ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Absolutely as intended. We have their writings that specifically speak to their intent. A relevant Jefferson quote being the actual source of the phrase 'separation of church and state' itself:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists 1802

As you can see he clearly quotes the exact text of the First itself and elaborates on its meaning and goals.

You are not the expert you claim to be and you are wrong. Jefferson, who was the personification of contradiction, did not write the amendment and his separation language that “y’all” love to quote is not indicative of the founders’ intent. It was one statement he made. In fact, Benjamin Rush, who some call the father of free public education in the states, was a proponent of the Bible being taught in schools.

As evidence, Jefferson’s language could have been the language of the amendment and, yet, was not. Nothing like it. His separate writing is not the constitution.

Meanwhile, for the Historian should know, after the amendment was passed, there were states that had official churches and the Bible was taught in public schools and the Ten Commandments were on the walls of government buildings and schools, and “in God we trust” is on our currency, and …

States were clearly not intended to be covered. And, no one thought that having the Ten Commandments posted on the wall was anything like an establishment of religion until secularism became a religion and atheists who claim to not believe in God became obsessed with God.

Go spin your BS someplace else.
 
So what happens to all the children who can't afford the good private schools that are stuck in public schools that are even more poorly funded than they are today??
You are making sh!t up. I'm not dealing with your woe to me hypotheticals. School choice does not mean public schools would be less funded per student than today. And they are not poorly funded today, just poorly operated with good/great funding because of the monopoly system they operate in. There's no financial incentive to reduce costs.
 
You are not the expert you claim to be and you are wrong. Jefferson, who was the personification of contradiction, did not write the amendment and his separation language that “y’all” love to quote is not indicative of the founders’ intent. It was one statement he made. In fact, Benjamin Rush, who some call the father of free public education in the states, was a proponent of the Bible being taught in schools.

As evidence, Jefferson’s language could have been the language of the amendment and, yet, was not. Nothing like it. His separate writing is not the constitution.

Meanwhile, for the Historian should know, after the amendment was passed, there were states that had official churches and the Bible was taught in public schools and the Ten Commandments were on the walls of government buildings and schools, and “in God we trust” is on our currency, and …

States were clearly not intended to be covered. And, no one thought that having the Ten Commandments posted on the wall was anything like an establishment of religion until secularism became a religion and atheists who claim to not believe in God became obsessed with God.

Go spin your BS someplace else.
Had the Ten Commandments hanging in all my classrooms during all my schooling. Never gave it a second thought back then but being I looked at it every day I knew it was a standard to live up to. Whether one believes in God or not, is this not a standard to strive for? Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?
 
The First Amendment?


Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing made it pretty clear.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Justice Hugo Black said:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164, 25 L.Ed. 244.-
 
Had the Ten Commandments hanging in all my classrooms during all my schooling. Never gave it a second thought back then but being I looked at it every day I knew it was a standard to live up to. Whether one believes in God or not, is this not a standard to strive for? Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Maybe Jefferson penned his letter after your school experiences? Or, maybe, no one, not even Jefferson, thought having biblical verses and references to God was “establishment of religion.” If we were in Vegas and had to lay down $1,000 on one of those two, I am betting everyone places their bet on the latter and not the former. ;)
 
Maybe Jefferson penned his letter after your school experiences? Or, maybe, no one, not even Jefferson, thought having biblical verses and references to God was “establishment of religion.” If we were in Vegas and had to lay down $1,000 on one of those two, I am betting everyone places their bet on the latter and not the former. ;)
Funny how a lot of folks think the words separation, church, and state are in the Constitution. Neither of those words are found anywhere in it.
 
I love these ten commandment debates. You do realize the solution is to not have government schools, right? ;)

In other bad news, I wonder what Canada knows that no one else does? I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that the USS Eisenhower just pulled into position adjacent to Israel and Lebanon?

 
Umm the First Amendment?
HAHAHA. I KNEW you would not disappoint. Ok ... let's break this game film down ...

First amendment says ...
"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." (emphasis added)

The Louisiana law ... is the Louisiana state government "Congress"? (short answer is no - so the short answer is ... the Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution)

Next you're going to argue "separation of church and state". Funny, I didn't see that in the first amendment. In fact, I couldn't find it in the entire Constitution. You're going to argue is is "read into through decades of law" and I will respond, "incorrectly" just as the court once read "separate but equal" and "right to privacy" and both were "read into" incorrectly. So, you'll be INCORRECT once again. The Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution. Nor does it violate the Lemon test. On to that in a sec. Oh... and the disestablishment concept is also bad reading by the high court. There were states when the Constitution was drafted, they knew good and well that each state would have its own set of laws. So that had to be "created" once the 14th was passed.

For atheists to argue commandments such as "no other gods before Me" is offensive to them is silly, as I've explained previously. If it is offensive to them, then they are actually acknowledging the one true God, or at least their fear that He may be true.

