O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Liability]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Remember all of those false accusations from the Left even in the 90's about Evil Republicans wanting to throw old people out into the streets. So in effect, many in the RNC, tried to out program the Democrats which was a piss poor line of reasoning, contributing to us being where we are today.

Yes I do remember.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

You're trying to stray from the point. Bush tried to reigen in Freddy and fanny the republicans did not have the numbers to bust a threaten fillibuster from the party of NO the democrats.

 

[Trajan]

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

:

If separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution, why have we seen over 200 years OF separation of church and state in this country?

here ya go...and was that really the question they were discussing btw? I think the 1st amendment and what it says..was the topic.

do you know who coined the term separation between church and state?

RELIGION

An Overview ( from link in my above post)

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

 

[Intense]

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

There has been more threat to Liberty since the DNC gained control.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

There has been more threat to Liberty since the DNC gained control.

Actually since woodrow wilson Liberty has been progressively taken away from the American people.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States.

Find it. Just find it. Don't assume it. Don't try a flexible definition. Find it.

Congress limited to enumerated powers + no power over religion enumerated = not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion = exclusion of religion from cognizance of U. S. Government = separation of church and state.

 

[DiveCon]

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States.

Find it. Just find it. Don't assume it. Don't try a flexible definition. Find it.

Congress limited to enumerated powers + no power over religion enumerated = not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion = exclusion of religion from cognizance of U. S. Government = separation of church and state.

and where is Kevin Bacon when you need him?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

explain to me why congress opens with a prayer.

Explain to me why the U. S. Congress wasn't open with prayer for the first 65 years of the Republic.

Then explain to me as to why one of the very first acts of congress IF NOT the first was to print the Bible.

The First U. S. Congress didn't print Bibles.

However, the First U. S. Congress did reject a petition praying that Congress protect the public from inaccurate editions of the Holy Scriptures.

The petition of the Reverend Joseph Willard and others, in behalf of the congregational clergy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was read, stating "that printers in some of the states are now undertaking to publish editions of the Holy Bible, a work which, in its nature, requires a most critical and faithful inspection, and which, in other Christian countries, is performed under the direction of the supreme authority;" and praying "Congress to take this interesting subject into their consideration, and to direct such measures as, in their wisdom, may be thought proper, to secure tire public from impositions by inaccurate editions of the Holy Scriptures."

Ordered, That this petition lie for consideration.​

--Journal of the Senate of the United States of America; MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790.
​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States.

Find it. Just find it. Don't assume it. Don't try a flexible definition. Find it. And after you do, explain to me why congress opens with a prayer. Then explain to me as to why one of the very first acts of congress IF NOT the first was to print the Bible.

You can of course say that Federalist #40 but that does not imply a ban on religion as you seem to think is the case.

The Constitution doesn't ban religion. It bans civil authority over it, as ordained by our Lord and Savior.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Apparently, because Jagger says so!

I consulted the 6th edition of A Dictionary of the English Language (1785) to learn that the words were ambiguous.

 

[Liability]

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Apparently, because Jagger says so!

I consulted the 6th edition of A Dictionary of the English Language (1785) to learn that the words were ambiguous.

Nonsense.

 

[manifold]

Congress passes laws that impose taxation (check it out, it's in The Constitution).

If the tax money they then collect is used to fund religious endeavors, then Congress has indirectly passed a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The SCOTUS says so, I say so, and any reasonable and intellectually honest person says so.


true story

 

[Ravi]

Congress passes laws that impose taxation (check it out, it's in The Constitution).

If the tax money they then collect is used to fund religious endeavors, then Congress has indirectly passed a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The SCOTUS says so, I say so, and any reasonable and intellectually honest person says so.


true story

sigh...so faith based initiatives are unconstitutional?

 

[manifold]

Congress passes laws that impose taxation (check it out, it's in The Constitution).

If the tax money they then collect is used to fund religious endeavors, then Congress has indirectly passed a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The SCOTUS says so, I say so, and any reasonable and intellectually honest person says so.


true story

sigh...so faith based initiatives are unconstitutional?

Could be

 

[drsmith1072]

No she's not.

This whole "exact words" argument is a little silly.

Exactly, when coon quoted the 1st amendment she responded, "that's in the first amendment?" showing that she had no clue as to what is actually in the 1st amendment.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

The video doesn't work.

Sorry but it does direct you to youtube if you are willing to take that extra step.

The fact that you refuse to take that extra step doesn't change the FACT that she asked "That's in the first amendment?" when coons quoted the 1st amendment.

Come on sam, what are you afraid of?? Watch the video.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[drsmith1072]

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

Anyone trying to defend o'donnell is brainless. The CURRENT spin of her campaign and her defenders is that she was referring to the exact phrase "separation of church and state" but as I showed earlier coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked, "That's in the 1st amendment?". The attempt at damage control as her defenders try to spin and argue that the exact phrase is what she was referring to doesn't match what was actually said in the debate.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

She is referring specifically to Separation of Church and State and your video does not work.

NO she is not but how can you tell considering the fact that you won't go to youtube to actually watch the video??

How do you know what she is refering to in the clip when you haven't seen it?? So again,

Anyone trying to defend o'donnell is brainless. The CURRENT spin of her campaign and her defenders is that she was referring to the exact phrase "separation of church and state" but as I showed earlier coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked, "That's in the 1st amendment?". The attempt at damage control as her defenders try to spin and argue that the exact phrase is what she was referring to doesn't match what was actually said in the debate.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

Come on sam take that extra step and actually watch the clip BEFORE you try commenting on it. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Oh yeah........don't forget........when O'Donnell was asked what Democrat currently serving in the Senate she would reach across the aisle to work with, she named Hillary Clinton.

How the fuck is someone in the Senate going to get something done if they are unable to reach across the aisle? And how the fuck can you reach to someone if you DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE?????

Nope, O'Donnell is a total twit. But then again, look who she learned from, the Twitter Quitter Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil, the illustrious batshit crazy Palin.

Have a url to prove any of that?

Why do you ask for it when you won't watch it anyway?? However, that won't stop you from commenting on something you haven't even watched now will it?? LOL

 

[Intense]

Congress passes laws that impose taxation (check it out, it's in The Constitution).

If the tax money they then collect is used to fund religious endeavors, then Congress has indirectly passed a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The SCOTUS says so, I say so, and any reasonable and intellectually honest person says so.


true story

sigh...so faith based initiatives are unconstitutional?

Could be

Not when the programs are secular. Food Banks, Pantries, Soup Kitchen's Shelters, Charter Schools, etc.... The key is Secular.