|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 23, 2010 12:51:42 GMT -8
Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.>>>Where does it say accommodate in the amendment? Who interprets the term accommodation? What is complete?<<< Who interprets? The Court. In the case I cited above. Read the whole thing. Q.E.D.O'Donnell may be a 'dope', but no more of a 'dope' than Coons ("the Court has interpreted... yada, yada, humma, humma..."). This is not the issue to use to prove O'Donnell's 'dopeyness'. But it's the best the left has, along with 'witches, 'carrot-whacking', 30 year old water-polo team pranks, and the old tired screams of 'extreeeeeeeeeemist', 'raaaaaaaaaacist', and so on. Expect more 'surprises' in the next few days. Fiorina diddles little girls? It's the Demagogue Party's stock in trade. Maybe they could talk about the economy and jobs or trillion dollar deficits? No, of course not. I won't be voting for either one. (I don't live there)  We aren't going to agree. The effect of the first amendment is to keep government separate from religion. Yes, I am stubborn and opinionated, just like the rest of us Aztec fans. We could not be Aztec fans if we were weak and retiring.  In a political system full of interesting people O'Donnell stands out. Republicans hold their own in the realm stupid over simplification and character assassination. The Delaware race is a obvious example of a rash of very stupid people running for office this year. And they are mostly Tea Partiers, but all conservatives. I am tired of simple minded sound bytes to address complex issues. But the Conservative's real issue is simple and unchanging. Conservatives do not want to pay taxes. Any taxes. For any reason. ;D Before I signed on this afternoon, I was contemplating how I would respond to your inevitable post. I thought I would suggest that neither one of us was going to persuade the other, and since we have driven this topic off the rail about far enough, that we should just move on and concentrate on tonight's game. (on the mtn, ch616 Directv). Evidently, great minds think alike. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 23, 2010 14:00:15 GMT -8
We aren't going to agree. The effect of the first amendment is to keep government separate from religion. Yes, I am stubborn and opinionated, just like the rest of us Aztec fans. We could not be Aztec fans if we were weak and retiring. In a political system full of interesting people O'Donnell stands out. Republicans hold their own in the realm stupid over simplification and character assassination. The Delaware race is a obvious example of a rash of very stupid people running for office this year. And they are mostly Tea Partiers, but all conservatives. I am tired of simple minded sound bytes to address complex issues. But the Conservative's real issue is simple and unchanging. Conservatives do not want to pay taxes. Any taxes. For any reason. ;D Before I signed on this afternoon, I was contemplating how I would respond to your inevitable post. I thought I would suggest that neither one of us was going to persuade the other, and since we have driven this topic off the rail about far enough, that we should just move on and concentrate on tonight's game. (on the mtn, ch616 Directv). Evidently, great minds think alike. ;D I am nothing if not inevitable. Soon, Aztec wins will be inevitable. I am also an optimist, my friend. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 24, 2010 6:32:21 GMT -8
I am not defending O'Donnel in general, just that she was technically right in the exchange in question. I would rather have her represent me than Coons. That is not saying all that much since I would rather be represented by a donut than O'Donnel's liberal opponent, Chris Coons. I think you and other are failing to see that even if she loses as is probable, the Republican Party has been cleansed a bit by defeating a liberal RINO in the primary. Somehow that idea does not get across. That you would rather lose a seat in the Senate than retain that seat if he will in fact vote with the liberals much of the time does not sink in. She was wrong. To say that she is preferable to someone who served with distinction in Delaware is just bizarre. See? You just don't get it! |
|
