Louisiana Governor knows this will increase his popularity

[Zincwarrior]

The government shouldn't be putting up or sponsoring anything religious or group oriented.

Pastafarians are excluded. All Praise the Great Noodle!

 

[forkup]

You

yes, i am non partisan
the purpose of my post was to show people were convicted of voter fraud
any intelligent person would question these districts given how vast voter fraud is.

Also you

Voter Fraud is irrelevant in Pennsylvania.

Hypocrite.

 

[elektra]

It would take 3 because I need the first to establish your position. Something you refuse to actually do I noticed. The second I need to point to something undisputed that Trump did. And the third just to rub your nose in it when you desperately excuse it or make another appeal to hypocrisy.

But since you obviously KNOW you would be shown a hypocrite not taking a position is what you got.

And it has little to do with being smart. It has to do with the simple fact that fallacies are the only way you guys are able to defend your position.

That was 3
Establish my position? I have made 2 dozen posts in this thread.
Fallacy? A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. I would say you just presented us with a fallacy?

That was 3 posts you made, in which you were unable to show I was a hypocrite. You claimed 3, it is a reflection onyour intelligence that you can not support what you stated.

Yes, you qualify I must first take a position so that you know my position? Why would you say you can show someone is a hypocrite if you do not already know their position.

First you must find something undisputed that Trump did? Everything Trump does is disputed by the Democrats and called criminal. That is another failure of yours forkup.

Another failure is that we are in a thread about the governor of Louisiana, hence that is the topic, not Trump.

Forkup, you stated 3 tries, you failed. I have two dozen posts if not more in this thread. furkup, you have had many chances to prove your point. Do you want 6 more tries. Take em, go!!!!!

 

[elektra]

The government shouldn't be putting up or sponsoring anything religious or group oriented.

Even when it is part of our founding?

 

[elektra]

Ugh, another ignorant post with everyone watching the bouncing ball.

Voter Fraud is irrelevant in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania violated Article 2, section 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

Only the legislative branch of the state government has the power to change how the election is conducted. In Pennsylvania's case the governor/executive branch changed the rule, regulations, and laws with the judicial branch siding with the governor.

A clear violation of the constitution with no way for the democrats to deny this.
It is time to uphold the constitution. We are not ruled by unelected judges and dictators posing as governors.

Hypocrite.

The constitution was violated in Pennsylvania. Any voter fraud in Pennsylvania is irrelevant. The entire election process in Pennsylvania was changed unconstitutionally.

Why did you cherry pick a post from another thread, two different threads. Cherry picking is just that, a cheap way and trying to proclaim you are right.

Furkup, you can not stay on topic in this thread?

My position is firm, I spoke of why voter fraud was irrelevant in a specific state because the constitution was violated in that state. The governor does not have the power to change how the people vote. It is the Legislative branch of government that has that power. Not the Executive or Judicial.

Furkup, you should be careful what you cherry pick, that is 4 tries, 4 failures.

A clear violation of the constitution invalidates that election results in Pennsylvania. Trump wins the election without even having to address voter fraud. Voter fraud was irrelevant in light of the Constitution being violated.

Let me know if that must be stated slower, furkup

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

2, you got one more chance at proving I am a hypocrite.
Just out of curiosity, beings how you are so damn smart, how come it takes 3 tries instead of 1 to prove I am a hypocrite.

You have 1 more try.

electra may be the biggest hypocrite here.

 

[forkup]

That was 3
Establish my position? I have made 2 dozen posts in this thread.
Fallacy? A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. I would say you just presented us with a fallacy?

That was 3 posts you made, in which you were unable to show I was a hypocrite. You claimed 3, it is a reflection onyour intelligence that you can not support what you stated.

Yes, you qualify I must first take a position so that you know my position? Why would you say you can show someone is a hypocrite if you do not already know their position.

First you must find something undisputed that Trump did? Everything Trump does is disputed by the Democrats and called criminal. That is another failure of yours forkup.

Another failure is that we are in a thread about the governor of Louisiana, hence that is the topic, not Trump.

Forkup, you stated 3 tries, you failed. I have two dozen posts if not more in this thread. furkup, you have had many chances to prove your point. Do you want 6 more tries. Take em, go!!!!!

Post 542. Since you REFUSED to answer the simple yes or no question. I just looked up what your position is when you can simply claim voter fraud occurred. And what your position is when voter fraud can't be established.

They are completely opposed. What you can suspect from hypocrites.

As for my failure. It's funny. You make a claim that hypocrisy somehow is incompatible with politics. Something objectively moronic not to mention for you personally unsustainable. But then you want other people to stay on topic. Something in itself hypocritical.

 

[pknopp]

Even when it is part of our founding?

1st Amendment.

 

[elektra]

1st Amendment.

1st amendment does not state all traces of religion must be abolished.

 

[pknopp]

1st amendment does not state all traces of religion must be abolished.

Nor would I want that. It does state that the government can do nothing to establish a religion but insisting one's religion must be posted in every class room is doing that.

 

[forkup]

The constitution was violated in Pennsylvania. Any voter fraud in Pennsylvania is irrelevant. The entire election process in Pennsylvania was changed unconstitutionally.

Why did you cherry pick a post from another thread, two different threads. Cherry picking is just that, a cheap way and trying to proclaim you are right.

Furkup, you can not stay on topic in this thread?

My position is firm, I spoke of why voter fraud was irrelevant in a specific state because the constitution was violated in that state. The governor does not have the power to change how the people vote. It is the Legislative branch of government that has that power. Not the Executive or Judicial.

Furkup, you should be careful what you cherry pick, that is 4 tries, 4 failures.

