OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[Eugene]

[quote]I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion. [/quote]

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by “separation of church and state” and whether it’s the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I’ll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

[faterikcartman]

Eugene, that’s not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable “living document” view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion — even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms — even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called “rights” are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes — not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don’t want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals — meaning actually liberal — generally, while those labeled “liberal” are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don’t really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don’t find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories — wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I’m sorry Christine O’Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate — but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.

[faterikcartman]

Eugene, that’s not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable “living document” view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion — even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms — even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called “rights” are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes — not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don’t want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals — meaning actually liberal — generally, while those labeled “liberal” are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don’t really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don’t find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories — wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I’m sorry Christine O’Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate — but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.

[faterikcartman]

Eugene, that’s not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable “living document” view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion — even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms — even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called “rights” are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes — not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don’t want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals — meaning actually liberal — generally, while those labeled “liberal” are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don’t really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don’t find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories — wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I’m sorry Christine O’Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate — but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.

[faterikcartman]

Eugene, that’s not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable “living document” view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion — even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms — even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called “rights” are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes — not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don’t want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals — meaning actually liberal — generally, while those labeled “liberal” are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don’t really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don’t find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories — wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I’m sorry Christine O’Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate — but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.

[faterikcartman]

Eugene, that’s not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable “living document” view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion — even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms — even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called “rights” are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes — not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don’t want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals — meaning actually liberal — generally, while those labeled “liberal” are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don’t really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don’t find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories — wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I’m sorry Christine O’Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate — but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.

[scaredyclassic]

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

[scaredyclassic]

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

[scaredyclassic]

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

[scaredyclassic]

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

[scaredyclassic]

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

[weberlin]

[quote=faterikcartman]

— wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

….

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more ‘conservatives’ would speak like this.

[weberlin]

[quote=faterikcartman]

— wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

….

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more ‘conservatives’ would speak like this.

[weberlin]

[quote=faterikcartman]

— wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

….

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more ‘conservatives’ would speak like this.

[weberlin]

[quote=faterikcartman]

— wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

….

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more ‘conservatives’ would speak like this.

[Author]

Posts