O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[drsmith1072]

As compared to Barney Frank or Charlie Rengel? It's all hilarious!

Did i make the claim that they were moral?? Nope. Furthermore, how does your comment support, or even address, the spin that "We on the right simply want moral people in government." when you nominate less than moral people to represent you? Oh you mean it doesn't support it and that it is nothing more than a lame distraction tactic because that and a list of moronic vague generalities is all you have to offer. Got it.

The lame distraction is you attributing somebody else's position or words as mine. You don't know my position on the subject, yet you presume to. My position is that regardless of which side you are on, Vote for the Person most capable of doing a good job. We all have baggage, now do we seek to disqualify, or do we seek the most capable and competent? Now are we speaking generally or just generally speaking????? ... Thought so.

UH hello, earth to moron. YOU responded to my post with your meaningless drivel in a desperate attempt to change the subject. That's on you.
I never attributed anyone's position to you that is why I asked a question based on the topic BEFORE you tried to change it.
I made no presumptions about you specfiically, so once again you try to despreately change the subject in order to avoid a debate that you can't win.

If you didn't want to respond to what was actually written then why even bother responding? Are you trolling again?

How about those less than moral tea party and republican candidates?? LOL

 

[Intense]

Did i make the claim that they were moral?? Nope. Furthermore, how does your comment support, or even address, the spin that "We on the right simply want moral people in government." when you nominate less than moral people to represent you? Oh you mean it doesn't support it and that it is nothing more than a lame distraction tactic because that and a list of moronic vague generalities is all you have to offer. Got it.

The lame distraction is you attributing somebody else's position or words as mine. You don't know my position on the subject, yet you presume to. My position is that regardless of which side you are on, Vote for the Person most capable of doing a good job. We all have baggage, now do we seek to disqualify, or do we seek the most capable and competent? Now are we speaking generally or just generally speaking????? ... Thought so.

UH hello, earth to moron. YOU responded to my post with your meaningless drivel in a desperate attempt to change the subject. That's on you.
I never attributed anyone's position to you that is why I asked a question based on the topic BEFORE you tried to change it.
I made no presumptions about you specfiically, so once again you try to despreately change the subject in order to avoid a debate that you can't win.

If you didn't want to respond to what was actually written then why even bother responding? Are you trolling again?

How about those less than moral tea party and republican candidates?? LOL

You implied the position in the content of your disingenuous post, moron. You imply allot of things, in your constant babbling. You have a really active imagination. You do not set the terms of what I post, as hard as that is to accept, you must come to terms with what you can and can't impose on others. That said, I'm diverting nor attempting to divert anything. That is another false implication.

 

[drsmith1072]

The lame distraction is you attributing somebody else's position or words as mine. You don't know my position on the subject, yet you presume to. My position is that regardless of which side you are on, Vote for the Person most capable of doing a good job. We all have baggage, now do we seek to disqualify, or do we seek the most capable and competent? Now are we speaking generally or just generally speaking????? ... Thought so.

UH hello, earth to moron. YOU responded to my post with your meaningless drivel in a desperate attempt to change the subject. That's on you.
I never attributed anyone's position to you that is why I asked a question based on the topic BEFORE you tried to change it.
I made no presumptions about you specfiically, so once again you try to despreately change the subject in order to avoid a debate that you can't win.

If you didn't want to respond to what was actually written then why even bother responding? Are you trolling again?

How about those less than moral tea party and republican candidates?? LOL

You implied the position in the content of your disingenuous post, moron. You imply allot of things, in your constant babbling. You have a really active imagination. You do not set the terms of what I post, as hard as that is to accept, you must come to terms with what you can and can't impose on others. That said, I'm diverting nor attempting to divert anything. That is another false implication.

LOL So that's the best that you've got?? I implied it accoding to your misinterpretation and paranoia. Got it. Thanks for explaining that you think everyone is out to get you. LOL You say I have an active imagination and you are the one making shite up based on how you believe I implied something even though I never actually said it nor did I actually imply it. LOL Now that is hilarious. LOL

FACT: I never attributed anything to you.

FACT: I never presumed to know your postion but was commenting on the other poster's content, which you avoided, and my own post.

FACT: I never said anything about deciding the terms of what you post, i merely pointed out that if you chime in with some off topic BS that you will be called out for it. So please don't whine about it when it happens.

FACT: The previous poster made a comment about how the right wants moral people in washington, so i commented on the tea party candidates and instead of commenting on that topic you tried to change the subject by bringing up two dems that are less than moral.

Got anymore moronic spin or is that the best that you've got??

 

[Liability]

Why is anybody arguing with drsmurf when the guy can't even keep his shit straight?

 

[Intense]

UH hello, earth to moron. YOU responded to my post with your meaningless drivel in a desperate attempt to change the subject. That's on you.
I never attributed anyone's position to you that is why I asked a question based on the topic BEFORE you tried to change it.
I made no presumptions about you specfiically, so once again you try to despreately change the subject in order to avoid a debate that you can't win.

