Quote:
is fucking crazy

ugggh

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is....

Plus, she's crazy.

GREAT VIDEO.

CLASSIC!

She still has more than 40% of the vote, too.

That's even scarier.

All ya gotta do to capture the dumb-ass vote is thump for "intelligent design," say you love Jesus, and ignore the fact that the current administration decreased income tax...while claiming it was raised!

Her numbers are rising...if she gets within 5 by election day, the race is a toss up...As to her intellect, come on...this is Delaware and the seat was held for decades by Babbling Joe Biden, once the dumbest man in Congress. The voters are used to stupid.

If she had simply asked the fellow where in the Constitution one an find a separation of church and state, it would have been an entertaining debate...It's not in the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

So, which version of creation do you baggers who can't be bothered to read the Constitution want to cram down kids' throats?

Are you also working on a rebuttal to the "theory" of gravity?

In space, gravity goes away. Yet, on Earth, there's lots of it!

Are you trying to tell us that "intelligent falling" is not responsible for these observations and that gravity does not know where it is needed, and where it isn't? It OBVIOUSLY knows!

Heck, why would gravity "act" like there was a so called "gravitational center" to a pllanet when we all know that the planet's mass isn't all in the center?

The baggers are stopping far short on their demands to insert religion into the schools....

Don't stop with creationism.

Why stop with evolution?

Let's introduce "dinosaurs lost the cave man dinosaur war" theory.

How about the "If you blow up Jews you go to 72 virgin Heaven theory?" It has yet to be disproven, truth be told.

I have one that has to be true:

The one-electron universe theory.

If thereis a perfect and infinite God, then He would not have needed to create multitudes of electrons, only one. The multiple electron universe theory is an insult to the intelligent designer. Properly designed, only one electron would be required by a truly intelligent designer.

Right?

Come now, JIMV, if you need Genesis rammed down kids' throats to help back up some faith based dogma, then you need better dogma.

Quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Why don't you give us the rest of the admendment?

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences

So I ask... What government is trying to ESTABLISH a state ran religion that subjugates its citizens?

The first admendment was given to protect the American citizens from paying taxes to an established state ran religion just like what the founders were familiar with concerning the Church of England under King George.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the first admendment.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about "a wall of separation" in the Federalist papers. Somehow the left has transposed that into the first admendment.

O'Donnell should have been more concise IMHO.

Mark

Quote:
Her numbers are rising...if she gets within 5 by election day, the race is a toss up...As to her intellect, come on...this is Delaware and the seat was held for decades by Babbling Joe Biden, once the dumbest man in Congress. The voters are used to stupid.

If she had simply asked the fellow where in the Constitution one an find a separation of church and state, it would have been an entertaining debate...It's not in the 1st Amendment.

That right JIM.. Joe Biden was the idiot that asked a paralyzed man in a wheelchair to "stand up" at a rally he was babbling at. Naturally, the news agencies NEVER reported it which is standard operating proceedure for the mid-stream news agencies that NEVER report Obama's gaffes or any other democrat politician gaffes for that matter. Just let it be a Republican though.....and the media runs it in the ground.

Mark

Quote:

Quote:
Her numbers are rising...if she gets within 5 by election day, the race is a toss up...As to her intellect, come on...this is Delaware and the seat was held for decades by Babbling Joe Biden, once the dumbest man in Congress. The voters are used to stupid.

If she had simply asked the fellow where in the Constitution one an find a separation of church and state, it would have been an entertaining debate...It's not in the 1st Amendment.

That right JIM.. Joe Biden was the idiot that asked a paralyzed man in a wheelchair to "stand up" at a rally he was babbling at. Naturally, the news agencies NEVER reported it which is standard operating proceedure for the mid-stream news agencies that NEVER report Obama's gaffes or any other democrat politician gaffes for that matter. Just let it be a Republican though.....and the media runs it in the ground.

Mark

If it was never reported, you must have been there, I guess.

She's a dolt and you guys defend her because "Biden was dumb, too." Great, so you'll shut about Biden now?

This is the typical American political B-effing-S that idiots at either end of the dope spectrum fall for: "My candidate was cought humping Argentinian tail? Well.....Bill Clinton!"

Nice work, guys.

This lady learned the words Tea Party and "intelligent design" and after that, your critical faculties disengage.

Thanks for keeping the bar so low - "she's like Biden."