A clear violation of the constitution invalidates that election results in Pennsylvania. Trump wins the election without even having to address voter fraud. Voter fraud was irrelevant in light of the Constitution being violated.

Let me know if that must be stated slower, furkup

I gave you the chance to answer a simple yes or no question in this OP. A question you refused to answer. So you have no right to complain when I look up what you're position is on voter fraud. In other threads.

In the end that's the point. Go and look at my positions now, yesterday, last year, 5 years ago. What you will find is not that they're necessarily the same. I don't think it's reasonable for anybody to never change your mind, or be wrong. What you will find is that they're consistent. When I change my mind I can point to when it happened, and why.

I've found that in Trump supporters it's purely situational. At least on this board.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam–which combined account for 97.7% of all believers–are monotheistic. See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004—2005, p. 55 (124th ed. 2004) (Table No. 67). All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population–from Christians to Muslims–that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.

MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.

www.law.cornell.edu

Holy shit!! You are so desperate and dishonest that it is necessary for you to post an excerpt from the DISSENTING opinion and try to pass it off as a majority ruling.



{{meta.fullTitle}}

Conclusion:

.........In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. In the case of each of the displays, the Court held, an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion. The first display for presenting the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law," an exhibit in which the county reached "for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses."

 

[elektra]

Holy shit!! You are so desperate and dishonest that it is necessary for you to post an excerpt from the DISSENTING opinion and try to pass it off as a majority ruling.

Where do I state that this is the majority opinion? Nowhere.
TPP, you are such a slimeball, you are not here to have a civil discussion. You are just here to lie, lie, and lie.
Now go back and quote where I stated why you claim. There is no such comment.

Desperate and dishonest, TPP, you need to look in the mirror and repeat those words.
It is an excellent dissent. Most likely it is being reviewed by the Justices right now.

 

[elektra]

Conclusion:

.........In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. In the case of each of the displays, the Court held, an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion. The first display for presenting the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law," an exhibit in which the county reached "for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses."

Hey, at least you found a reason to ignore your loss in regards to the FFRF and the Satanic Temple. You called my comment a bold faced lie, I proved easily that it is you that at the very least are incapable of comprehending what you link to or this subject. You lied about me, and you lie about me again.

TPP, you are the liar
From my previous link. There is more, are you just going to call this stuff dishonest or will you take the time to educate yourself and formulate a response for a discussion.

Thus far, all TPP does is claim, liar liar pants on fire. So weak.
A few remarks are necessary in response to the criticism of this dissent by the Court, as well as Justice Stevens’ criticism in the related case of Van Orden v. Perry, ante, p. 1. Justice Stevens’ writing is largely devoted to an attack upon a straw man.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where do I state that this is the majority opinion? Nowhere.
TPP, you are such a slimeball, you are not here to have a civil discussion. You are just here to lie, lie, and lie.
Now go back and quote where I stated why you claim. There is no such comment.

Desperate and dishonest, TPP, you need to look in the mirror and repeat those words.
It is an excellent dissent. Most likely it is being reviewed by the Justices right now.

You know exactly what you did smart ass.You presented it as the majority opinion .

 

[elektra]

You know exactly what you did smart ass.You presented it as the majority opinion .

How, liar

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are too easy, instead of having a sane conversation as I prefer, you rant, root, and grunt that you are right. TPP provides a link he/she does not read. Then when I comment on it, it is as if I am replying to a pig.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has joined a lawsuit over the Ten Commandments in which the Satanic Temple wants their idol to be on display along with the Ten Commandments.

Bold faced lie? TPP, how does that foot of your taste?
My first link shows that the FFRP has hidden the details of the lawsuit from its website.

State, Santanic Temple, ask for judgment in Ten Commandments case

Arkansas Democrat Gazette (Little Rock, Arkansas)By Dale Ellis

ffrf.org

View attachment 966738
This link and quote (something The Progressive P should do) shows that the Satanic Temple in fact wants their deity displayed with the Ten Commandments. The FFRF, supports this and has joined the lawsuit. Pure hypocrisy. TPP and FFRF

Federal judge does not rule on motions for summary judgment in Ten Commandments case | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine G. Baker did not rule from the bench Friday on a summary judgment in the lawsuit over theTen Commandments monument located at the Arkansas State Capitol.

www.arkansasonline.com

The motions filed earlier this year by the Cave and Orsi plaintiffs asked that the Ten Commandments monument -- which was a result of Act 1231 in 2015 -- be removed, while The Satanic Temple motion asked that the monument either be moved and its statue of Baphomet -- a part-man, part-goat deity who is seated and accompanied by two smiling children -- be installed in its stead for the same duration as the Ten Commandments statue or that the Baphomet statue be installed in a location on the State Capitol grounds to be determined by the parties if the Ten Commandments statue is allowed to remain.

More of you dishonest bullshit. This is a different case in a different state. It in no way negates the points that I made about, and the facts of the Louisiana case. Again you try to score a point with deception .

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

elektra got her rhetorical butt kicked... again.

 

[elektra]

More of you dishonest bullshit. This is a different case in a different state. It in no way negates the points that I made about, and the facts of the Louisiana case. Again you try to score a point with deception .

I got it, attack attack attack, no discussion with you.
I offered something for everyone else to read. Nothing in response to your posts. You are not quoted or replied to in the post. It was simply information.

Different case in a different state, yet a 10 commandment case that is almost exactly like the one discussed.
There is no doubt that the justices will all have read the dissent by Scalia.

 

[elektra]

elektra got her rhetorical butt kicked... again.

by posting a dissent? You wish. All TPP has done is what you are capable of, calling people liars and claiming that calling someone a liar makes you right.