It is currently Thu May 28, 2026 6:38 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Squanto wrote:
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
From Yahoo..."Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short."

Hmmm, where's the video vilification of Coons for this snafu? Not from you, DP, but from the media in general. Like I said before, I'd prefer across the board mockery. Follow that with tar and feathering, and then maybe some burning at the stake.


Coons does not hold himself out to be a Constitutional expert. O'Donnell does.


So what? How can you run for congress and not know the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, at the very least? Besides, my point is that one cartoon character gets vilified while the other does not. Not that there's anything new about media bias.


Top
 Profile  
 
CriminallyVu1gar
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:56 pm
Posts: 16859
Are you really being an apologist for Christine "no-wank" O'Donnell?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:02 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Sigh...


Top
 Profile  
 
fly as hale
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:06 pm 
Offline
Mrs. Miller
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:02 pm
Posts: 7998
Location: Orchard Park
This chick is NUTS. I truly don't believe she is mentally right in the head. There are morons, and then there is Christine O'Donnell.

_________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hockey Night in Buffalo


Top
 Profile  
 
mechaphil
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:07 pm 
Offline
Thy Horror Cosmic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 19086
Location: BFLO
Christine O'Donnell makes me laugh. Laugh in a depressed, exasperated sort of way.

_________________
mechaphil


Top
 Profile  
 
slesh
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:08 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:25 pm
Posts: 2419
Location: Driving Ms. Daisy, from behind!
fly as hale wrote:
This chick is NUTS. I truly don't believe she is mentally right in the head. There are morons, and then there is Christine O'Donnell.

I think both O'Donnell and Palin are wacked out beyond belief Fly.
But I must confess, I want a threesome with them :dance:

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.


Top
 Profile  
 
slesh
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:15 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:25 pm
Posts: 2419
Location: Driving Ms. Daisy, from behind!
Ok, so, let me get this straight before I light it up.
People actually believe the "seperation of church and state" is in the Constitution?

Because its actually not.

A letter written by Thomas Jefferson defines this, not the Constitution.
O'Donnell was not right, but, the first amendment is very clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says absolutely nothing about a seperation of current religions of that time.
It is well documented that each of the founders were profound Christian men.

O'Donnell may not have come across the right way, but her point on the founders is correct.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:18 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
So what? How can you run for congress and not know the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, at the very least? Besides, my point is that one cartoon character gets vilified while the other does not. Not that there's anything new about media bias.


I haven't watched the full video, so I won't comment on the fact that Coons did or did not answer that question a certain way.

The point is that O'Donnell is running on a platform of Constitutionalism, saying that it will control how she votes on policy, and continually talks up her Constitutional background. (Which is all bullshit.) Yet, she fails to show even a basic understanding of the document she says will control her votes.

You don't have a problem with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:21 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
slesh wrote:
Ok, so, let me get this straight before I light it up.
People actually believe the "seperation of church and state" is in the Constitution?

Because its actually not.

A letter written by Thomas Jefferson defines this, not the Constitution.
O'Donnell was not right, but, the first amendment is very clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says absolutely nothing about a seperation of current religions of that time.
It is well documented that each of the founders were profound Christian men.

O'Donnell may not have come across the right way, but her point on the founders is correct.


200 years of legal rules define the concept of separation of church and state, derived right from the verbage in the first amendment. If O'Donnell mean to point out that the WORDS themselves were not in the Constitution, she didn't take the opportunity to do so, even when she could have. In a room full of lawyers, she needed to be clear as hell about what she was saying.

The fact that she's trying to spin this furiously tells me she fucked up and didn't mean it the way she says today.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:25 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Yeah I have a problem with that. Are you going to suggest, like CV, that I'm an O'Donnell apologist? I thought that suggesting how she doesn't know the Constitution as well as she should and referring to her as a cartoon character would have settled that.

Again, fair vilification is all I'm looking for. There are enough blowhards on all sides of the political compass to expect/hope for fair criticism.


Top
 Profile  
 
slesh
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:36 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:25 pm
Posts: 2419
Location: Driving Ms. Daisy, from behind!
Squanto wrote:
slesh wrote:
Ok, so, let me get this straight before I light it up.
People actually believe the "seperation of church and state" is in the Constitution?

Because its actually not.

A letter written by Thomas Jefferson defines this, not the Constitution.
O'Donnell was not right, but, the first amendment is very clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says absolutely nothing about a seperation of current religions of that time.
It is well documented that each of the founders were profound Christian men.

O'Donnell may not have come across the right way, but her point on the founders is correct.


200 years of legal rules define the concept of separation of church and state, derived right from the verbage in the first amendment. If O'Donnell mean to point out that the WORDS themselves were not in the Constitution, she didn't take the opportunity to do so, even when she could have. In a room full of lawyers, she needed to be clear as hell about what she was saying.

The fact that she's trying to spin this furiously tells me she fucked up and didn't mean it the way she says today.

I agree Squanto, inadvertantly, she was correct, but the way she attempted to use it in the debate was fubar.

I agree Squanto. She was using it as a tool to attack her opponent. And I also agree she was utilizing the words lack of presence as that attack tool.

But, make no mistake, she was correct in pointing out the Constitution itself (as the founders had intended it in 1787) makes no distinction between religion and government.

I mean really, these men were devout christians, and the documents they layed out had "GOD" invoked more than numerous times.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.