Pathetic.

Just how bad would she have to stink up the place for you guys to finally worry abour her?

She is an evolution denier, an avowed witch, she reported her livelihood as "doing odd jobs," and she stole from her campaign funds.

I can hear it now - "Obama was a community organizer."

Well, then, shut the fuck up about Obama's lack of meaningful political employment if you also support O'Donnell.

Eh?

For crying out loud, get some consistency.

Don't like Obama's religion? Say he was a former Muslim? Shut up, Christine gets Jesus credit as a former witch.

O'Donnell out "under-qualifies" Obama in every way possible, yet you support her because she can say, "Tea Party."

You guys have no irony gene.

Quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In my own world and with my modest education, the mention of something is not the creation of it. It is like saying the discussion of Henry Ford in school is the same as creating a state vehicle...

I asked "where in the Constitution one can find a separation of church and state"...you respond with a strawman argument about the establishment of religion..I ask again, and please go back and review the tape, where is this notion found in the Constitution.

I have very little interest in religion but I do have a lot of interest in bogus Constitutional arguments.

One of the very first things both houses of Congress did was appoint chamber Chaplains. If such a recognition of religion was tantamount to creating a state religion contrary to the Constitution, and these are the folk who voted for and created said Constitution, why is the simple mention of the idea in school illegal?

We do not have such a problem with the cults of the day like the Global Warming fad, something that might have a real effect on the heads full of porridge hearing that superstition.

The issue I was addressing was the Constitutional one both candidates were muddling through badly. It would have been amusing to see either try to make a real Constitutional argument beyond the emotional and historically ignorant one they did produce.

This is how we had middle school students memorize the basics of the Amendments:

Constitutional Amendments

1. RAPS: the right of religion, assembly, speech, & press
2. Right to bear arms (2 and

Quote:

Quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In my own world and with my modest education, the mention of something is not the creation of it. It is like saying the discussion of Henry Ford in school is the same as creating a state vehicle...

I asked "where in the Constitution one can find a separation of church and state"...you respond with a strawman argument about the establishment of religion..I ask again, and please go back and review the tape, where is this notion found in the Constitution.

I have very little interest in religion but I do have a lot of interest in bogus Constitutional arguments.

One of the very first things both houses of Congress did was appoint chamber Chaplains. If such a recognition of religion was tantamount to creating a state religion contrary to the Constitution, and these are the folk who voted for and created said Constitution, why is the simple mention of the idea in school illegal?

We do not have such a problem with the cults of the day like the Global Warming fad, something that might have a real effect on the heads full of porridge hearing that superstition.

The issue I was addressing was the Constitutional one both candidates were muddling through badly. It would have been amusing to see either try to make a real Constitutional argument beyond the emotional and historically ignorant one they did produce.

JIMV, legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum have squelched this attempt to foist stupidity upon the masses and slip religious dogma into our schools.

They have repeatedly endorsed the interpretation of the Constitution I mentioned.

Go do a Supreme Court ruling search and you will see this concept of keeping dumb ass creationism out of our modern school curriculum.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

___

This issue, unless you want to ammend the Constitution, has been settled with a vast foundation of precedent, JIMV.

You and the witch are so out of line, you can't see the line from where you are.

What parts are unclear to you?

Why do you hate critical thinking? Why don't you trust parents to instruct children in their own prescribed religious dogma without turning the schools into nanny's for Christian ninnies?

As I asked before, how do you buy into this so called "theory" of gravity?

Quote:
This is how we had middle school students memorize the basics of the Amendments:

Constitutional Amendments

1. RAPS: the right of religion, assembly, speech, & press
2. Right to bear arms (2 and

Quote:

Maybe we need a little test before someone runs for office?

That would be awesome!

Have potential canidates take the naturalization test, while they are at it.

Hooray for that idea.

Trouble is, all the people (blues and reds) who want to run things would then be excluded!

Quote:
JIMV, legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum have squelched this attempt to foist stupidity upon the masses and slip religious dogma into our schools.

They have repeatedly endorsed the interpretation of the Constitution I mentioned.

Go do a Supreme Court ruling search and you will see this concept of keeping dumb ass creationism out of our modern school curriculum.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

___

This issue, unless you want to ammend the Constitution, has been settled with a vast foundation of precedent, JIMV.

You and the witch are so out of line, you can't see the line from where you are.