Now ... here is where you idiots need to tread carefully...if this is removed because if violates some fictitious reading, then you're going to also remove ALL of the alphabet cult nonsense about men having babies and whatnot. If you go "all in" the lunatic (which we know you will), then you will inadvertently cut off your ability to groom/recruit kids into your depraved mindset. So ... go for it! I would argue your alphabet religion does not pass the Lemon test, is funded by taxpayers and needs to be removed immediately.
 
Last edited:
I love these ten commandment debates. You do realize the solution is to not have government schools, right? ;)
LOVE this.
In other bad news, I wonder what Canada knows that no one else does? I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that the USS Eisenhower just pulled into position adjacent to Israel and Lebanon?

Sad this.

Balance out to a "like".
 
HAHAHA. I KNEW you would not disappoint. Ok ... let's break this game film down ...

First amendment says ...
"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." (emphasis added)

The Louisiana law ... is the Louisiana state government "Congress"? (short answer is no - so the short answer is ... the Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution)

Next you're going to argue "separation of church and state". Funny, I didn't see that in the first amendment. In fact, I couldn't find it in the entire Constitution. You're going to argue is is "read into through decades of law" and I will respond, "incorrectly" just as the court once read "separate but equal" and "right to privacy" and both were "read into" incorrectly. So, you'll be INCORRECT once again. The Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution. Nor does it violate the Lemon test. On to that in a sec.

For atheists to argue commandments such as "no other gods before Me" is offensive to them is silly, as I've explained previously. If it is offensive to them, then they are actually acknowledging the one true God, or at least their fear that He may be true.

Now ... here is where you idiots need to tread carefully...if this is removed because if violates some fictitious reading, then you're going to also remove ALL of the alphabet cult nonsense about men having babies and whatnot. If you go "all in" the lunatic (which we know you will), then you will inadvertently cut off your ability to groom/recruit kids into your depraved mindset. So ... go for it! I would argue your alphabet religion does not pass the Lemon test, is funded by taxpayers and needs to be removed immediately.
Oof! 🤛
 
The Lemon test (aka Lemon Law) says, “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.”

Well, the alphabet nonsense PROMOTED by the US and State gov't THROUGH Congress certainly inhibits traditional religion and promotes its new religion!
 
And domestic terrorists.
GQryzkCWUAAEo6D
 
You are not the expert you claim to be and you are wrong. Jefferson, who was the personification of contradiction, did not write the amendment and his separation language that “y’all” love to quote is not indicative of the founders’ intent. It was one statement he made. In fact, Benjamin Rush, who some call the father of free public education in the states, was a proponent of the Bible being taught in schools.

As evidence, Jefferson’s language could have been the language of the amendment and, yet, was not. Nothing like it. His separate writing is not the constitution.

Meanwhile, for the Historian should know, after the amendment was passed, there were states that had official churches and the Bible was taught in public schools and the Ten Commandments were on the walls of government buildings and schools, and “in God we trust” is on our currency, and …

States were clearly not intended to be covered. And, no one thought that having the Ten Commandments posted on the wall was anything like an establishment of religion until secularism became a religion and atheists who claim to not believe in God became obsessed with God.

Go spin your BS someplace else.
Examples of people flouting the Constitution and then being struck down by the courts, who interpret said Constitution, is not a historical tradition of Christianity. It's a historical tradition of conservatives being overzealous assholes who have to be swatted down by our actual secular historical tradition.
 
Last edited:
I watched the full interview between he and Megyn WoodKelly. She destroyed him and intentionally pulled her foot off the gas after several times of him admitting he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I watched it too, listened to it at the gym iirc. You're right, and pretty incredible really since it's his job to know current events, politics and the news. It was very illustrative of the type of information silos people can get locked into, nevermind the complete brainwashing and hysteria we see from our resident leftists.

He's nevertheless much more rational and level-headed. I've always liked him, and still do, despite agreeing with him very little. For me, it's a case study in TDS, which he has in spades. It would be remarkable if he woke up simply by being one of the very few on the left who can see the woke mind virus for what it is.
 
HAHAHA. I KNEW you would not disappoint. Ok ... let's break this game film down ...

First amendment says ...
"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." (emphasis added)

The Louisiana law ... is the Louisiana state government "Congress"? (short answer is no - so the short answer is ... the Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution)

Next you're going to argue "separation of church and state". Funny, I didn't see that in the first amendment. In fact, I couldn't find it in the entire Constitution. You're going to argue is is "read into through decades of law" and I will respond, "incorrectly" just as the court once read "separate but equal" and "right to privacy" and both were "read into" incorrectly. So, you'll be INCORRECT once again. The Louisiana law DOES NOT violate the Constitution. Nor does it violate the Lemon test. On to that in a sec. Oh... and the disestablishment concept is also bad reading by the high court. There were states when the Constitution was drafted, they knew good and well that each state would have its own set of laws. So that had to be "created" once the 14th was passed.

For atheists to argue commandments such as "no other gods before Me" is offensive to them is silly, as I've explained previously. If it is offensive to them, then they are actually acknowledging the one true God, or at least their fear that He may be true.