If you didn't want to respond to what was actually written then why even bother responding? Are you trolling again?

How about those less than moral tea party and republican candidates?? LOL

You implied the position in the content of your disingenuous post, moron. You imply allot of things, in your constant babbling. You have a really active imagination. You do not set the terms of what I post, as hard as that is to accept, you must come to terms with what you can and can't impose on others. That said, I'm diverting nor attempting to divert anything. That is another false implication.

LOL So that's the best that you've got?? I implied it accoding to your misinterpretation and paranoia. Got it. Thanks for explaining that you think everyone is out to get you. LOL You say I have an active imagination and you are the one making shite up based on how you believe I implied something even though I never actually said it nor did I actually imply it. LOL Now that is hilarious. LOL

FACT: I never attributed anything to you.

FACT: I never presumed to know your postion but was commenting on the other poster's content, which you avoided, and my own post.

FACT: I never said anything about deciding the terms of what you post, i merely pointed out that if you chime in with some off topic BS that you will be called out for it. So please don't whine about it when it happens.

FACT: The previous poster made a comment about how the right wants moral people in washington, so i commented on the tea party candidates and instead of commenting on that topic you tried to change the subject by bringing up two dems that are less than moral.

Got anymore moronic spin or is that the best that you've got??

Get over yourself. You just like to spin and make shit up as you go. I get it. There is nothing genuine about your argument or your complaining. Read the Thread post Dip Shit. Talk about diversions and tangents. Sitting there making accusations, implications, then denying the fact. Watch out that that finger you point doesn't poke your eye out, Pussy.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The Motto on our coins does not require me to accept any religious belief.

The mere suggestion by civil authority that we should trust in God constitutes an establishment of religion. Keep in mind that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it, and that the mere intrusion of the civil magistrate into the field of religion at once destroys all religious liberty.

It establishes no State religion.

The word "religion" in the establishment clause does not mean "state religion." It means the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it.

The term "an establishment" means a settlement, a recognition, or a support. The evil law which establishes `In God we trust'' to be the national motto, settles, recognizes and supports the duty to trust in our Creator, which is a duty that we owe to our Creator. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law respecting a settlement, recognition or support of a duty we owe to our Creator.

 

[Intense]

The Motto on our coins does not require me to accept any religious belief.

The mere suggestion by civil authority that we should trust in God constitutes an establishment of religion. Keep in mind that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it, and that the mere intrusion of the civil magistrate into the field of religion at once destroys all religious liberty.

It establishes no State religion.

The word "religion" in the establishment clause does not mean "state religion." It means the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it.

The term "an establishment" means a settlement, a recognition, or a support. The evil law which establishes `In God we trust'' to be the national motto, settles, recognizes and supports the duty to trust in our Creator, which is a duty that we owe to our Creator. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law respecting a settlement, recognition or support of a duty we owe to our Creator.

Somehow my Conscience is not disturbed by it. There is a part of me that even appreciates the honesty. One could even look at it as a warning. Personally I put my faith and Trust in God, not man, society, or government, or money. Try looking at the phrase as a statement of disclosure., a warning not to trust in it. It's nice that you borrow from Madison here. It is a good perspective, and honored.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The Motto on our coins does not require me to accept any religious belief.

The mere suggestion by civil authority that we should trust in God constitutes an establishment of religion. Keep in mind that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it, and that the mere intrusion of the civil magistrate into the field of religion at once destroys all religious liberty.

It establishes no State religion.

The word "religion" in the establishment clause does not mean "state religion." It means the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it.

The term "an establishment" means a settlement, a recognition, or a support. The evil law which establishes `In God we trust'' to be the national motto, settles, recognizes and supports the duty to trust in our Creator, which is a duty that we owe to our Creator. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making law respecting a settlement, recognition or support of a duty we owe to our Creator.

Somehow my Conscience is not disturbed by it.

With me, it's a matter of principle, as it was with the great James Madison.

The statute establishing "In God We Trust" as our nation motto is one of those provisions which James Madison believed are short of the principle and leave crevices through which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human. "We are always to keep in mind", wrote Madison, "that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasoning in support of a bad one."

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

There is a part of me that even appreciates the honesty.

Huh?

One could even look at it as a warning.

A warning to believe that something is a duty we owe to our Creator is an establishment of religion.

Personally I put my faith and Trust in God, not man, society, or government, or money.

Who has absolute and exclusive authority to establish the duties you owe to your Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it? God, or the U. S. Government?

It's nice that you borrow from Madison here. It is a good perspective, and honored.

I don't interpret the Constitution according to the views of James Madison. I apply the well established common law rules construction, as they existed in the late 1780's. I do however share Madison's general view of religious liberty.

I don't subscribe to Madison's view that the first clause of Article One Section Eight doesn't grant Congress broad authority to provide for the general welfare.