Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[jillian]

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.

Don't address the main points...it's what you do best.

She's the one who uses the term nutter like it was her last name.

And you are hypocrite....didn't you reference PC and a sewer.

GFY

typical rightwingnt troll.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

You made the claim....not me ?

You always put forth claims regarding things you feel are irrelevant ?

Funny...you get called on it...and now it does not matter.

I know the status of the law and not because of you....dumbass...I know what the 14th did. I stated that some time ago.

You want to comment on history (you spoke out your ass for the founders...and you've been used to mop the floor)....maybe you should think about following your own advice to know what you are talking about before you post.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

first of all, loser.... it's jillian. there is nothing remotely haggish about me....except of course to misogynist rightwingnut pond scum.

i have answered you. you're an ignorant twit who relies on nonsense from a dissent by rhenquist....

Still looking for that link that backs your claim I rely on a dissent by Rhenquist.

Liar.

t's been explained to you multiple times...as has the ridiculousness and ignorance of pretty much everything your little idol PC says.


so keep looking little boy.

and just because you're a compulsive liar, don't project your epic fail onto anyone else.

You've produced nothing to back up your claim.

I am not advocating PC's position or are you to stupid to figure that out.

But when some dumbass who got her supposed law degree from a diploma mill makes claims in the name of the founders...I take notice.

You are as wrong as you always have been on this topic.

It's funny you call someone a liar when you are the one making claims you can't support.

Its really sad that people are out there taking advantage of morons like you and C_Clayton_Jones ...stealing your money and really not teaching you anything.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.

Don't address the main points...it's what you do best.

She's the one who uses the term nutter like it was her last name.

And you are hypocrite....didn't you reference PC and a sewer.

GFY

typical rightwingnt troll.

Oooops...there's a good argument....oh, wait.

And I just read your link to my post.....oh, wait.

And you are back to your one liners.

But I am the troll....now that's funny.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.

Don't address the main points...it's what you do best.

She's the one who uses the term nutter like it was her last name.

And you are hypocrite....didn't you reference PC and a sewer.

GFY

typical rightwingnt troll.

I think all the garbage you've been reading...and you did admit to reading garbage...has pulled down your already low I.Q.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

 

[initforme]

As a lifelong practicing christian I see the need for separation between the two.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

I have debated PoliticalChic on several threads....

Not like you clowns do.

I have respectfully disageed with her and I have found she is pretty respectful in her responses.

I have not even read the OP on this one.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You'll notice Jillihag has vacated the thread along with her moron boyfriend C_Clayton_Jones .

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

You could almost make that argument....but she won't.

She's a fraud.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

And since you are challenging people to debate, why is it that you won't encourage your moron team-mate lawyer wannabe to provide proof of her claims when asked to do so ?

 

[rdean]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

And since you are challenging people to debate, why is it that you won't encourage your moron team-mate lawyer wannabe to provide proof of her claims when asked to do so ?

Normal debates people tend to present facts and give the most acceptable and winning interpretation.

Right wingers just lie. That's why debates with them are so short. Eventually, they just run off.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

And since you are challenging people to debate, why is it that you won't encourage your moron team-mate lawyer wannabe to provide proof of her claims when asked to do so ?

Normal debates people tend to present facts and give the most acceptable and winning interpretation.

Right wingers just lie. That's why debates with them are so short. Eventually, they just run off.

How do you classify this argument (the one you supposedly just made) ?

"Normal debates" ? That's a good start.

"People present facts"....pray tell...do they ? What facts did you just present.

"Right wingers just lie" ? Really ? That is a fact (one you can readily prove without sounding like it is a wet dream on your part ?) ?

Great argument....RDean.

You may be a moron...but at least you are consistent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

And since you are challenging people to debate, why is it that you won't encourage your moron team-mate lawyer wannabe to provide proof of her claims when asked to do so ?

I'm challenging you to debate the OP since you admitted you disagree with her.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The salient point of this thread is that Liberals/Progressives/Secularists become enraged when reminded that this nation was founded as a moral and religious endeavor....

