Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    Maybe you missed the part where I said that I AGREED with the Santa Fe discussion. 
    Posted by johnny02110


    I got that, but accidentally typed you instead of some.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
     Unfortunately, most students don't encounter this evidence until they attend college and take some of their first real history courses (what is taught in public and private schools in grades K-12 cannot properly be called history in my opinion) -------------------- Can't argue that mate!  I was born in 1960 (for context).  Every Fr1ggin year we started "US" History in 1492.  By year end, we were JUST about to start WWI (and skipped little things like Spain and Indian wars).  School's out, have a nice Summer!  Back in Sept, and its F'ing 1492 again.  Sweet Mother of God, I know more about Balboa and Pizzaro, than I ever really needed to know, but couldn't find Sarajevo on a map of the Balkans!  WWII, Korea, Vietnam?  Never got NEAR them. I swear on my kids, if I were to teach history, I'd start with the current and work BACKWARDS.  Cause and effect, believe it or not.  When I started my kids at the then (1998) VERY experimental charter school concept, the school actually solicited my (parents) input, and I told them exactly that.  And they did, and are doing, exactly that.  2 in college (Northeastern and PC), and my last is a junior at the charter.  ALL of them can tell you who Robert MacNamarra was, Kruchev, Inchon, Tet, Ferdnind, and even the Bulge (where my uncle got his 2nd, of 3 Purple Hearts, and his first of 2, Silver Stars (no need to mention ther 12 Bronze - yes, I said 12). At their age, I sure as hell couldn't - and as a music student, I didn't get it in college either.  I did it myself, and will put my knowledge of history against any professor's in a New York minute.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    I would argue kids need historiography before they study history. Historiography is essentially the study of the study of history (the history of history, philosophy of history, that sort of thing). It is important, because every historian comes to the table with a point of view. And that point of view usually lines up with a particular school of thought. Reading history books without understanding history, is like reading a political analysis without understanding the possible partisan viewpoints the writer might have.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    From the video, O'Donnell totally misread the moment.


    OMG, she "misread the moment." Fire up the presses boy, we got her now!

    But nothing that she said was actually wrong, was it?.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    OMG, she "misread the moment." Fire up the presses boy, we got her now! But nothing that she said was actually wrong, was it?.
    Posted by johnny02110


    Yes, she was horribly wrong.  She didn't acknowledge the critical thinking of her vastly superior progressive opponent.  How dare she!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    Oh man, the responses to this thread were precious. 

    Of course the neocon circle jerk members come out defending her, well I should say simply copy/pasting her publicists' defense of her, by saying "the exact phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the 1st Amd."

    What an incredibly mindless, unbelievably r*tarded defense! Oh right...I forgot.  The neotards think that whatever the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment means doesn't matter.  They - the plumbers and electricians - know best what the Constitution says. 

     Who says a layman cannot interpret the constitution better than someone who has practiced law for the vast majority of their adult lives? (Man, your  luddite movement is scary).

    I mean..clearly this doesn't enshrine the separation of church and state:

    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.

    What kind of idiot would think that?  It's obviously a cupcake recipe!

    The separation of church and state is and has been enshrined in the First Amendment.  Period.  O'Donnell is a goddamned idiot - and so are all of you who defended her - for attemping that idiotic defense. 

    But hey, let's pause and reflect a second.  Let's assume she really was trying to make the point that the First Amendment does not contain the explicit text "separation of church and state".  Where does that get her in the debate?  What would be the point of making such a vapid statement, when the text of the First Amd. obviously does enshrine separation and when the US Supreme Court has said so? 

    So either she's a constitution loving constutionally ingorant moron, OR she's a moron who doesn't understand how to make a statement that has a logical effect on a given argument.


    (Gee.  I wonder how many of you would say the Supreme Court was wrong to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment when a logical reading of the plain text suggest the right is only tied to the purpose of having a militia; or perhaps, how many of you neotards would agree that because nothing in the federal constitution says "this is applicable to the states," the Second Amendment therefore isn't?.  Don't worry. Don't hurt your brains trying to think that through).


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    They - the plumbers and electricians - know best what the Constitution says.   Who says a layman cannot interpret the constitution better than someone who has practiced law for the vast majority of their adult lives?


    If you don't want to believe the neotards here, how about the neotards on the supreme court? Or more accurately on multiple supreme courts?

    You call names and regurgitate HuffPo talking points. I came with facts and supreme court decisions. For some reason I'm a "neotard." OK...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    If you don't want to believe the neotards here, how about the neotards on the supreme court? Or more accurately on multiple supreme courts? You call names and regurgitate HuffPo talking points. I came with facts and supreme court decisions. For some reason I'm a "neotard." OK...
    Posted by johnny02110


    Sigh.

    1.  Don't read "Huffpo"

    2.  You forgot that you were arguing to 12-angry-men, not responding to the post.

    3.  Perhaps I'll double-check your research if I find myself bored tomorrow night; for now, your citations don't help O'Donnell.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/15/odonnell-posts-supreme-court-cases-she-objects-after-blanking-debate

    O'Donnell Posts Supreme Court Cases she Objects to After Blanking at Debate


    Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell has posted to her website a response to a question about recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that she objects to, an answer she didn't give at a debate Wednesday.

    "Oh, gosh. Give me a specific one, I'm sorry," O'Donnell said in the debate. "I'm very sorry. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I'll put it up on my Web site, I promise you," she added.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/15/odonnell-posts-supreme-court-cases-she-objects-after-blanking-debate#ixzz12xe9bT9t

    Yeah... She'll put them up.  Just has to remember them. With a little help from her friends.



    The thread was about O'Donnell's cluelessness.  Thinking that pointing out that the First Amendment doesn't contain the exact phrase "separation of church and state" has a logical effect on the subject was idiotic. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SalveteAmici. Show SalveteAmici's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    "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."
    "The First Amendment states: 'Congress shall make no law establishing of religion.' It says NOTHING about separation of church and state. This is the mantra employed by secularists that are trying to remove the mention of God from every facet of our lives. That was not the intent of the framers
    Also, please note in the Declaration of Independence
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    Oh man, the responses to this thread were precious.  Of course the neocon circle jerk members come out defending her, well I should say simply copy/pasting her publicists' defense of her, by saying "the exact phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the 1st Amd." What an incredibly mindless, unbelievably r*tarded defense! Oh right...I forgot.  The neotards think that whatever the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment means doesn't matter.  They - the plumbers and electricians - know best what the Constitution says.   Who says a layman cannot interpret the constitution better than someone who has practiced law for the vast majority of their adult lives? (Man, your  luddite movement is scary). I mean..clearly this doesn't enshrine the separation of church and state: 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. What kind of idiot would think that?  It's obviously a cupcake recipe! The separation of church and state is and has been enshrined in the First Amendment.  Period.  O'Donnell is a goddamned idiot - and so are all of you who defended her - for attemping that idiotic defense.  But hey, let's pause and reflect a second.  Let's assume she really was trying to make the point that the First Amendment does not contain the explicit text "separation of church and state".  Where does that get her in the debate?  What would be the point of making such a vapid statement, when the text of the First Amd. obviously does enshrine separation and when the US Supreme Court has said so?  So either she's a constitution loving constutionally ingorant moron, OR she's a moron who doesn't understand how to make a statement that has a logical effect on a given argument. (Gee.  I wonder how many of you would say the Supreme Court was wrong to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment when a logical reading of the plain text suggest the right is only tied to the purpose of having a militia; or perhaps, how many of you neotards would agree that because nothing in the federal constitution says "this is applicable to the states," the Second Amendment therefore isn't?.  Don't worry. Don't hurt your brains trying to think that through).
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    Your willful ignorance of the purpose and text of the first and second amendment is overwhelming.  They say what they say, mean what they say.

    Simple, no?
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution : Your willful ignorance of the purpose and text of the first and second amendment is overwhelming.  They say what they say, mean what they say. Simple, no?
    Posted by skeeter20


    Except you can't ignore the case law.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution : Except you can't ignore the case law.
    Posted by ForumCleaner


    I don't know how many times I need to say this, but the amendment reads:

    "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."

    period.  Scr3w your progressive attacks, and scr3w case law.  irrelevant to the point of what the 1st ammendment states.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    Your willful ignorance of the purpose and text of the first and second amendment is overwhelming.
    Posted by skeeter20


    Supreme Court has described the purpose and what the text means.  It sounds like you simply think you know better.

    scr3w case law.  irrelevant to the point of what the 1st ammendment states.
    Posted by skeeter20



    Hahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaahah

    Ah yes. Each individual government actor, and private citizen, should just read the Constitution itself, and each should act on his own personal interpretation.  Who says having 300 million different constitutions will create a difficult situation? The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is clearly irrelevant. 

    Oh boy, you are one dumb f*ck.  Well it's obvious there's no helping you.  Fortunately you won't be in a position of power, so perhaps we don't have to worry.


    . That was not the intent of the framers
    Posted by SalveteAmici


    Oh Ok, Justice Amici.   Glad to see your well-reasoned argument based on primary source documents. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution : I don't know how many times I need to say this, but the amendment reads: "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." period.  Scr3w your progressive attacks, and scr3w case law.  irrelevant to the point of what the 1st ammendment states.
    Posted by skeeter20


    First off, I don't think the ammendment is as crystal clear as you think it is.

    Second, do you realize what would happen to this country and our legal system if you reject all case law? Case law is a key part of our legal tradition. The consititution simple isn't enough. Otherwise, you really wouldn't need a judicial branch at all. There are unforseen circumstances where it is unclear how the constitutional texts might apply.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    Supreme Court has described the purpose and what the text means.  It sounds like you simply think you know better.


