quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/#more-131216

Summary:

O'Donnell agreed to appear on a radio station for an interview.  The interview was taped (you know, it should be obvious you're being taped when the camera gets trained on you).  Then an aide demanded that the tape, the property of the radio station, be turned over to O'Donnell because they had not specifically approved taping beforehand. 

O'Donnell herself threatened a lawsuit if the tape was not turned over, despite the fact that there was no basis for a suit.

So she doesn't understand Freedom of Speech OR Separation of Church and State.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/#more-131216

Summary:

O'Donnell agreed to appear on a radio station for an interview.  The interview was taped (you know, it should be obvious you're being taped when the camera gets trained on you).  Then an aide demanded that the tape, the property of the radio station, be turned over to O'Donnell because they had not specifically approved taping beforehand. 

O'Donnell herself threatened a lawsuit if the tape was not turned over, despite the fact that there was no basis for a suit.

So she doesn't understand Freedom of Speech OR Separation of Church and State.

She understands Separation of Church and State just fine...ie that there is no such thing in the Constitution.

quote:

Original : wilbeurdaddy

She understands Separation of Church and State just fine...ie that there is no such thing in the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

Original : wilbeurdaddy

She understands Separation of Church and State just fine...ie that there is no such thing in the Constitution.

Again I post Jefferson's own words from his letter of 1 Jan 1802, in reply to the Danbury Baptist congregation. 

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.

Even the most fucking stupid should be able to discern his meaning.       



Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I wouldnt expect a Knucklehead from NJ to know that if you examine the complete Jeffersonian record that phrase has been totally misinterpreted.

"Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I wouldnt expect a Knucklehead from NJ to know that if you examine the complete Jeffersonian record that phrase has been totally misinterpreted.

"Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]