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams



The impetus for the thread was the Wisconsin event.....the attack by the Liberal forces on a peaceful parent group who set up in a public park, offering free lunch to students who.....voluntarily.....freely......on their lunch break......assembled to listen to talks on morality.


So.....the very motivations of America's Founders is an affront to the Liberals/Progressives/secularists....
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Morality and religion


.....and not one of the Leftists on the board addressed this issue.




How frightened the Left is by this...
“Last fall the word had spread (pun intended) and the first week 200 kids showed up, then 300, then 400-450 every week! That represents 25% of the Middleton High School student body, meeting every week for a free hot lunch and listening to a Christian message.””
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: School administrators try to physically block parents from hosting ‘Jesus Lunch’ | EAGnews.org



I believe I have made and documented the point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The salient point of this thread is that Liberals/Progressives/Secularists become enraged when reminded that this nation was founded as a moral and religious endeavor....

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams



The impetus for the thread was the Wisconsin event.....the attack by the Liberal forces on a peaceful parent group who set up in a public park, offering free lunch to students who.....voluntarily.....freely......on their lunch break......assembled to listen to talks on morality.


So.....the very motivations of America's Founders is an affront to the Liberals/Progressives/secularists....
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Morality and religion


.....and not one of the Leftists on the board addressed this issue.




How frightened the Left is by this...
“Last fall the word had spread (pun intended) and the first week 200 kids showed up, then 300, then 400-450 every week! That represents 25% of the Middleton High School student body, meeting every week for a free hot lunch and listening to a Christian message.””
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: School administrators try to physically block parents from hosting ‘Jesus Lunch’ | EAGnews.org



I believe I have made and documented the point.

If they were true Christians, they would have given out the free food free, not at the price of forcing the kids to endure Christian propaganda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The salient point of this thread is that Liberals/Progressives/Secularists become enraged when reminded that this nation was founded as a moral and religious endeavor....

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

Well, at least she admits that her agenda is to impose a narrow conservative Christian morality on the American people, including via the long arm of the law and the long reach of Big Government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Liberal democracies also assume that citizens should not be lightly prevented from practicing their faith and that the government ought not to interfere with the religious decisions of citizens or their institutions.

This last principle is not always observed, .... the courts have increasingly refused to recognize a special right to exemption from ostensibly neutral government regulation for religious practice, even though the constitutional text surely sounds as if one were intended.

... many civil libertarians who usually pride themselves on the broadest possible reading of the Bill of Rights, insist on a narrow reading of its provisions regarding religious liberty. They fear that protecting religious liberty will allow religion, and religious people, to be above the law. Part of what is at work is a notion of equal treatment trumping liberty.

Equal treatment is seen as more important than individual liberty, ..."
Is Religion Compatible with Liberal Democracy



What can the explanation be for this antipathy toward morality and religion, and America's foundation?


The answer to that question, coming right up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What can the explanation be for this antipathy toward morality and religion?

Here....some insight:

Not only was Obama trained in Marxist ideologue Saul Alinsky’s community communist organizer tactics, Obama also trained Chicago youth in those tactics as well as taught Alinsky as a professor lecturer at Chicago University’s School of Law. Now we learn that Obama steered funds to an Alinsky Academy Communist Cadre School.

Lastly, don’t ever forget that Alinsky had dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, aka Satan:

Obama Funded Alinsky Cadre School

 

[rdean]

[

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

.

If you don't agree with PC, why aren't you debating her?

And since you are challenging people to debate, why is it that you won't encourage your moron team-mate lawyer wannabe to provide proof of her claims when asked to do so ?

Normal debates people tend to present facts and give the most acceptable and winning interpretation.

Right wingers just lie. That's why debates with them are so short. Eventually, they just run off.

How do you classify this argument (the one you supposedly just made) ?

"Normal debates" ? That's a good start.

"People present facts"....pray tell...do they ? What facts did you just present.

"Right wingers just lie" ? Really ? That is a fact (one you can readily prove without sounding like it is a wet dream on your part ?) ?

Great argument....RDean.

You may be a moron...but at least you are consistent.

Right wingers lying.

I have one word for you.

Birtherism.