    Yes, they have. I'll quote it once more, since you apparently missed it the first time:

    Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963):
    "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment,"

    I'm still waiting on your well-reasoned argument based on primary source documents. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    Yes, they have. I'll quote it once more, since you apparently missed it the first time: Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963): "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," I'm still waiting on your well-reasoned argument based on primary source documents. 
    Posted by johnny02110


    No one is challenging the right to study the bible as literature. That is a right that public schools have and have made use of. What they can't do, is teach the bible as a source of spiritual truth. That is why "presented objectively as part of a secular program" is such a key part of that decision. Heck you can teach the bible, the koran, the ramayana, the tripetaka, anything you like as literature or as part of comparative study.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution : No one is challenging the right to study the bible as literature. That is a right that public schools have and have made use of. What they can't do, is teach the bible as a source of spiritual truth. That is why "presented objectively as part of a secular program" is such a key part of that decision. Heck you can teach the bible, the koran, the ramayana, the tripetaka, anything you like as literature or as part of comparative study.
    Posted by ForumCleaner


    Right, which is exactly what she was saying. It's NOT unconstitutional to teach the bible in public school, as Coons said repeatedly throughout the debate.

    Nothing that she said was factually incorrect. What Coons said was. Period, end of debate.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    [QUOTE]Yes, they have. I'll quote it once more, since you apparently missed it the first time: Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963): "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," I'm still waiting on your well-reasoned argument based on primary source documents. 
    Posted by johnny02110[/QUOTE

    _______________________________________________________________


    The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.

    Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005)



    _______________________________________________________________



    1.  You haven't directly replied to anything I said to you; you're just responding to something I said to Skeeter.

    2.  I didn't respond to the quote you pasted but don't understand because you said it to 12-angry-men, in the first page of the thread.  Think I pointed that out already and you missed it.

    3.  The separation of church and state IS the government neutrality toward religion (hence teaching things objectively and secularly) that the Supreme Court SAID is enshrined in the First Amd. 

    So no, you cannot teach the bible in school as if it is religious truth.

    If the first explicit quote above didn't do it for ya, check out:  Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839-840 (1995) (discussing religious neutrality of government university program, which is what is required via "separation of church and state", which is enshrined in the First Amendment - regardlless of what O'Donnell thinks).

    4.  Again, this was the thread:  Christine O'Donnell is a goddamned moron for thinking she made a point by saying the exact words "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amd.  The Supreme Court's decisions make that clear.  It IS in the First Amd.  That's what the Establishment Clause means.  Hence; religion-neutral secular instruction is not a problem.

    It seems the real problem here is that the people who support O'Donnell don't understand what "separation of church and state" means as per the Supreme Court, and hence, do not understand why she made a complete jack-ass out of herself by trying to hang her hat on the fact that the First Amd. doesn't contain the exact phrase.




    So to refresh your recollection:

    The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.

    Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005)

    And that means secular/neutral approach, and that means O'Donnell can't get her Christian Bible taught.  Sorry for the anti-masturbation whackjob ex-witch.




    I have a sneaking suspicion that if I go to O'Donnell's website, I'll find the case and quote you copied/pasted.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution:
    In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution : Right, which is exactly what she was saying. It's NOT unconstitutional to teach the bible in public school, as Coons said repeatedly throughout the debate. Nothing that she said was factually incorrect. What Coons said was. Period, end of debate.
    Posted by johnny02110


    I don't think that is what she meant at all. I think she meant teach the bible in a non objective way.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    I don't think that is what she meant at all. I think she meant teach the bible in a non objective way.

    The nice thing here is that you don't need to think. You can just read the transcript or watch the video.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    I have a sneaking suspicion that if I go to O'Donnell's website, I'll find the case and quote you copied/pasted.


    I don't know, I've never been on her website. Why don't you go take a look and report back? In the meantime, please point out specifically what she said (not what you think she "meant") that was factually incorrect.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    please point out specifically what she said (not what you think she "meant") that was factually incorrect.
    Posted by johnny02110


    Oh ok, just another Hawkeye.  Ignore for you I guess.  Reread my post(s) in page 4 of the thread until you understand what I think she said was incorrect. 



     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    Do you have a learning disability?  Try following.

    Here's a copy/paste from what I said in starting the thread:


    Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, on Tuesday appeared to question whether the First Amendment to the Constitution imposes a separation between church and state.

    In a debate at the Widener University Law School, Ms. O’Donnell interrupted her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, as he argued that the Constitution does not allow public schools to teach religious doctrine.

    “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Ms. O’Donnell asked him, according to audio posted on the Web site of WDEL 1150 AM radio, which co-sponsored the debate.

    The audience at the law school can be heard breaking out in laughter. But Ms. O’Donnell refuses to be dissuaded and pushes forward.

    “Let me just clarify,” she says. “You are telling me that the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment?”

    When Mr. Coons offers a shorthand of the relevant section, saying, “government shall make no establishment of religion,” Ms. O’Donnell replies, “That’s in the First Amendment?”

    {continues}

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-questions-church-state-separation/?ref=politics


    Now go to page 4 of the thread and reread my posts.

    She obviously didn't read the Supreme Court decisions I cited.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution

    The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.

    Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005)

    That one, maybe.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from johnny02110. Show johnny02110's posts

    Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution


    She obviously didn't read the Supreme Court decisions I cited.


    The court decisions that you cited are not in the Constitution. That's the point - if Coons had gone on to cite those decisions, O'Donnell could have gone on to cite Schempp and Lemon.

    Again - what did she specifically say that was factually incorrect?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share