Reply With Quote
I would like to see her and Palin eat each other out
LOL. She should have just said her opponent talks like a .
I would like to see her and Palin eat each other out
WTF is up with this "Dr Part Changer" business? And since when is grifter a good thing? And why do I always miss the good, ridiculous here?
Why?
Cannot counter my arguments, so you want to silence me? Is that it?
Do you disagree that nearly all career politicians partake in cons upon the public and voters?
your arguments have been deemed worthless.....by a professional.
Tell me.
How does a generic religions idea that is part of nearly all religions fit that category. God for example is a le. Not a name. I'm not speaking of religious symbols. Please stop changing my arguments to support your counterpoints.
I don't recall her words, but didn't she say part of it, not the whole?
Well, I am the parts changer. I work with equipment as a mechanical/electrical technician. At first I resented the term, but it is part of my job description.
WTF is up with this "Dr Part Changer" business? And since when is grifter a good thing? And why do I always miss the good, ridiculous here?
Hey, I get paid well for it so what the . I probably make double or more the income of anyone who is using it. I think that's a safe bet due to their ignorance.
until the conservatives crush your union.
That would be a good thing. I wouldn't be stuck in a pay scale that goes by time, and could negotiate a better salary. Then we could also get about four or five people fired who are dead weight, protected by the union, if they don't shape up. Profits would be better.
The non-union sector for my line of work pays about 35% more than I make now. However, those jobs are drying up with manufacturing moves, and decreasing a little in wages. My last job moved to Malaysia.
and thats when you'll be offered malaysia wages.
If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.
Chrisitine would be a career politician by now if she had ever won anything. God knows, she runs every couple of years for a living now.
ing scary man. As scary as that poster AngelLuv thinking Obama is the devil
you should keep that bridge and cross over to that 35% private sector job that you claim exist. lol
i just noticed this.
I wasn't changing your argument, I was outlining my own.The long standing court interpretation of that is that government may not directly or indirectly favor one religion or another. One has to build a fairly high wall for that to happen.
When you start putting one religion or another's symbols on government buildings, you are essentially favoring a certain religion.
A lot of fundamentalist Christians who essentially want to ins ute a theocracy hate that secular idea. As does Al Qaeda. Both groups think that government should be in the business of telling you what religion you should worship and when.
If you want to get specific, even the "God" reference tends to support one religion ove another.
In this, I think you are being a bit less than honest with yourself: I don't think "God" isn't a le, it is a reference to one of the three Abrahamic monotheistic faiths.
The fact that it is singular implies this.
Most human religions are polytheistic. Why not put "Gods" if it is just a le?
You and I both know that would create a firestorm from Christian fundies who would think of it as introducing polytheistic concepts to government do ents.
"God" as a le, also implies that there *is* a God, something a fair minority of people in this country actively DIS-believes.
The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minorities such as that from overt and covert persecution.
The case you are attempting to argue is that there should be no active seperation of church and state, I would guess.
It is not specifically written that the "must be a formal wall" between them. That is the result of courts having to interpret the prohibition that says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This has widely been regarded, correctly in my view, as prohibiting incorporating religious symbols from Government buildings.
Once you start doing that, you are tacitly stating that religion is backed by the Government, correct?
O’Donnell admits using campaign cash to pay rent
O'Donnell] acknowledges using campaign money to pay part of the rent on her current town house.
Last month, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington declared that O'Donnell is "clearly a criminal" for allegedly using $20,000 of campaign money for personal expenses.
"Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses,"
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/o...cash-pay-rent/
What a stretch.
Symbols are not law.
It's a witch hunt...
Her the reasons I heard seem sound. I will bet there is no violation, and this is being trumped up by those who want to see her lose.
"What a stretch.
Symbols are not law."
What a non-sequitur.
Religious symbols on tax-payer-funded, public buildings are illegal, stare decisis (not that stare decisis prevents the Repug activist SCOTUS disrespeking stare decisis).
Only because of activist courts. Not by cons ution, in fact since "Congress shall make no law...." it should make sense that the judicial branch cannot make such a law either.
Wait a minute... They cannot make law!
ing activist courts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