What parts are unclear to you?

Why do you hate critical thinking? Why don't you trust parents to instruct children in their own prescribed religious dogma without turning the schools into nanny's for Christian ninnies?

As I asked before, how do you buy into this so called "theory" of gravity?

I did not ask what Courts, after 150 years of our history, decided to rewrite the Constitution from the bench...I asked where IN the Constitution there is a separation, as it is understood today, of church and state.

My issue was and is the perversion of the document by an ill educated court with more concern for their own power than the constraints put on them by the Constitution...

Quote:

My issue was and is the perversion of the document by an ill educated court with more concern for their own power than the constraints put on them by the Constitution...

Trouble is, you are another pissed off white guy who feels somehow done wrong by the country that provided everything for you except happiness on a platter instead of the right to pursue happiness. Tebag types wants to be griefers against the government, actually. You guys are examples of entitlement culture gone awry, demanding the establishment of goverment enforced religion because....why?

The Constitution is against you, as is the seemingly perpetually "ill edicated" Supreme Court.

You guys are crazy. maybe after we get white guys back in the White House you will get sane?

I've cited for you the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings relevant to your delusion, to no avail.

Where in your Constitution does it establish a governmental role for teaching religion/religious belief (with no factual foundation) in our schools?

How do you feel about the Johnson era establishment of civil rights?

Should local dumb asses such as the Liptonistas be free to ignore those laws, as well?

Back to Jim Crow for the pissed off old white guys?

Again, if your religion is so weak that it can't survive without American style madras reinforcement from the schools, find a better faith.

Hey, better yet, go write an ammendment!

(I bet I know where you stand on the definition of a "well regulated militia.")

Quote:
Trouble is, you are another pissed off white guy who feels somehow done wrong by the country that provided everything for you except happiness on a platter instead of the right to pursue happiness. Tebag types wants to be griefers against the government, actually. You guys are examples of entitlement culture gone awry, demanding the establishment of goverment enforced religion because....why?

I really have no idea what your argument is here..These are Tea party folk...you know, work for a living, earned any benefits they have...not democrats who subsist on the work and assets of others???

Quote:
The Constitution is against you, as is the seemingly perpetually "ill edicated" Supreme Court.

Then show me...explain where in the Constitution your position is outlined???

Quote:
I've cited for you the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings relevant to your delusion, to no avail.

Your Constitutional cite had nothing to do with the separation of Church and State and the court just made it up.

Quote:
Where in your Constitution does it establish a governmental role for teaching religion/religious belief (with no factual foundation) in our schools?

It doesn't...nor does it forbid it.

Quote:
How do you feel about the Johnson era establishment of civil rights?

You need to be more specific...some were valid and the others not

Quote:
Back to Jim Crow for the pissed off old white guys?

You do seem to have a racial fetish as you have made note of 'white' a half dozen times while I have never mentioned race at all, not once.

Quote:
Again, if your religion is so weak that it can't survive without American style madras reinforcement from the schools, find a better faith.

Hey, better yet, go write an ammendment!

(I bet I know where you stand on the definition of a "well regulated militia.")

It has nothing to do with religion...it as to do with the Constitution...it either applies or it does not. I contend it does not and you have to rely on case law as the actual document does not support your case.

Well it is obvious she is fucking stupid so why get your panties in a ruffle bubble-boy. No, tell me you wouldn't do her. I would. I would do Pelosi too. No joke. I've said before and I'll say it again. Or do you prefer the bald eagle sitting next to her slumping in his chair that he can't figure out how to use? I can guarantee you that guy is useless in bed. If he can't please a woman how do you expect him to please Delaware?

Quote:
This is how we had middle school students memorize the basics of the Amendments:

Constitutional Amendments

1. RAPS: the right of religion, assembly, speech, & press
2. Right to bear arms (2 and

The infamous "Wall of Separation" is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists who were hammering on his ass and suggesting he was an Atheist. They were messing with his political aspirations and he was trying to reassure them that they had nothing to fear from him.

The most abused figure in American history. Thomas Jefferson. I have a direct grand-father named Thomas Jefferson Martin. He served in the Confederate Army. People used to understand Thomas Jefferson. Named their children after him. Today? Well we misquote the motherfucker to the point nobody knows what the fuck he said or not. So, the whole Thomas Jefferson bug-a-boo is now an Internet rumor. Urban legend. Stupid as a bag of hammers bullshit.

You know what Washington and Jefferson had in common, right?

_____

JIMV, you can opine your lack of understanding of the Consitution 'til the cows go back to your living room, but it, and the body in charge of reviewing the applicability of the Constitution to challenges say you are full of shit.

Sore loser much?

Quote:
The infamous "Wall of Separation" is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists who were hammering on his ass and suggesting he was an Atheist. They were messing with his political aspirations and he was trying to reassure them that they had nothing to fear from him.

Actually, that is not right...Jefferson was President from 1801-1809...the issue was a letter From the Danbury Baptists who were fearing state discrimination against them in Conn.

Quote:
that thelegitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and
therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,
because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm

Jefferson's letter was not to protect government from religion but to reassure the religious that the state has no authority to discriminate against them..

Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The idea that the Constitution precludes all things religious from ever appearing in any thing governmental was an invention of the court, not the Founders or Jefferson.

Quote:

Quote:
The infamous "Wall of Separation" is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists who were hammering on his ass and suggesting he was an Atheist. They were messing with his political aspirations and he was trying to reassure them that they had nothing to fear from him.

Actually, that is not right...Jefferson was President from 1801-1809...the issue was a letter From the Danbury Baptists who were fearing state discrimination against them in Conn.

Quote:
that thelegitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and
therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,
because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm

Jefferson's letter was not to protect government from religion but to reassure the religious that the state has no authority to discriminate against them..

Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The idea that the Constitution precludes all things religious from ever appearing in any thing governmental was an invention of the court, not the Founders or Jefferson.

Maybe use Jim Tavegia's pneumonic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Hell, I believe in the Constitution...unlike some Lipton Tantrum drinkers.

Washington-Jefferson College and they wanted to end slavery in Virginia? Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Naturally, they believed that blacks were inferior to whites regardless of their attempts to end slavery. Typical American politics. No coincidence that many a Southerner was named after Thomas Jefferson. Slavery back then was akin to abortion today. It is just a line in the sand. Don't mean nothing when it comes down to the individual and what he claims he support. He is probably doing the opposite. Sort of like some of these so-called bigot hypocrite free-thinkers on this forum that feel threatened by people they feel are inferior to themselves. Makes no sense. The truth is the opposition is winning, for the time being, and the absurdity of demonizing idiots by idiots who actually believe they are not idiots. Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!

I don't see Tea people asking congress to establish a law promoting a religion. I see Tea people wanting people to stop slamming them because they are Christians. Again it is the class of people slamming people for practicing what they believe in. Mainly, freedom of religion because it is right whether you agree with it or not. That is what a liberal would promote. Not this attacking a group of people for practicing their rights under the Constitution. The liberal movement is dead. Everybody is conservative. So-called liberals are conservatives and pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to ignore. So-called conservatives are conservatives because they do the exact same thing.

Quote:
I don't see Tea people asking congress to establish a law promoting a religion. I see Tea people wanting people to stop slamming them because they are Christians.

I am all in favor of their expression of religious belief - just not as fake science curriculum designed to dumb down the populace and advance their religious agenda.

Hell, grab a tambourine and dance naked shouting your love of God, I don't care....just don't cram it down the school's throats and stay off my land.

"Intelligent design" is the mark of the beast. The idiot beast.

Again it is the class of people slamming people for practicing what they believe in.

No, it's them trying to force their crazy bullshit religious fervor on others. Low class, and did I mention, idiotic?

Mainly, freedom of religion because it is right whether you agree with it or not. That is what a liberal would promote.

Agreed, just don't expect to make the government force it on the schools.

Not this attacking a group of people for practicing their rights under the Constitution.

That ain't it, the teabag thumpers want their relgion taught in government funded schools.

The liberal movement is dead. Everybody is conservative. So-called liberals are conservatives and pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to ignore. So-called conservatives are conservatives because they do the exact same thing.

Wrong, we are liberals, all.

Iran is run by conservatives. Saudi Arabia. Not even JIMV is that bad. America is a liberal democracy. The only people re-arranging the Constitution in America and buying elections are conservatives like Bloomberg. Check out how he jobbed his city's constitution.

Quote:
No, it's them trying to force their crazy bullshit religious fervor on others. Low class, and did I mention, idiotic?

