I'd be interested to hear from some of the tea party folk on how they feel about this.
This is BS. Take Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally, I paid $200.00 out of my owm pocket to go, as did many others. The 10/2 rally that the communist and socialist had with the unions alot of those people got free bus rides to go there, so which one do you think is astroturf and funded by someone else.
My Tea party is 100% funded by us. We have no dues, but we take up donations for what we do. We are passing out pocket Constitutions to all local schools and doing an on going food drive for a local food bank. No corporate funds here, I kniow bc I paid for a good bit of it myself.
This guy talks about doctors forming patient rights groups as propaganda. I am sure some of that may happen, but he does not discuss Obama putting people who were not doctors in lab coats in front of the white house for a speech. Lastly the young turks suck.
Big Corporations have started using the constituents of politicians as lobbyists!
Instead of having one or two very well paid people, now they are using many people organized to give the appearance of them having a voice to speak for what the believe in, and a vote to put into office the person whom they feel has their best interests in mind!
They must be stopped!
Christ your posts are hard to read. In your picture are you in the midst of:
a) taking a shit
b) having a stroke
c) losing consciousness in some form or fashion
d) pretending you have lats
e) two of the above
f) all of the above
On topic, I wouldn't be surprised if republicans and democrats are equally funding stuff like this. It's politics, people play dirty. It sucks but, but fuck if it's gonna change any time soon.
That's great, hopefully you Tea Party guys will even start reading it soon:
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.
I read the state cannot control religion, but I must be confused.
Where is the term "separation of church and state"?
I know it is there somewhere.
I think you have an old copy.
That is sarcasm right? the term is not in the constitution.
a quick google search yields this from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state's official church. The original text reads: "...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." The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laÃ¯citÃ© has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.
so in essence when she says "where is it in the constitution" she is correct, but these genious law students are so smart, they must be right.
it is called legislating from the bench, and the courts activist interpretation of the phrase
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What is hard to read? OH I am taking a dump on that flag in your post.
Why do you hate Bolivia?
I just dont like that flag
Na, the odds are 2 to 1 that that is actually an African flag.
Orion got it right, it's from Ghana. A friend of mine studied there and brought it back for me.
You write like a middle school dropout.
Well, tell me what I did wrong.
If the First wasn't sufficiently clear to some, here it is in blunt words, for those with poor reading comprehension:
the us treaty with tripoli is kind of an interesting document. Given the butt kissing, kowtow nature of the document I would wager that the John Adams and company put it in there to capitulate and pacify the barbars, not as a general statement over the founding of the nation. Article 11 was removed from later versions of the document as well. It should also be noted that this "please ass rape me" document did not work and the barbars attacked us anyways.
That's great, hopefully people like you will begin to acknowledge its EXISTENCE!
So is the current meme that separation of church and state is somehow a BAD idea?
Dont should read "don't".
There should also be a period at the end of the sentence.
It's OK, all he can really do is drop down to attack your writing skills and your picture. Let the Lib haters hate bro....it means we are doing our job well, even if it is not with perfect grammar.
I completely agree with the description of the treaty as a butt kissing document. However, that's not the main issue. The treaty itself was "read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved".
If the article in question was controversial at the time (complete denial of any links with Christianity), surely a dissenting patriot voice would object in the discussion?
Would the Senate simply accept a document denying the very founding principle (as the right-wingers claim) of the Nation just for the sake of satisfying some Arabic pirates?