mention letters that occur so long afterward?

You obviously blundered into the middle of an ongoing discussion and did not bother to review the entire discussion for context. I was not being misleading, you were being ignorant and looking to nitpick.

Tell you what...I'll concede your one letter in 1802 if you'll concede he NEVER used the term during the thousands of letters, essays, the hundreds of debates and discussions during the huge national debate that occurred before, during, or after (till 1802) the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then maybe the intent of 'Freedom of Religon' might be more clear and obvious. If Jefferson wanted as definative a seperation as is now being advocated...he'd have used the Amendment process, which he felt was among the most important parts of the Constitution.

H



I am finding it exasperating to search the writings of Jefferson. Wasn't this one of the 39 deleted items from the original "rough draft" Constitution that Jefferson had penned? Wasn't it Seperation of Church and State, or was it some form of "Religious Freedom?"
And I could not find the reference to the imprisoned religious followers whom Jefferson had defended prior to his leaving for Paris. I had thought it was prior the Revolutionary War, perhaps not, but it was what had driven his zeal for the Freedom of Religion legislation. I'd thought it was Baptists, maybe from Connecticut, perhaps not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL