Fuck the Liberal Media
- Thread starter conv3rsion
- Start date
You are amazing, but you are are also dishonest. If you watch the rest of the video from that debate she actually admits (when questioned for her opinions) to not knowing the amendments, including the 16th. This is from a "tea party" member, running for the US Senate, who has claimed that her knowledge of and faith in the US constitution is what qualifies her for the position. For those of you following along, try to wrap your head around that.
You can't make this shit up. And Hellblazer you are not this dumb. You are good at keeping a straight face though. One of the best trolls I've ever encountered.
Hellblazer after you big long diatribe it doesn't change the fact that O'Donnell didn't know the first amendment.
Watch the end of the video at 4:38 -
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYUvDjLPcwY"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
Coons - "The government shall make no establishment of religion"
O'Donnell - "That is in the first amendment?"
*Laughter*
There are many words and phrases that are popular symbols of American democracy but are not actually in the Constitution. But they are interpretations of the Constitution set forth by the court system. Such as -
"Innocent until proven guilty", "Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", "No taxation without representation", "The right to privacy".
These phrases don't appear anywhere in the Constitution. They are interpretations of rights given to us within the Constitution.
Just like the right that government shall make no establishment of religion. That is a clear pronouncement of separating church from state.
O'Donnell wasn't arguing over whether the term technically appears and if she was that is a pretty stupid argument. It's like a child being caught stealing candy and saying they were "technically" just borrowing it.
She clearly did not understand the first amendment. Just like she admitted she didn't know the 14th or 16th amendments, despite the fact she goes around gloating her expert knowledge of the constitution.
Sorry but your candidate is an idiot.
Watch the end of the video at 4:38 -
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYUvDjLPcwY"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
Coons - "The government shall make no establishment of religion"
O'Donnell - "That is in the first amendment?"
*Laughter*
There are many words and phrases that are popular symbols of American democracy but are not actually in the Constitution. But they are interpretations of the Constitution set forth by the court system. Such as -
"Innocent until proven guilty", "Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", "No taxation without representation", "The right to privacy".
These phrases don't appear anywhere in the Constitution. They are interpretations of rights given to us within the Constitution.
Just like the right that government shall make no establishment of religion. That is a clear pronouncement of separating church from state.
O'Donnell wasn't arguing over whether the term technically appears and if she was that is a pretty stupid argument. It's like a child being caught stealing candy and saying they were "technically" just borrowing it.
She clearly did not understand the first amendment. Just like she admitted she didn't know the 14th or 16th amendments, despite the fact she goes around gloating her expert knowledge of the constitution.
Sorry but your candidate is an idiot.
If you paid closer attention to the details of the debate, she lead Coons right into a trap like a sheep to the slaughter. The minute he couldn't answer to questions about rights granted by the first amendment, he quickly cried about having the moderators ask the questions and hushed the issue.
Anyhow, If there truly was a separation of church and state in this country then churches wouldn't be tax exempt organizations now would they?
God, I can't wait. I'm counting the days. Soon all you liberal douchebags (and you pseudo libertarians here - yes, you know who you are) will finally give up on your statist motivations.
This Jefferson?
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"... I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself."
- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"... I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself."
- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
Where in the bible you have to
1. Have only one wife
2. Don't have sex outside marriage
3. Pay half of your wealth in case of a divorce
4. Pay alimony the more money you make
5. Don't have concubine
6. Must not drink wine, LSD, marijuana,
7. Don't be a prostitute?
Any Jews? Fuck, where are they when we actually need them. I don't know whether Jehovah is a true God that created heaven and the earth, but at least those Jews know about Him better than the rest of us.
Oh ya, fucking someone else wife, which is a capital crime in the bible, is legal in US
Not that I disagree. But in ancient time there is no way to know who the father is if the woman fuck many men. Nowadays, you can just do DNA test. Still it's not victimless because the husband still have to pay huge child support (again proportional to his wealth), and would often naturally go mad and goes killing spree. However, the problem is no longer physical. The problem is social. Currently society actually wanted to redistribute wealth of the rich to the lazy through any possible mean. The very thing ancient societies, including biblical ones, want to prevent with anti adultery laws.
Different issues. Different rules.
1. Have only one wife
2. Don't have sex outside marriage
3. Pay half of your wealth in case of a divorce
4. Pay alimony the more money you make
5. Don't have concubine
6. Must not drink wine, LSD, marijuana,
7. Don't be a prostitute?
Any Jews? Fuck, where are they when we actually need them. I don't know whether Jehovah is a true God that created heaven and the earth, but at least those Jews know about Him better than the rest of us.
Oh ya, fucking someone else wife, which is a capital crime in the bible, is legal in US
Not that I disagree. But in ancient time there is no way to know who the father is if the woman fuck many men. Nowadays, you can just do DNA test. Still it's not victimless because the husband still have to pay huge child support (again proportional to his wealth), and would often naturally go mad and goes killing spree. However, the problem is no longer physical. The problem is social. Currently society actually wanted to redistribute wealth of the rich to the lazy through any possible mean. The very thing ancient societies, including biblical ones, want to prevent with anti adultery laws.
Different issues. Different rules.
Hellblazer, please interpret the following quote in your own words WITHOUT paraphrasing or changing it in anyway.