Top
 Profile  
 
mechaphil
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:55 pm 
Offline
Thy Horror Cosmic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 19086
Location: BFLO
They weren't devout Christians, and I'm way too lazy to do the research and post the links.

_________________
mechaphil


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:10 am 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Regardless of their religious beliefs, they were free thinkers. I just think that the establishment clause was just vague enough that Jefferson's use of the phrase "...a wall of seperation between church and state..." was needed, along with the "200 years of legal rules", to define exactly what the boundaries between gov't and religion should be.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:48 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
slesh wrote:
It is well documented that each of the founders were profound Christian men.


I would love to know your sources because all research into this area of the founding father's lives points to a group of men who (mostly) were deists and didn't trust organized religion anymore than they trusted the King of England. Here is a site I have read through several times and I suggest anyone dealing with a "The founding fathers were all devout Christians!" claimer read as well. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

The quotes used by Christians to change history (and the character of the men who founded our country) are nearly always out of context and exagerated.

Our founders believed in a strict seperation of chruch and state for the simple fact that history told them what happens when religious leaders gain control of a country.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
CriminallyVu1gar
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:25 am 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:56 pm
Posts: 16859
slesh wrote:
It is well documented that each of the founders were profound Christian men.

O'Donnell may not have come across the right way, but her point on the founders is correct.


To borrow from Bill Schultz

We
Just
Fucking
Did
This

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2006/How ... ec-06.html

According to his major biographer, Douglass Southall Freeman, there is "no evidence [George Washington] expressed personal belief in any credal religion.

Like Washington, Ben Franklin was clearly outside the Christian tradition virtually all of his life. An establishment of religion made no sense to him; he was a Deist and not a church-goer.

All Thomas Jefferson scholars agree that Jefferson was not a believer in Christianity in any ordinary sense. Like most of the Founders, Jefferson believed in an overriding Providence that guided the affairs of the United States. But he valued intellectual and religious freedom far more than Christian dogmatism, and strongly believed that government had no authority to mandate religious conformity.

As a youth James Madison may have had some interest in religion but the evidence is skimpy. Certainly religion was not of any significance in Madison's mature life and there is no evidence Madison ever joined a church.

John Adams was certainly a religious man, but not an orthodox Christian. David McCullough, in his enormously popular biography of John Adams, says Adams was a "devout Christian," but there are only five brief references to Adams' religion in his 751 page biography. These refer to his reluctance to travel on the Sabbath, his baptism, the connection between religion and morality, and that Adams visited several Christian churches as he moved around the nation's capital.

Alexander Hamilton had no formal church affiliation although he was somewhat religious as a student at King's College (now Columbia University).


Gouverneur Morris
, the most frequent speaker in the Convention and the man who penned the final draft of the Constitution, was strongly opposed to the union of church and state. There is no evidence he believed in, belonged to, or attended any church.

James Wilson, who spoke more times than anyone except Gouverneur Morris, was a Deist. Wilson was the dominant figure in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, holding the floor for days. Wilson became America's foremost legal scholar and helped to move the country from a jurisprudence based on authority of rules to one based on the consent of the people. One of the best educated men in America, Wilson studied at St. Andrews, Scotland, and, like Tom Paine, was inclined to follow where reason lead. Wilson also thought natural law had a "deistic origin" rather than a religious basis.

George Mason of Virginia was also a frequent speaker (136 times) at the Convention and was "largely responsible for the proposal of a bill of rights by the First Congress of the United States. He joined Madison in his call for the disestablishment of the Anglican religion in Virginia and the separation of the church and state in the United States. He also famously refused to sign the Constitution at the Convention because, among other things, it did not include a bill of rights. Mason was a Man of the Enlightenment and, like Wilson, showed no interest in religion. In fact, there is not a single reference to religion in all three volumes of his papers.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:26 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Yeah - slesh, not many times do I disagree with you, but while the founding fathers' religion was primarily Christian, you're fucking wrong to think they used religion for the values they founded the country.

They were freemasons, and used those tenets. From the Treaty of Tripoli:

George Washington wrote:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:56 am 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Yeah I have a problem with that. Are you going to suggest, like CV, that I'm an O'Donnell apologist? I thought that suggesting how she doesn't know the Constitution as well as she should and referring to her as a cartoon character would have settled that.

Again, fair vilification is all I'm looking for. There are enough blowhards on all sides of the political compass to expect/hope for fair criticism.


Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not accusing you of anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:05 am 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Quote:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[


James Madison
Quote:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.


Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


James Madison
Quote:
...practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.


The EXACT phrase may not be in the document, but the founders went out of their way in their writings to clear up what they meant to accomplish in this area. They saw how the Church of England worked at home, and din't want to follow that same path.

CV already covered the point about the founders not being very religious men, os I don't think we need to expound any further on that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Squanto wrote:
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Yeah I have a problem with that. Are you going to suggest, like CV, that I'm an O'Donnell apologist? I thought that suggesting how she doesn't know the Constitution as well as she should and referring to her as a cartoon character would have settled that.

Again, fair vilification is all I'm looking for. There are enough blowhards on all sides of the political compass to expect/hope for fair criticism.


Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not accusing you of anything.


You asked, "You don't have a problem with that?" This was an unnecessary question, if not another jab, and made me wonder where you were coming from. Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. Other people around here would've responded more heatedly from a question like that, I didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:38 am 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Ok, let me clarify that question. It wasn't meant to be a shot.

Do you have a problem with someone who runs on a platform of Constitutionalism not having a basic understanding of Constitutional concepts?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron