when these men and their peers gathered to craft the constitution, they seem to have deliberately excluded any mention of 'god', 'christ', 'bible' or their non-christian analogs--an exclusion that was all the more remarkable considering that almost any formal document of that time was liberally sprinkled with such references Any formal docu
what i believe or dont believe isnt important to this discussion. im merely pointing out some very basic facts about the constitution, statements made by jefferson and madison and how the supreme court has historically used those statements to interpret the first amendment. KB, just be a man and admit you are defending the indefensible.&nb
but you just proved my point about the import of there being no such mention of god in the constitution. thank you You did not say constitution. You said official documents. And both the Declaration and the Federalist papers have been used in the intrepretation of the constition. So you just proved my point. As
and if god tells me personally i can kill redheads? THAT is secular humanism. Can you cite chapter and verse? And where a majority agree with you? But if that is YOUR belief and you believe in secular humanism, you cannot be prosecuted for it. Dont confuse whackos with religion. Both exist, but they are
Also: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should dec
Blessings Bingo
do tell. where? The preamble.
when these men and their peers gathered to craft the constitution, they seem to have deliberately excluded any mention of 'god', 'christ', 'bible' or their non-christian analogs--an exclusion that was all the more remarkable considering that almost any formal document of that time was liberally sprinkled with such references. Better re-read
didn't mean it in a bad or accusatory way at all -- I think it's brilliant, and I was very impressed. Your friend is very talented! I did not take it that way, but I should have attributed it to someone else originally. I was just correcting the oversight. Now if I was that creative, do you think I would be blogging for fr
Your title said it all. That is why NARAL was so against the double murder indictment. NARAL would like to think of things in black and white. But the truth is not much is. And now NOW and NARAL are at odds. Build a house on sand, and it will not survive the tides of time.
Wrong on both counts Kingbee. Tell us where morality comes from if not from a beleif? Ok,dont call it religion, but where? Secular humanism? Where each morals are no better than another? I beleive that killing red heads is moral, so I cant be convicted right? And wrong on your last point. The wall exists. I am a Jeffersonian conservative. He said wall, but not 'from'. You failed to answer the point. Jefferson was an agnosti
This is hilarious! I love it! Did you write this one? No! My source is a farmer in california that I talk to. He does not want to be attributed, so I left his name off. I will modify it to say anon tho. I am just not that creative!<img src="../image
IF (and that's a big IF) we find that we don't have enough money to deal with our real NEEDS once we get down to just paying for those items, then maybe, just maybe you could convince me that we need to raise taxes somewhere to pay for those needs. Jeb, that says it all. Why raise taxes when we are sti
Either way, it's a horrible law, which was pushed through by the MPAA and RIAA and which protects large corporate copyright holders without real regard to individuals and their rights -- including individual copyright holders. Bingo! You just nailed it with this. BTW: Jeblackster, Janis Ian is agai
The abortion of a law? First off that metaphor doesn't make any sense. Second off, as someone who's written items that have been published, I'm happy to have copyright laws. And I am happy for you! We are not talking copyright (and indeed not really written work), but the ability of a private organization to institute gestapo tactics
I am saving my Starbucks coupons for them. It must be getting cold for them now that winter is upon us!
Kathleen Willey is from around here. She married into the Willey family, a very well connected Democrat family in these parts. But her husband was a few fries short of a happy meal, and so she had to go to work to save the family estate. She went to Washington looking for a 'plush job'. She got a proposal for a 'hand job' from Slick Willie!
You expect sanity from the DCMA, Hollywood and congress? What have you been smoking! No person, NO PERSON, is safe until that abortion of a law is rescinded!
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly. Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians
Thank you for that . . . I find you more and more reasonable all the time. To know me is to love me! Nahhh, but thank you for your kind comments.
Since that wasn't the main thrust of the post that you were snidely commenting on, allow me to further clarify. By the order of the quotes Dr. Guy, you were hammering someone for talking about an increase in the deficit, and demanding a link to the Congressional Budget office, which is incredibly easy to find by googling, "Congressional Budget Office"
You are refering to the total debt, not the total deficit. And an increase of approximately 4 trillion dollars over four years is very bad. Tax cuts work, but so do tax increases, especially when there are a large number of new expenditures. The tax cuts would hav been better after the wars, not during. I know, and it is an increase of abou
CBO has stated, that $270 Billion of the $450 billion annual deficit in FY 2004 was because of the Tax cuts! Bush in his own projections (SEE OMB I would like to see a link. Can you provide one? And I take it you mean the total deficit of 10T. Which is not as bad as it seems since it was over 6t before Bush took
Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt. I asked when was the last time. And a little thing like WWI and WWII helped your first 2. I dont remember Teddy raising taxes either. Oh, wait. He couldn't! That was before the tax admendment!
The rate of economic growth is far below that needed to provide empolyment for our growing population and more and more people receive less pay and fewer benefits especially healthcare. The Supply side BS is not working to the degree needed to repay the lost revenue from the tax cuts to the wealthy and provide the addad revenue to fund our ever increasing expenses. That
You're about to visit an external site:
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
JoeUser Forums
PolMach Forums