My Presidential Choices

[GHook93]

(1) Kasich:
His record in OH undeniable. He inherited one of the worst situations of all the 50 states. He turned it around, balanced the budget, cut taxes and spending and made OH a top destination for business. Yes he is a social moderate, but that's a plus in my book. Yes he expanded Medicaid, but if you list to his reasoning, it's honorable. I am glad he doesn't try to hide from it. I believe his helping the poor in a conservative way will win groups to the GOP that they have written off. It also doesn't hurt that he will win OH in the generals.

(2) Fiorina: She really impressed me in the debates. I love his business background and know-hows. I love her story, she started as a secretary and worked her way up.

(3) Cruz, Paul and Rubio tie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd be willing to lower taxes on the smaller businesses making less then 20,000,000/year. I think it is time to encourage competition! We must Tariff the shit out of imports + do away with h1b's the big corporations are using to fuck our market over. Our people must get high wages and we shouldn't be competing against the shit holes of the world this is the way we force wages back up.

Raise taxes back to 45% on the big businesses....Get rid of loop holes.

 

[Agit8r]

(1) Kasich:
His record in OH undeniable. He inherited one of the worst situations of all the 50 states. He turned it around, balanced the budget, cut taxes and spending and made OH a top destination for business. Yes he is a social moderate, but that's a plus in my book. Yes he expanded Medicaid, but if you list to his reasoning, it's honorable. I am glad he doesn't try to hide from it. I believe his helping the poor in a conservative way will win groups to the GOP that they have written off. It also doesn't hurt that he will win OH in the generals.

(2) Fiorina: She really impressed me in the debates. I love his business background and know-hows. I love her story, she started as a secretary and worked her way up.

(3) Cruz, Paul and Rubio tie

Kasich is probably the sanest of the candidates, by his jobs record is nothing to get hard about. New York, California, Oregon, and Washington (all with Democratic governors) had just as high a percentage of private sector job growth during the same period, and did so without the Auto Bailout propping them up.

 

[Auld Phart]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

 

[Agit8r]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

 

[Auld Phart]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Yes, the Letter to the Danbury Baptists...

a PRIVATE letter from the president.

NOT an edict,
NOT an Executive Order,
NOT an Act of Congress

a PRIVATE letter.

I get a major laugh every time someone brings it up.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Tiny government at any and all cost is retarded. The world doesn't work this way and that is the way it is...

Somalia and Haiti both have either no government or useless government. People need to be taxed to pay for the infrastructure that everyone uses and to be the best in many areas.

 

[GHook93]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.
.

Funny you say that, but the biggest infringement on privacy rights came under Obama and will be further eroded under Sanders (who I guarantee you support for president).

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.
.

You mean lol Korea, Bat of Pigs, Vietnam, Kosovo and Libya, oh yea all those wars happen without congressional approval. You might disagree with the Iraq war, but Bush went to congress and got approval.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform. .

Lol because she is against gay marriage that is now a non-issue. Privacy rights get curtailed the bigger government gets, so if you like your privacy rights you support the wrong party.

Most Americans support stopping illegal immigration. I would 't support anyone who argued to the opposite:







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GHook93]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jwoodie]

(1) Kasich:
His record in OH undeniable. He inherited one of the worst situations of all the 50 states. He turned it around, balanced the budget, cut taxes and spending and made OH a top destination for business. Yes he is a social moderate, but that's a plus in my book. Yes he expanded Medicaid, but if you list to his reasoning, it's honorable. I am glad he doesn't try to hide from it. I believe his helping the poor in a conservative way will win groups to the GOP that they have written off. It also doesn't hurt that he will win OH in the generals.

(2) Fiorina: She really impressed me in the debates. I love his business background and know-hows. I love her story, she started as a secretary and worked her way up.

(3) Cruz, Paul and Rubio tie

1) Agree. Presidents should be former Governors.

2) I like her, but she needs some governmental experience.

3) VP candidates. Rubio would be an ideal match with Kasich.

I don't know what to do with Trump. He has good leadership qualities, but he would get bogged down with Washington politics. (Even Reagan had to compromise.) What else could he do?

