Religious Liberty and the Nation

[PoliticalChic]

Every claim I make is backed up, supported, documented and linked.

Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.

3. The NYSUN posits....."The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."

Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.

I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;

"The failure of the Republican candidates to come up with satisfying answers to Hugh Hewitt’s questions about religious liberty....." is amplified due to the fact that it is " the first right in the Bill of Rights..."

That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy.
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun

Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"


Post #13, you barnacle.

Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.

The link you followed.


You must envy me so.


Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!

Closely!!!

Or else!

So you are saying you provided the link 12 posts AFTER THE OP where the citation was made, but wasn't linked! Does that make any bloody sense to you, Chica? You're lying again to try and cover your ass. damn but you're not only dumb, but a dumb LIAR, too!

BTW, take your "order" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Chica!

Learn to read.

Really weak there, Chica. Nothing at all wrong with my reading skills. There is a definite flaw in your integrity though, Chica! That has been proven over and over again by a good number of folks on this board. You are nothing but a narcissistic, LYING want to be trying to impress others to boost your own self-image, along with this:

pseudointellectual:

noun
1.
a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

adjective
3.
of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly:
the definition of pseudointellectual

I want you to follow my every word!
That's an order!

And remain as jealous as you are!

Good doggie!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The population of the US at the time of the Civil War was about 31 million. And at least 600,000 died in that war, possibly a third more than that. That was the cost of not living up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence.

Psst.....that was the Revolutionary War that was being compared to the French Revolution.

Takes a certain kind of stupidity...or....that 'Old' thing in your avi, to confuse it with the Civil War.

Try B12.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today's editorial from the NYSun focuses on a topic largely hidden by the main stream media, and corrupted by the judicial system.

1. Prior to our 32nd President evincing his disrespect and disregard for minorities, by making his very first selection for the Supreme Court an official of the KKK, it was accepted that this nation was founded on a religious basis....
....after all, ...
The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

Our revolution included the American Civil War. Are you saying that wasn't violent?

How many slaveowners were 'orthodox Trinitarian Christians'?

1. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

a. "That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equalivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years."
Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.



2. One can hardly count only the massacre at the Bastille...or only the 'Terror'...or omit the fact of the wars that resulted from the other European monarchies attempting to put the cork back in the bottle.
Napoleon's wars alone would add some 3.5- 6.5 million deaths.
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000."
Read more: What is the death toll of the French revolution

What is the death toll of the French revolution - ixzz1ejRVb3k8


BTW.....that's an example of an erudite post.

Learn from it.

Hardly. Quoting what others have written while adding nothing to the information quoted is not indicative of anything.

Having the intellect to extrapolate the information contained in the post and apply it to similar situations or to use it to propose solutions to problems presented, would be indicative of strong reasoning ability. None of which you have presented within the context is this or any other thread you've posted.

You mean you can't read???


Shocker.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's becomes clearer that you lack the intellectual ability to process information or to form any cogent arguments based on that information. Not really unusual in the conservative brain. Conservatives do not adapt well to new ideas and try to cling to the so called "tried and true", so no one notices how fearful they are to try any different approaches.

Using fancy language and big words to try to cover your lack of intellectual skills and inability to assimilate new information, isn't working well for you.

My first notion was that someone gave you a dictionary for Christmas.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Let's take a look at that assertion you made and see how it holds up to scrutiny by just looking at your OP for this contrived diatribe of the C&P order you are so very fond of posting in your narcissistic manner.
Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made? It's not there, Chica, and a mention of the "potential source" sure as Hell is not a link. So your claim that you always provide a link is false makes you a LIAR. But perhaps there is a reason you didn't provide a link on purpose.

I did a little investigating to see if you might have left that link off purposefully and I discovered a very likely reason for your deviousness. Let look at that quote up close;
That is from the first paragraph of the NY Sun article you didn't link, LIAR. The first part of it before the faulty 5 period ellipsis you placed is from the first sentence of the paragraph consisting of four(4) sentences. That is followed with your commentary to alter the point of the paragraph and certainly did change it; "...is amplified due to the fact that it is...". That is followed by a segment from the fourth and last sentence as if it was part of the FIRST sentence and failed to display a leading ellipsis ; "the first right in the Bill of Rights...". The article can been seen here for anyone who want's to can verify Chica's dishonesty and perfidy.
Getting Religious Liberty Right - The New York Sun

Editing another's copyrighted material to change its meaning is not only dishonest and lying conduct, but it is prosecutable you bloody idiot! I caught you doing this crap before as you should well remember. In any case, because you have lied again multiple time in a single post, I'll supply you with that reminder once more. Here it is again, Chica. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you bloody LIAR!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

"Where in the OP is the link you claim you always provide to back a citation you've made?"


Post #13, you barnacle.

Starts with quotation marks, ends with quotation marks, and follows with the link.

The link you followed.


You must envy me so.


Now....I order you: follow every single post of mine!

Closely!!!

Or else!

So you are saying you provided the link 12 posts AFTER THE OP where the citation was made, but wasn't linked! Does that make any bloody sense to you, Chica? You're lying again to try and cover your ass. damn but you're not only dumb, but a dumb LIAR, too!

BTW, take your "order" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Chica!

Learn to read.

Really weak there, Chica. Nothing at all wrong with my reading skills. There is a definite flaw in your integrity though, Chica! That has been proven over and over again by a good number of folks on this board. You are nothing but a narcissistic, LYING want to be trying to impress others to boost your own self-image, along with this:

pseudointellectual:

noun
1.
a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

adjective
3.
of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly:
the definition of pseudointellectual

I want you to follow my every word!
That's an order!

And remain as jealous as you are!

Good doggie!

That is pretty damn pathetic, Chica. You are one really sick and deranged person! You lie through your teeth, and everyone else has the problem but you. Work on getting well with your therapist, Chica!

Another warning to you though; lie again or boast that you never lie, and I'll lay your lies out again. You really should not have disparaged my character by painting me with your faults like you did when I first came on this board you hypocritical twit.

I have a long fucking memory you idiot. Clean up your act bitch or continue to suffer being exposed for the narcissistic, lying, pseudointellectual you truly are. Now go lay beside the reflecting pool and admire your countenance once more. Have a nice fucking day, Chica!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Limits of Religious Freedom

Explain?