That's bullshit. They are not forcing you to do anything. They aren't even forcing you to complain about them. You just don't like their agenda and religious belief, which sort of makes you a bigot. Tell me something. How come you guys don't have something that is organized to counter their agenda? This is the real problem. This group of people is jeopardizing what other people all ready screwed up. If it is screwed up what is all the attention about? What? They are going to break something that is all ready broke. The truth is the Democrats are going to lose. Blame it on the Tea Party movement. Like blaming McDonald's for making you fat. Would your argument work if you said you didn't like the Black Panther Party because they are black? I don't think so. And why is Darwin's Theory a requirement in school. I think it came about from a group of people that forced people to teach it, regardless. Liberals are great at forcing people to do things. And you're complaining because you erroneously want us to believe that the Tea Party is forcing you to believe in God? Tell the truth. You just don't like the way they look. What they believe. How they act. You bring attention to them. You give them existence. You cause people to side with them because your arguments are ridiculous. No different than an insurgency. So, keep pissing on your own shoes. No skin off my ass. I don't care you if you don't like the Tea Party even if your arguments are flawed.

BTW, I feel really bad that Jon Stewart's rally bombed out because the United States Marine Corps are going to keep their Porta-Potties. Really, the liberals need to be more organized. Shitters come first. Frenzy comes last.

Also, America is a republic. Not a democracy. You know that so stop posting shit that makes you appear uninformed. You've been spewing bullshit at such an unprecedented space of time that you can't keep up with the facts any longer. Your coming across like Jan. And it is just a matter of time before some liberal organization pumps him full of Thorazine and makes him a ward of the government.

Quote:

Quote:
No, it's them trying to force their crazy bullshit religious fervor on others. Low class, and did I mention, idiotic?

That's bullshit. They are not forcing you to do anything.

They are trying to force a religious agenda on the schools. I oppose that.

They aren't even forcing you to complain about them.

If ya don't stand up to them, they will trample what's right about America. They don't even know what the First Ammendment is, let alone how to abide by it. Watch the video of the Wiccan lady!

You just don't like their agenda and religious belief, which sort of makes you a bigot.

I also don't want nudists promoting intelligent nakedness. I don't want madras and Koran recitation, I don't want religious idiocy like "intelligent design" in the public education system. Fuck you, Lamont, we are all "bigots" the minute we don't want some dumb ass agenda promulgated upon the schools. It ain't bigotry, it's freedom from the establishment of religion.

Tell me something. How come you guys don't have something that is organized to counter their agenda?

We do, it's called the First Ammendment, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly shot the dumb asses down. What don't you get?

Their argument consists solely of being told they are wrong by the Constitution and the Supreme Court and then replying, "Am not." It's all been covered!

This is the real problem.

No counter argument to their mantra of "am not" is the problem?

They are the equivalent of the far left saying gun rights are not protected in the Second Ammendment, then losing the argument in the Supreme Court, then saying, "Am not." They can't lose enough times to shut their fucking asses up!

This group of people is jeopardizing what other people all ready screwed up.

Keeping religion out of the schools is not something that's already screwed up. They are trying to screw it up.

If it is screwed up what is all the attention about?

Ask the "intelligent design" dumb asses.

What?

Like I said, argued and lost by them already, so get on with it, witches.

They are going to break something that is all ready broke.

You could maybe say that six more times, it still won't change their dumb ass agenda and it's unconstituionality.

The truth is the Democrats are going to lose.

Not the argument. That's a given.

Blame it on the Tea Party movement.

No, blame the Dems, that wasn't the topic.

Like blaming McDonald's for making you fat. Would your argument work if you said you didn't like the Black Panther Party because they are black?

Black Panthers choose to be black? Maybe O'Donnell will claim she was born a poor black child, but converted. If the Black Panther's insisted we teach the Kwanzaa as the winter religious holiday, yeah, I'd be opposed.

I don't think so. And why is Darwin's Theory a requirement in school. I think it came about from a group of people that forced people to teach it, regardless.

Like being forced to teach math, English, reading, or writing...science, dude. By a book.

Liberals are great at forcing people to do things. And you're complaining because you erroneously want us to believe that the Tea Party is forcing you to believe in God? Tell the truth.

No, they are trying to force their religion on the schools.

You just don't like the way they look.

Nope

What they believe. How they act.

D'uh.

You bring attention to them. You give them existence. You cause people to side with them because your arguments are ridiculous.

Which argument is ridiculous, that there is a First Ammendment and the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed its existence?

No different than an insurgency. So, keep pissing on your own shoes. No skin off my ass. I don't care you if you don't like the Tea Party even if your arguments are flawed.

BTW, I feel really bad that Jon Stewart's rally bombed out because the United States Marine Corps are going to keep their Porta-Potties. Really, the liberals need to be more organized. Shitters come first. Frenzy comes last.

Also, America is a republic. Not a democracy. You know that so stop posting shit that makes you appear uninformed. You've been spewing bullshit at such an unprecedented space of time that you can't keep up with the facts any longer.

Yup, this is utter bullshit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Shit-can it and put Genesis in.

Your coming across like Jan. And it is just a matter of time before some liberal organization pumps him full of Thorazine and makes him a ward of the government.

It's purely about the First Ammendment.

If you don't get why Evolution is taught, then you are as lost as the dumb ass teabaggers.

May as well oppose teaching the "theory of gravity" and change it to "intelligent falling." Let's get back to covering the cave man vs. dinosaur wars.

The four elements are earth, fire, air, and water.

Man, that is teabag easy!

Let's do it.

You aren't that dumb, Lamont, just a provocateur.

Quote:
I don't see Tea people asking congress to establish a law promoting a religion. I see Tea people wanting people to stop slamming them because they are Christians. Again it is the class of people slamming people for practicing what they believe in. Mainly, freedom of religion because it is right whether you agree with it or not. That is what a liberal would promote. Not this attacking a group of people for practicing their rights under the Constitution. The liberal movement is dead. Everybody is conservative. So-called liberals are conservatives and pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to ignore. So-called conservatives are conservatives because they do the exact same thing.

Freedom of religion is a phrase often disguising the potential for a multitude of sins. Religious belief systems can tip this equation into a nightmarish scenario such as Sharia law, per example. Consider also the history of the Roman Church which at times was the Government in parts of Europe. A tyrannical, undemocratic and cruel government more demonic than the Saudi Arabian or Iranian governments of today. So, what do we really mean when we talk about 'freedom of religion?.

[British accent] Oh, shut up!

What the hell does that mean?

It is a crime to have students actually know "something" about their government?

Quote:
Maybe use Jim Tavegia's pneumonic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Hell, I believe in the Constitution...unlike some Lipton Tantrum drinkers.

If you can produce a coherent argument as to why mentioning religion in the government sphere is 'establishing' a religion I would be interested.

As I have posted, it is no more establishing a religion than is mention of Fords assembly line in school the establishment of a National auto.

Quote:
I don't see Tea people asking congress to establish a law promoting a religion.

NPR just fired Juan Williams for not adhering to their PC party line...that is far more dangerous to the country as NPR gets federal funds yet the 1st amendment does not apply there.

Quote:
I am all in favor of their expression of religious belief - just not as fake science curriculum designed to dumb down the populace and advance their religious agenda

So you would prohibit all mention of the Global Warming Cult in the schools?

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe use Jim Tavegia's pneumonic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Hell, I believe in the Constitution...unlike some Lipton Tantrum drinkers.

If you can produce a coherent argument as to why mentioning religion in the government sphere is 'establishing' a religion I would be interested.

As I have posted, it is no more establishing a religion than is mention of Fords assembly line in school the establishment of a National auto.

As I have mentioned....

"Creationism" is not science, it is religion. Your analogy is idiotic. Henry Ford actually existed and has a place in history....we are not being asked to take his existence on faith.

I am also not saying that some religious discussion is not appropriate in history, etc....

However....Creationism as science curriculum is the issue, which has been covered by both the Constitution and Supreme Court.

It is religion.

Better than Henry Ford: How would you feel about deniers saying the the existence of the Holocaust was in question, and said group of dopes was demanding our schools teach that the event never occurred.

Creationism is religion, and we are precluded from having the government endorse it as science.

I am also not demanding we say, "One nation, under Darwin...."

This is a science curriculum debate, with no room for the government being forced to legitimize this religious belief.

Easy.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe use Jim Tavegia's pneumonic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Hell, I believe in the Constitution...unlike some Lipton Tantrum drinkers.

If you can produce a coherent argument as to why mentioning religion in the government sphere is 'establishing' a religion I would be interested.