Now ... here is where you idiots need to tread carefully...if this is removed because if violates some fictitious reading, then you're going to also remove ALL of the alphabet cult nonsense about men having babies and whatnot. If you go "all in" the lunatic (which we know you will), then you will inadvertently cut off your ability to groom/recruit kids into your depraved mindset. So ... go for it! I would argue your alphabet religion does not pass the Lemon test, is funded by taxpayers and needs to be removed immediately.
Yes, the Louisiana state legislature is Congress. Your initial premise is incorrect and hence the rest does not need to be addressed yet.
 
Sucks that Trump is nominee. I will vote for him but he's literally the only guy that wouldn't of won in a walk. Vance, Haley,, Scott. Win in a route vs Biden or Newsome. Even Dezantis with zero charisma routes them. In moat important election of my 50 years we go with the 1 guy that's a coin flip vs a corpse. Okay Vikek would likely lose to the corpse. But every single vp canidate but vivek wins likely easily.

But gop would rather take the guy that has a legit chsnce to lose over a almost sure win.

Look I like moat of what Trumps platform is but this is a MUST WIN to the 1000th degree. And voters chose they wanted a barn burner rather than a slam dunk. Sorry I do t think Trump is nearly worth the risk we took
 
Sucks that Trump is nominee. I will vote for him but he's literally the only guy that wouldn't of won in a walk. Vance, Haley,, Scott. Win in a route vs Biden or Newsome. Even Dezantis with zero charisma routes them. In moat important election of my 50 years we go with the 1 guy that's a coin flip vs a corpse. Okay Vikek would likely lose to the corpse. But every single vp canidate but vivek wins likely easily.

But gop would rather take the guy that has a legit chsnce to lose over a almost sure win.

Look I like moat of what Trumps platform is but this is a MUST WIN to the 1000th degree. And voters chose they wanted a barn burner rather than a slam dunk. Sorry I do t think Trump is nearly worth the risk we took

I think the exact opposite is true.

Maybe because I'm not a Republican, but he's your only hope. He's the only reason you've won anything or will anything again, imho. Anyone else would've just been thumped like Romney's binders full of women. You should've won that election in a walk too, but didn't cause you got played. You get played in ways too esily you (general conservatives) don't appreciate.
 
I think the exact opposite is true.

Maybe because I'm not a Republican, but he's your only hope. He's the only reason you've won anything or will anything again, imho. Anyone else would've just been thumped like Romney's binders full of women. You should've won that election in a walk too, but didn't cause you got played. You get played in ways too esily you (general conservatives) don't appreciate.
Vance, Scott or Haley beat Biden in a stomp not seen in at least since Obama McCain.

I admit yall democrats are the best at dirty politics and are better at the game too bad you suck at running things tho.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: WTF Cat and UK_1576
Vance, Scott or Haley beat Biden in a stomp not seen in at least since Obama McCain.

I admit yall democrats are the best at dirty politics and are better at the game too bad you suck at running things tho.

That was pretty good too, yeah. When democrats convinced you to nominate their "favorite Republican" and you got beat by a man no one had heard of, who is solely responsible for this chitshow today.

You thought that was s ure win too, undoubtedly.

They ran things just the way they intended and are doing so now too.
 
Obama was the first president since WWII to win re election with unemployment as high as it was and a stagnant economy. That's with Romney and Ryan. Your not beating the dem candidate, your competing against the entire dnc machine with the foreign globalist at their backs.

There is only one candidate willing to fight back against them.

The other Republicans mentioned are willing to lose gracefully.

I choose the one willing to fight.
 
That was pretty good too, yeah. When democrats convinced you to nominate their "favorite Republican" and you got beat by a man no one had heard of, who is solely responsible for this chitshow today.

You thought that was s ure win too, undoubtedly.
Nobody thought that had a chance. Your memory is a little fuzzy. Obama was always expected to beat McCain and Romney.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UK_1576
Vance, Scott or Haley beat Biden in a stomp not seen in at least since Obama McCain.

I admit yall democrats are the best at dirty politics and are better at the game too bad you suck at running things tho.

This is dude a globalist shill.

Haley, Scott? Hahahah gtfo here with that troll shit.

The overwhelming majority of the Republican Party is America First. Scott is war monger POS awful trash. Niki Haley may be the worst GD politician in history. Her hometown in South Carolina hates her guts.

Trump is the leader and anyone who comes after him better be very close to the same tune or they won’t last.

Just an awful take with no sense of anything within the party. No way Scott or Haley draws more than a 100 people at a “rally”
 
You are making sh!t up. I'm not dealing with your woe to me hypotheticals. School choice does not mean public schools would be less funded per student than today. And they are not poorly funded today, just poorly operated with good/great funding because of the monopoly system they operate in. There's no financial incentive to reduce costs.
Ok buddy. You know it all about schools. I only spent 35 years in them.
Keep voting for fools that are dismantling our Ky public schools and keep trashing the teachers. Your wishes are coming true. The schools are declining rapidly. That is a fact.
Your attitude shared by so many other fools is one of the main reasons.
Keep the ignorance flag a flyin!

"Math scores averaged 217, the lowest since 1990; reading scores averaged 256, the lowest since 2004."

 
  • Haha
Reactions: UK_1576
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT