- This topic has 1,060 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2010 at 6:30 PM #621223October 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM #620155
faterikcartman
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under “tea party” I see trouble ahead.
————————————————
O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School – apparently unaware of the “church and state” language in the First Amendment.
Amid laughter in the audience, O’Donnell continued: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
———
Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.O’Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me,” she said. “Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are.”
——————————-
I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.
What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.
The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.
Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?
Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.
Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.
So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.
October 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM #620235Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under “tea party” I see trouble ahead.
————————————————
O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School – apparently unaware of the “church and state” language in the First Amendment.
Amid laughter in the audience, O’Donnell continued: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
———
Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.O’Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me,” she said. “Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are.”
——————————-
I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.
What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.
The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.
Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?
Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.
Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.
So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.
October 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM #620790Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under “tea party” I see trouble ahead.
————————————————
O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School – apparently unaware of the “church and state” language in the First Amendment.
Amid laughter in the audience, O’Donnell continued: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
———
Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.O’Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me,” she said. “Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are.”
——————————-
I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.
What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.
The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.
Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?
Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.
Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.
So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.
October 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM #620909Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under “tea party” I see trouble ahead.
————————————————
O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School – apparently unaware of the “church and state” language in the First Amendment.
Amid laughter in the audience, O’Donnell continued: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
———
Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.O’Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me,” she said. “Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are.”
——————————-
I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.
What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.
The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.
Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?
Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.
Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.
So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.
October 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM #621228Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under “tea party” I see trouble ahead.
————————————————
O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School – apparently unaware of the “church and state” language in the First Amendment.
Amid laughter in the audience, O’Donnell continued: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
———
Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.O’Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me,” she said. “Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are.”
——————————-
I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.
What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.
The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.
Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?
Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.
Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.
So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.
October 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM #620165ocrenter
ParticipantCongress 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.
sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.
October 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM #620245ParticipantCongress 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.
sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.
October 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM #620800ParticipantCongress 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.
sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.
October 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM #620918ParticipantCongress 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.
sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.
October 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM #621237ParticipantCongress 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.
sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.
October 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM #620170KIBU
ParticipantGeez, I think the party picked the wrong one to protect the constitution !
October 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM #620250ParticipantGeez, I think the party picked the wrong one to protect the constitution !
October 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM #620805ParticipantGeez, I think the party picked the wrong one to protect the constitution !
October 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM #620923ParticipantGeez, I think the party picked the wrong one to protect the constitution !
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.