As I have posted, it is no more establishing a religion than is mention of Fords assembly line in school the establishment of a National auto.

As I have mentioned....

"Creationism" is not science, it is religion. Your analogy is idiotic. Henry Ford actually existed and has a place in history....we are not being asked to take his existence on faith.

Niether is Global warmng but the government spends a lot of money supporting that cult. Are you pretending Jesus was not a historic figure? If so prove it.

Quote:
I am also not saying that some religious discussion is not appropriate in history, etc....

However....Creationism as science curriculum is the issue, which has been covered by both the Constitution and Supreme Court.

The Constitution does not say anything on the issue and the court had an agenda.

Quote:
Better than Henry Ford: How would you feel about deniers saying the the existence of the Holocaust was in question, and said group of dopes was demanding our schools teach that the event never occurred.

Because there is no doubt at all over the holocaust and no one pretends it, as an issue, is religions.

The problem is in using the Establishment clause as an excuse to pretend all mention is such an establishment.

The world is full of folk who fear religion (which is amusing as they also pretend it is simply superstition) and insist all reference to it is prohibited by the Constitution. That is BS as evidenced by 150 years of our history. These same folk have no problem at all funding organizations like NPR who routinely violate the same amendment for political reasons or believe folk should be limited on how they support candidates under campaign finance law...In fact, about the only restriction they want on a free wheeling 1st is with religion...even then they cannot take the issue back to the document but must rely in Judges.

Quote:
Creationism is religion, and we are precluded from having the government endorse it as science.

As is Global Warming...another 'science' that must be taken on faith, yet the left has no problem at all funding it with government funds.

Quote:
This is a science curriculum debate, with no room for the government being forced to legitimize this religious belief.

Easy.

No, it is a Constitutional debate with no room for simply blowing off the intent of the writers for political reasons.

Quote:
The world is full of folk who fear religion

As we should, however, our numbers are considerably reduced thanks to such charming religious practices as burning at the stake and stoning to death.

Quote:
........... (which is amusing as they also pretend it is simply superstition)

Please explain the difference.
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, or on any tree.
And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God; and the cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea" Revelation Ch:7 V:1-2.

Quote:
As we should, however, our numbers are considerably reduced thanks to such charming religious practices as burning at the stake and stoning to death.

You ARE aware of how folk dressed the last time this was true?

It is ancient, ancient history but apparently relied on by many to justify the current fear and loathing of religion and folk religious...

If those with faith treated those without in the same manner the left would wet themselves with fear and indignation but when the left behaves like, well, the left...all is well.

Quote:
It is ancient, ancient history but apparently relied on by many to justify the current fear and loathing of religion and folk religious...

It happened this year in Iran and Afghanistan.

We have people running around the USA telling their supporters that they should consider "2nd amendment options" if they don't win the election.

We have people preaching from the political pulpit, praying to the masses, as it were, calling for a ban to "homosexual marriage', demanding legal ostracism of homosexuals on a religious basis, and the rare (fortunate) outright hate killing. We see bullying by children resulting in suicides of people who were bullied in many places in the USA.

Sorry, it happens today, and it is this close ->||<- to happening in the USA in the near future.

Look at O'Donnell, Palin, Rossi, etc. They revel in abusive, dishonest attacks and claims.

A study of the 1920's in Europe is something you need to do, buster, or have you studied it already and decided you liked the results?

Quote:

Quote:
This is how we had middle school students memorize the basics of the Amendments:

Constitutional Amendments

1. RAPS: the right of religion, assembly, speech, & press
2. Right to bear arms (2 and

Quote:
The infamous "Wall of Separation" is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists who were hammering on his ass and suggesting he was an Atheist. They were messing with his political aspirations and he was trying to reassure them that they had nothing to fear from him.

Exactly!

Quote:

Quote:
It is ancient, ancient history but apparently relied on by many to justify the current fear and loathing of religion and folk religious...

It happened this year in Iran and Afghanistan.

Are Muslim, not Christian

Quote:
We have people running around the USA telling their supporters that they should consider "2nd amendment options" if they don't win the election.

Has nothing to do the Christianity

Quote:
We have people preaching from the political pulpit, praying to the masses, as it were, calling for a ban to "homosexual marriage', demanding legal ostracism of homosexuals on a religious basis, and the rare (fortunate) outright hate killing. We see bullying by children resulting in suicides of people who were bullied in many places in the USA.

As we have from the Black pulpits every election telling their folk to vote democrat...and with a lot more effect (93% democrat vote)

Quote:
Sorry, it happens today, and it is this close ->||<- to happening in the USA in the near future.

Nonsense...a personal opinion, not a political or religious reality

Quote:
Look at O'Donnell, Palin, Rossi, etc. They revel in abusive, dishonest attacks and claims.

You have to be kidding...Look at Obama..he has simply made up arguments to attack his political enemies and he is President (something Bush never did)

Quote:
A study of the 1920's in Europe is something you need to do, buster, or have you studied it already and decided you liked the results?

I fail to see how hyperinflation in Germany and the rise of communism in France has a lot to do with the argument.

Quote:
What the hell does that mean?

It is a crime to have students actually know "something" about their government?

It should be a felony.

"I don't believe in global warming; therefore, creation religious teaching is valid."

Thanks for fllling us in on your pretzel logic.

Can't dally, I am off to audition FNH's new 9mm!

Quote:

Quote:
As we should, however, our numbers are considerably reduced thanks to such charming religious practices as burning at the stake and stoning to death.

You ARE aware of how folk dressed the last time this was true?

Give the churches enough political power again and such crimes will repeat. Only the long and bloody struggle conducted against the church by secular humanists before, during and after The Enlightenment put a stop to such practices. Consider also the fact that the Roman church has YET TO CONFESS the crimes of the inquisition.

Quote:
It is ancient, ancient history but apparently relied on by many to justify the current fear and loathing of religion and folk religious...

Stoning and forced amputations in Muslim nations practicing sharia law have ceased? That's news to me.
So, has your particular denomination rejected the capricious, vengeful God of the old testament yet? Has your denomination reflected upon the obviously leftist views Christ appears to promulgate in the Gospels? James Ch5: V13 comes to mind but there are numerous other passages you should discuss with your brothers and sisters at your next Bible study gathering.
Angles of Grace and Mercy Defend You in Your Studies.

The Framers, in writing the Constitution, chose their words very carefully. Why do you suppose the wording was, " Congress shall make no law..." as opposed to "Congress or the various States shall make no law..."?

That's a Republic for ya...

Quote:

Quote:
What the hell does that mean?

It is a crime to have students actually know "something" about their government?

It should be a felony.

With today's teachers it is more an amazing surprise...

Quote:
"I don't believe in global warming; therefore, creation religious teaching is valid."

Thanks for fllling us in on your pretzel logic.

Can't dally, I am off to audition FNH's new 9mm!

Have you ever tried the 5.7 series? I have always wanted to but have never had the opportunity.

Quote:
Give the churches enough political power again and such crimes will repeat. Only the long and bloody struggle conducted against the church by secular humanists before, during and after The Enlightenment put a stop to such practices. Consider also the fact that the Roman church has YET TO CONFESS the crimes of the inquisition.

I suspect the atheist Communists with their 100 million dead over the last century have those dangerous evil religious folk beat by a pretty big margin.

Quote:

Quote:
Give the churches enough political power again and such crimes will repeat. Only the long and bloody struggle conducted against the church by secular humanists before, during and after The Enlightenment put a stop to such practices. Consider also the fact that the Roman church has YET TO CONFESS the crimes of the inquisition.

I suspect the atheist Communists with their 100 million dead over the last century have those dangerous evil religious folk beat by a pretty big margin.

Right Jim,

And you have to consider that everytime a natural disaster hits anywhere on the planet, those evil religious organizations are always on the scene (usually first) giving out water bottles, food, medicine, clothing, etc;

I just can't imagine the audacity.

Mark

Quote:

Quote:
Give the churches enough political power again and such crimes will repeat. Only the long and bloody struggle conducted against the church by secular humanists before, during and after The Enlightenment put a stop to such practices. Consider also the fact that the Roman church has YET TO CONFESS the crimes of the inquisition.

I suspect the atheist Communists with their 100 million dead over the last century have those dangerous evil religious folk beat by a pretty big margin.

Relativist moral arguments don't hold but what makes you imagine Soviet Communism wasn't a form of state religion?
Besides, if the Medieval Church had the technology, centralized communications and control of a Stalinist regime I'm sure they would have managed to slaughter an equal percentage of the population, especially seeing God was on their side.