Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Tea party Candidate....


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 9:23:14 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Pops loves her.He`ll be her #1 fan.........


Owner, my first love is Hillary Clinton, you know that!

I wonder if this Coons guy would go down to the Teamsters Union loading docks to "talk to the guys?"
Hey, he could ride his polo pony! "Hi-Ho! Ok guys, show of hands, how many here went to Amherst College? ...Anyone?"

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 9:24:06 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I"d do her


We know.

Believe me, we know.

You have a thing for crazy Republican women.

Now I can see O'Donnell, maybe even Palin, but if you start saying you would do Sharron Angle or Jan Brewer we are going to have to find you some help.


To be fair, I don't think he's mentioned Coulter yet.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 11:18:47 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

now I realize that for some of you constitutional phd extraordinaires this is beyond your comprehension so allow me to translate for you what was said based on attorney jeffffffffs post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff


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

That means you can teach any damn thing you want in PRIVATE just like people can masterbate in private and that means that you can not teach masterbation in PUBLIC neither can you masterbate in public.



Good tip RealOne.

I was just out this morning masturbating on my front porch.

Who knew?



it just goes to show you that people are clueless as to what their rights are and there is an old saying......if you do not know your rights you aint got none because no one gives them to you, rights you need to assert, permission(privileges) are given for free.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 11:24:17 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well, he asserts the right to pound pud perched 'pon the porch, perhaps you have an article or amendment to the constitution that prohibits it? 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:16:50 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

now I realize that for some of you constitutional phd extraordinaires this is beyond your comprehension so allow me to translate for you what was said based on attorney jeffffffffs post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff


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

That means you can teach any damn thing you want in PRIVATE just like people can masterbate in private and that means that you can not teach masterbation in PUBLIC neither can you masterbate in public.



Good tip RealOne.

I was just out this morning masturbating on my front porch.

Who knew?



it just goes to show you that people are clueless as to what their rights are and there is an old saying......if you do not know your rights you aint got none because no one gives them to you, rights you need to assert, permission(privileges) are given for free.


Rilly?
And there was me thinking that the point of that Constitution thing you can't shut up about was to thrust rights upon everybody, whether they wanted them or not. If the founding fathers hadn't been into the idea of rights for all*, you'd still be paying tea tax. (And whining about it, no doubt...)

*(apart from women, negroes and all that sort of rifraff, obviously)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:39:14 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:47:37 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		The first 16 words of the 1st amendment...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. No where does it say they must be separate.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:50:55 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You tell me what that says if it doesnt say to seperate church from state?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:52:54 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		well, regardless of the exact wording, the SCOTUS believes that it means that.

Since 1947 anyway.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/20/2010 12:53:36 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 12:55:27 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		It was designed to keep the state out of religion, to keep the state from setting up one religion over another, to keep[ religion from infriging upon the non-religious and to keep the non-religious from infringing upon the religious.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

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

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:00:28 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state.


That's because the Constitution was designed as a broad, deliberately vague document that was never intended to cover every legal issue.

That is also why we have an equal judicial branch of government to interpret laws and define meanings.

The branch which has fairly consistently interpreted the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to mean just that, the separation of church and state.





< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/20/2010 1:03:47 PM >

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:05:19 PM   
pogo4pres


Posts: 593
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I could be wrong, but, the Congress shall make no law par implies (to me at least) there is to be NO STATE RELIGION;  therefore a separation of church and state (ie government).

Add in Jefferson's letter of 1 Jan, 1802, to the Danbury Baptists in which he says this : "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, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."  It is pretty god damned clear he and the rest of the founders wanted no parts of religion to be involved with governance. 

By the Way that "establishment clause" while giving the religious the right to worship as they please also, implies MY right to be FREE OF THE BULLSHIT, known as religion. 


Religuliously,
Some Knucklehead in NJ


_____________________________

"All life is pain highness, anyone that says different is just trying to sell something" The Man in Black (Dread Pirate Roberts)

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:14:34 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		I wonder if they could find a better candidate in Manchuria?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to pogo4pres)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:20:22 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline 		This is a good summary for you Servant:


Church and State: How the Court Decides


The Constitutional guarantee for separation of church and state is provided for in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools, the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
  1. It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.
  2. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
  3. Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion.
The Coercion Test
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that "Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

The Endorsement Test
Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted' over other beliefs." Source: FindLaw's Constitutional Law Center




(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:21:00 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		The House and Senate starts every session with a prayer. Separation of church and state ? Christine got this one right.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:21:57 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		The members can be religious. They cannot estabilsh a religion for the country.

Are you truly this dense on the subject?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:44:06 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state.

Let's see what the guy who wrote it thought:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:46:29 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Your OP is based on a false premise... that CNN reports the news. See, this is a good example of why CNN is being pummeled in the ratings so badly by FOX, CNN edited O'Donnels words to make it appear that she said something other than what she said.

quote:

CNN devoted several segments on Tuesday and Wednesday to Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell's apparent gaffe on the First Amendment, but barely acknowledged her opponent Chris Coons's own gaffe on the amendment. Analyst Jeff Toobin spun O'Donnell's remark as demonstrating that "she didn't seem to know" the amendment. It took conservative Dana Loesch on AC360 to bring up Coons's own gaffe.

Anchor Wolf Blitzer played an edited clip of O'Donnell's questioning of Coons on the First Amendment issue during Tuesday morning's WDEL Delaware Senate candidate debate on his Situation Room program. Blitzer did not play the part where the Republican clearly asked, "You're telling me the 'separation of church and state'- the phrase, 'the separation of church and state' is found in the First Amendment?" [audio available here] After playing the edited sound bite, Blitzer continued that "O'Donnell's spokesman later said she was not questioning the concept of church and state subsequently established by the courts, she simply made the point, he says that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, 'separation of church and state.'" This is an accurate summary of the candidate's line of questioning, but since the anchor didn't play the part where she used the term, "the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he made it seem like the spokesman was giving a clarification.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/10/20/cnn-barely-covers-coons-gaffe-1st-amendment-highlights-odonnell#ixzz12vxuZPaX



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:47:52 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
The House and Senate starts every session with a prayer.


The house and senate doesn't have a prayer and hasn't had one since before Reagan. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The Tea party Candidate.... - 10/20/2010 1:49:20 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The members can be religious. They cannot estabilsh a religion for the country.

Are you truly this dense on the subject?

way too easy ....however Im behaving... for a while anyway:)


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.172