Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you get all "outraged" when the president says god bless America at a podium owned by the government while being guarded by government secret service agents etc?
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
No difference
The president invokes the deity all the time
So stop being selective in your "outrage"
And again that kid didn't commit a constitutional violation because he is a private citizen.
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
No difference
The president invokes the deity all the time
So stop being selective in your "outrage"
And again that kid didn't commit a constitutional violation because he is a private citizen.
Exactly, there is only two ways a private citizen can violate the consitution:
1. Own slaves
2. Bring an intoxicating liqour into a juristiction that bans the possesion of it, or sell said liquor in a juristiction that bans the sale of it.
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
No difference
The president invokes the deity all the time
So stop being selective in your "outrage"
And again that kid didn't commit a constitutional violation because he is a private citizen.
Exactly, there is only two ways a private citizen can violate the consitution:
1. Own slaves
2. Bring an intoxicating liqour into a juristiction that bans the possesion of it, or sell said liquor in a juristiction that bans the sale of it.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
Your goal is to use force of arms to silence those who disagree with you, yet you complain of insults?
No difference
The president invokes the deity all the time
So stop being selective in your "outrage"
And again that kid didn't commit a constitutional violation because he is a private citizen.
Exactly, there is only two ways a private citizen can violate the consitution:
1. Own slaves
2. Bring an intoxicating liqour into a juristiction that bans the possesion of it, or sell said liquor in a juristiction that bans the sale of it.
That's astounding Clarence Barrow. Your knowledge of the Constitution is about as adept as everything else you engage it.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
And it's even completely spelled out for you.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
Your goal is to use force of arms to silence those who disagree with you, yet you complain of insults?
That is your spin on my comments. I never said such a thing.
Do you get all "outraged" when the president says god bless America at a podium owned by the government while being guarded by government secret service agents etc?
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
No difference
Your goal is to use force of arms to silence those who disagree with you, yet you complain of insults?
That is your spin on my comments. I never said such a thing.
Welcome to USMB!
That's astounding Clarence Barrow. Your knowledge of the Constitution is about as adept as everything else you engage it.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
And it's even completely spelled out for you.
That is your spin on my comments. I never said such a thing.
You're still not getting it. Talking ABOUT religion is OK as I have already said a few times. Leading the audience to PRACTICE it by reciting a prayer with him is not.
Who was holding a gun on the audience, forcing them all to "practice" religion. Participating in the recitation of said prayer would otherwise have been voluntary.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
That's astounding Clarence Barrow. Your knowledge of the Constitution is about as adept as everything else you engage it.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
And it's even completely spelled out for you.
I know that you think you scored a "gotcha," shallow - but you have failed - as you generally do.
The constitution defines treason - more appropriately - LIMITS treason. Mainly it disempowers the concepts that insulting Obama, speaking ill of Obama, mocking a rodeo clown caricature of Obama, et al - constitute "treason."
Treason then is limited by the Constitution - but the act of treason is not a violation of the Constitution - it is a violation of Federal criminal law.
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
No difference
Huge difference. One is expressing his religious beliefs (and what happened to all of those right wingers insisting that he is a Muslim?) and the other is leading the recital of a prayer.
Oh man..you are really something else.
And why do you feel the need to use bold oversize fonts?
That is your spin on my comments. I never said such a thing.
In fact you have - today.
You called on the courts to engage in coercion to silence speech you oppose. The coercion of the courts is effected through armed police and marshals.
So yes, you have called for the use of arms to silence speech you oppose.
No difference
Huge difference. One is expressing his religious beliefs (and what happened to all of those right wingers insisting that he is a Muslim?) and the other is leading the recital of a prayer.
He recited the prayer he didn't "lead" anyone.[\quote]
When you recite the Lords Prayer in front of a crowd, it is an invitation to join in
if other people recited it along with him so what? That was their choice or do they not have the right?
And if you don't see the leader of the country invoking the deity while using taxpayer money for the equipment, th venues and all the assorted people needed for him to do so as state sanctioned religion then you are deliberately being obtuse..
And why do you feel the need to use bold oversize fonts?
My religion compels me to use bold fonts. You have something against religious freedom?????
Huge difference. One is expressing his religious beliefs (and what happened to all of those right wingers insisting that he is a Muslim?) and the other is leading the recital of a prayer.
He recited the prayer he didn't "lead" anyone.[\quote]
When you recite the Lords Prayer in front of a crowd, it is an invitation to join in
if other people recited it along with him so what? That was their choice or do they not have the right?
And if you don't see the leader of the country invoking the deity while using taxpayer money for the equipment, th venues and all the assorted people needed for him to do so as state sanctioned religion then you are deliberately being obtuse..
And why do you feel the need to use bold oversize fonts?
My religion compels me to use bold fonts. You have something against religious freedom?????
So basically someone praying in front of you compel's you to join in? and once others join in somehow your butthurt elevates to the level of endorsement of religion.
Again, you are one of the most weak willed asshats I have run into if this is the case with you.
He recited the prayer he didn't "lead" anyone.[\quote]
When you recite the Lords Prayer in front of a crowd, it is an invitation to join in
My religion compels me to use bold fonts. You have something against religious freedom?????
So basically someone praying in front of you compel's you to join in?
I won't join in but others certainly do. Just recite the few opening words
to TLP in front of a crowd and I guarantee that many will join in.
So basically someone praying in front of you compel's you to join in?
I won't join in but others certainly do. Just recite the few opening words
to TLP in front of a crowd and I guarantee that many will join in.
and are they compelled by the government to join in?