Congress cannot pass laws that FAVOR or IMPOSE a particular religion OR FORBID someone from practicing their own religion. This was specifically created due to the chaotic religious destruction going on in Europe at the time and aggressive attitude that was brought upon by the official "Church of England". The establishment clause fit hand-in-hand with both Jefferson's and Madison's views on civil liberties and freedom.
Simply put, the establishment clause specifically and precisely means "a separation of church and state."
You can't, can you? Nothing about "separation of church and state" alters or negatively rephrases that quote in any way.
Congress cannot pass laws that FAVOR or IMPOSE a particular religion OR FORBID someone from practicing their own religion. This was specifically created due to the chaotic religious destruction going on in Europe at the time and aggressive attitude that was brought upon by the official "Church of England". The establishment clause fit hand-in-hand with both Jefferson's and Madison's views on civil liberties and freedom.
Simply put, the establishment clause specifically and precisely means "a separation of church and state."
The level of blatant ignorance in this thread is appalling.
The 1st prohibits any mandate for particular (national) religion such as creating a Theocracy. The framers wanted to keep the gov't from becoming like the one they fled for religious persecution. It doesn't effectively 'separate' church and state as the New World Order Secular Progressives would like you to believe.
I'll just leave this right here.
The Office of the Chaplain, United States House of Representatives
</thread>
The 1st prohibits any mandate for particular (national) religion such as creating a Theocracy. The framers wanted to keep the gov't from becoming like the one they fled for religious persecution. It doesn't effectively 'separate' church and state as the New World Order Secular Progressives would like you to believe.
I'll just leave this right here.
The Office of the Chaplain, United States House of Representatives
</thread>
yesssss
by the way, part 2 is pretty legit as well. i also started watching 'manufacturing consent' last night, which is pretty much a noam chomsky bio. a little bit harder to follow (speaks very "academically") but pretty legit.
anyone else find it interesting that we talk about 'separation of church and state' and yet in our pledge of allegiance we're a nation under god? lol
I lol when I hear people try to cite the pledge of allegiance as proof our founding fathers wanted us to be a Christian nation. The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister. Oh but wait... "under God" wasn't added until 1954.
Because I went to the Sheheen vs Haley debate on Tuesday. Nothing smart comes out of her mouth. And I didn't point out that she's a woman to sound all misogynistic, she's just our version of the growing "home coming queen politician" type.
The fact that the government can not endorse a religion, and they can not prevent me from practicing one, is a separation of church and state. Period, end of story. The opposite of separation of church and state is state mandated religion, which we do not have. Since we do not have state mandated religion (or a specific religious institution, a church) and since the government is forbidden from creating it, we have guaranteed separation of church and state.
Maybe "separation of church and state" to you means "no one in government can discuss religion in any state related setting". That's not what it means to me.
That link shows clearly that the government is not endorsing a religion (the prayer is based on a bible verse, and below there is an notification of a muslim prayer service). In addition, the terms "Lord" and "God" are not specific enough to infer that a particular religion is being endorsed. You could argue that by using tax dollars for this chaplain department, that religion (in general) is effectively being endorsed, which speaks more directly to the specific language in the first amendant then in your interpretation of the phrase "church and state", but that's another issue then. And one, I'll add, I really don't care about, because it can also be taken that in order to not prevent someone from practicing a religion, it must help supply access to religion when someone is doing government business and are unable to get away from that government business. (e.g. military, public service). Otherwise the government is effectively prohibiting someone from practicing religion through its control of that individual's time.
Oh and I'm right there wishing that many Churches would lose their tax exempt status, especially since many of them are effectively for profit corporations, but we both know that's never going to happen.
Ultimately I don't think most atheists or "New World Order Secular Progressives" are truly concerned with whether "In God We Trust" is on our money or whether there is a chaplain service for our elected officials / military men and women. They are more concerned with things that actually matter, like teaching real science in fucking science class and with electing officials who aren't completely full of shit (and ignorant of basic knowledge) and who's only chance in getting elected is because they are willing to scream how much they love Jesus to the retards voting for them. We saw how well that worked with George Bush.
Hahaha, I remember you telling me about that. She was supposed to come to the Nuway after the debate for body shots. She didn't return my calls.
What are you trying to prove with that link? Where on that website does it say that there isn't separation of church and state?
"In God We Trust" is on our money, "Under God" is in the pledge of allegiance. What do these have in common with a house of representatives chaplain? None of them are supported by the constitution and were enacted without amendment.
Look up Marsh v. Chambers. The district court held that government/state supported chaplains were unconstitutional, the 8th circuit court of appeals also said the same. When it made it to the supreme court, all decisions were reversed stating that it was constitutional. That's mainly because the Chief Justice at the time was an ultra-conservative christian, Warren Burger, the same guy who opposed gay rights and supported sending a man to prison for life without parole because of a $100 fraudulent check.
I can guarantee you that if a case like Marsh v. Chambers makes it to the supreme court it would be held as unconstitutional.
However, none of this proves that your pal O'Donnell knows the 1st amendment.
Coons: "The government shall make no establishment of religion"
O'Donnel: "That's in the first amendment?"
Crowd: "GAAAASP!"
This chick doesn't know basic American rights and therefore shouldn't represent Americans in office.