What Calvin Coolidge thinks of Obama

[glockmail]

We conservatives plan on giving y'all exactly what you wished for, Gayboy.

 

[no1tovote4]

stop making stuff up, i just saw him on

Hemmm. I thought John Edwards could only channel little dead girls. The theory was that they were who he most related to in the human family he so desperately wanted to become a member of...

 

[Hum Dinger]

Interperting Coolidge's speech as supporting guns and religion and therefore at opposition to Obama's remark is quite a stretch.

Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independance and there is little doubt that Jefferson would whole-heartedly approve of Obama's election.

Typically Republican way of ignorantly assuming that they are the model of Americanism and that whatever they believe is supported by the Constitution and other historical Americana.

Modeling Americanism to their convenience, an image of themselves.

Let's see wasn't it Jefferson that promised "A wall of separation between Church and State"

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Interperting Coolidge's speech as supporting guns and religion and therefore at opposition to Obama's remark is quite a stretch.

Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independance and there is little doubt that Jefferson would whole-heartedly approve of Obama's election.

Typically Republican way of ignorantly assuming that they are the model of Americanism and that whatever they believe is supported by the Constitution and other historical Americana.

Modeling Americanism to their convenience, an image of themselves.

Let's see wasn't it Jefferson that promised "A wall of separation between Church and State"

Yes he did. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The problem with that is this: Jefferson wasn't one of the framers and a letter to a religious group hardly a basis for interpreting the US Constitution.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes he did. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The problem with that is this: Jefferson wasn't one of the framers and a letter to a religious group hardly a basis for interpreting the US Constitution.

um, yes he was a framer

and the letter was basically stating that the government would stay out of the church
AKA no official church of the USA

 

[CrimsonWhite]

um, yes he was a framer

and the letter was basically stating that the government would stay out of the church
AKA no official church of the USA

Um no, he wasn't a framer. He wasn't one of the signatories of the US Constitution. Furthermore, he wasn't anywhere near Philadelphia during the Convention and played absolutely zero part in the actual framing of he constitution. Was he a founder? Absolutely. He penned the Declaration and served as our third President. He wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, along with Madison. He played a huge part in the founding of our nation, but since he was not one of the fifty-five men that hammered out the basis of our entire nation, I, along with many legal scholas, consider his opinion on Church and State to be just another interpretation and not the final word on the subject.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is what matters. This is what is ironclad. This is what was ratified. Not Jefferson's letter.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This means that there shall not be an offcial state religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This means that the practice of religion shall not be hindered in any way.

There is no "wall" between the two. This was an opinon of a flawed man that showed multiple examples of hypocrisy in all aspects of his service to our nation.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

These are the word of Jefferson that the ACLU and others use to remove prayer from school. To remove the Ten Commandments fom court rooms. To remove Nativity scenes from public parks. I would like to think that had Jefferson known that his letter would be used as law, he would not have written it. But who knows.

 

[editec]

Quote:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This means that the practice of religion shall not be hindered in any way.

Nice sentiment, but I hate to break it to you.

This society hinders religions all the time.

First of all because it gets to decide which religions it believes are religions.

Secondly because it gets to decide which aspects of every religion it will tolerate.

Doubt me? Ask the Mormons. Ask the Rastfari. Ask the American Moslems.

We interfer with all sorts of religious practices.

We have LIMITED freedom of religion.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Nice sentiment, but I hate to break it to you.

This society hinders religions all the time.

First of all because it gets to decide which religions it believes are religions.

Secondly because it gets to decide which aspects of every religion it will tolerate.

Doubt me? Ask the Mormons. Ask the Rastfari. Ask the American Moslems.

We interfer with all sorts of religious practices.

We have LIMITED freedom of religion.

I'll give you that.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You do realize that he posted a speech from a long time ago and applied its tenets to the current timeframe... right?

You do realize it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what a dead ass president from another era thinks of any damn thing.

You do realize that, don't you?

 

[bk1983]

You do realize it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what a dead ass president from another era thinks of any damn thing.

You do realize that, don't you?

lmao!! in other news here is what Lincoln thinks of Bush.

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Abraham Lincoln

See any idiot can take quotes from the past and apply them where they see fit.

 

[glockmail]

.....

Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independance and there is little doubt that Jefferson would whole-heartedly approve of Obama's election.

......

I don't think he'd approve of all the campaign money from foreign interests as well as all the finance laws that were broken. Not to mention the voting irregularities and black panther intimidation.

 

[glockmail]

lmao!! in other news here is what Lincoln thinks of Bush.

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Abraham Lincoln

See any idiot can take quotes from the past and apply them where they see fit.

It should not surprise, then, that Bush's critics would seek to turn the Lincoln example against Bush. But in attempting to accomplish as much in Monday's Washington Post, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. mischaracterizes the history he purports to describe.

In the Monday Post, Schlesinger evaluates the current debate on Iran by warning of "ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventative war against Iran." Suggesting that an attack on Iran would come about not by congressional authorization but rather by "presidential prerogative," he cites then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln's 1848 letter to his law partner, William Herndon, on the matter of President James Polk's Mexican War.

In that letter, Lincoln responded to Herndon's defense of President Polk's attack on Mexican soil. In reply to Herndon's suggestion that a President is always justified in invading foreign soil when "necessary to repel invasion," and that the President -- "the sole judge" of whether such "necessity" exists -- need not consult Congress, Lincoln wrote, "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure." The President, Lincoln warned, could not be trusted to be the "sole judge" of such necessity: "You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the [foreign power] invading us' ... but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'"

Schlesinger suggests that Lincoln's opinion, as stated in the 1848 letter, is directly relevant to the current Iran debate. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that "Abraham Lincoln would rejoice" if the "messianic" George W. Bush were to "forgo solo preventative war and return to cooperation with other countries in the interest of collective security."

To even the most poorly versed student of history, Schlesinger's distortion of the current Iran debate should give pause. In no way could warnings of the threat posed by Iran be called a matter of "presidential prerogative." Generally speaking, the Iran threat was in recent times flagged by Democrats as a means for criticizing alleged U.S. military overextension in Iraq, and today the Iran debate occupies both of the elected branches. Schlesinger could not seriously suggest that President Bush has embraced the military option with greater enthusiasm than Congress has. In no way could the reasonable observer take President Bush, pointing to the threat posed by Iran, as purporting to declare, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." Schlesinger's attention apparently is focused so intently (as always) on Camelot that he boasts complete ignorance of contemporary events. But his reading of Lincoln proves no more accurate than does his reading of the Iran situation.

The American Spectator : Schlesinger Fails History

 

[Hum Dinger]

Yes he did. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The problem with that is this: Jefferson wasn't one of the framers and a letter to a religious group hardly a basis for interpreting the US Constitution.

Um...this discussion is in reference to the U.S. Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson was the primary author.