 

[Agit8r]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

 

[Auld Phart]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."

Good thing that never happened, isn't it?

 

[Agit8r]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."

Good thing that never happened, isn't it?

It happened eventually, once the religionists had corrupted our government, since they don't really care about truly American values.

 

[Auld Phart]

When I got to this part:

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I got to this part:

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."

Good thing that never happened, isn't it?

It happened eventually, once the religionists had corrupted our government, since they don't really care about truly American values.

and now we have one quote from Madison, and an excerpt from a letter written by Jefferson.

Doesn't sound like much of a majority.

Esp since the Constitution specifically states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

[Agit8r]

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."

Good thing that never happened, isn't it?

It happened eventually, once the religionists had corrupted our government, since they don't really care about truly American values.

and now we have one quote from Madison, and an excerpt from a letter written by Jefferson.

Doesn't sound like much of a majority.

Esp since the Constitution specifically states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Yes. government has no business supporting religion in any way. Nothing ambiguous about it.

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

But of course religionists don't care if their religion is bad, as long as they can force it down the throats of disbelievers' children.

 

[Auld Phart]

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."

Good thing that never happened, isn't it?

It happened eventually, once the religionists had corrupted our government, since they don't really care about truly American values.

and now we have one quote from Madison, and an excerpt from a letter written by Jefferson.

Doesn't sound like much of a majority.

Esp since the Constitution specifically states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Yes. government has no business supporting religion in any way. Nothing ambiguous about it.

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

But of course religionists don't care if their religion is bad, as long as they can force it down the throats of disbelievers' children.

Someone forcing it down your throat?

 

[GHook93]

(1) Kasich:
His record in OH undeniable. He inherited one of the worst situations of all the 50 states. He turned it around, balanced the budget, cut taxes and spending and made OH a top destination for business. Yes he is a social moderate, but that's a plus in my book. Yes he expanded Medicaid, but if you list to his reasoning, it's honorable. I am glad he doesn't try to hide from it. I believe his helping the poor in a conservative way will win groups to the GOP that they have written off. It also doesn't hurt that he will win OH in the generals.

(2) Fiorina: She really impressed me in the debates. I love his business background and know-hows. I love her story, she started as a secretary and worked her way up.

(3) Cruz, Paul and Rubio tie

1) Agree. Presidents should be former Governors.

2) I like her, but she needs some governmental experience.

3) VP candidates. Rubio would be an ideal match with Kasich.

I don't know what to do with Trump. He has good leadership qualities, but he would get bogged down with Washington politics. (Even Reagan had to compromise.) What else could he do?

Running a strong campaign and fighting the opposition is what campaigns are about. Any good and successful businessman knows compromise is essential. Trump knows this, but he also knows not to play his cards to early and to me to never let them see you sweat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GHook93]

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kasich:

That he's a social conservative is undeniable – hostile to privacy rights, the rights of gay Americans, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state; his judicial appointments, including appointments to the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly reflect this social conservative agenda.

And like the other republican candidates, he can't be trusted to not start another failed, illegal war – this time with Iran.

Fiorina:

Yet another republican hostile to privacy rights, another republican hostile to the rights of gay Americans, and another republican wrong on immigration, opposing comprehensive reform.

As for Cruz, Paul and Rubio - see above.

You're at liberty to support whomever you wish, of course, provided you understand a majority of Americans don't agree with you.

When I got to this part:

, and the Framer's mandate of separation of church and state;

I stopped reading.

It's sad when people don't believe in reality.

"The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

Tell me again when the constitution was written? Hint it was 1819! You also quote the wrong phrase, in the Reynolds and Everson cases the court quoted Thomas Jefferson, "the wall of separation of church and state." TJ argued this when he was arguing in favor of the establishment clause.

The doctrine of Separation of Church and state came about by case law. It was established in 1947 by the Everson case. Get your facts straight.

I chose to quote Madison, because he was involved with framing the constitution, and thus more relevant to what the framers intended.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ...in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'

That is my point, you know nothing the Separation of Church and State doctrine. It was created by case law and the reasoning was based off of Thomas Jefferson's words and not Madison!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk