PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

There is still nothing there about separation of church and state. Reread it if you are still perplexed.

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

Can you read? Talking about someone being inane. Right there in my post is a direct quote from Jefferson stating "establishing a wall of separation between Church & State"

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

""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."

I see nothing there about a "wall of separation between Church and State". Where do you see it? It is only in your mind where that phraseology exists.

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

How old are you Mr. Gringo? I'm beyond middle age myself but you seem to be having a problem reading what is plane as the nose on your face. Maybe you are in denial as to Jefferson's and the SCOTUS interpretation of the establishment clause? Actually I think you are merely being obstinate in an attempt to waste my time. Enjoy your evening, take your meds and get some rest.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

what he said makes more sense than any thing I have seen from you

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Don't be impertinent and supercilious. It isn't 'plane'(sic) as the nose on my face. I didn't ask what Jefferson's 'interpretation' was, I stated what is written in the 1st Amendment. Anyone may interpret any thing they want, but that doesn't make it true. Sheesh.

BIGEAGLE Loc: Washington State

___________________________________________
To bad you wont be there... at the judgment, most libs are not swift enough to see what is ahead...
it seems you are clearly one of them...:mrgreen:

I am no genius, but at a IQ of 138, I am not exactly
( null and void as you definitely have shown ) :lol:

P.S. Save your unwanted retorts, as they will be entirely overlooked.... :thumbup:

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

Not being impertinent as I'm as much as an adult as you are nor am I being supercilious as I respect that you are at least taking time to reply. (although I feel like I'm making exchanges with 2 or 3 different people using your user name). I admitted about 5 posts ago that the establishment clause does not include the term "separation of Church & State". Jefferson was directly involved in the writing of the establishment clause so who is more able to interpret it than him? If his interpretation is not true, why has the Supreme Court used it repetitively through out history? Does this mean you do not consider Jefferson to be a true founding father? (he is my favorite) Does this mean that you choose to disregard the Supreme Court's use of the Jefferson interpretation in the many times it has ruled on meaning of the clause?

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

I'm no genius either and since I don't share your philosophy in life it is no concern of mine. Feel free to overlook my posts as the feeling will be mutual.

Loki Loc: Georgia

ere

There is a whole laundry list. Reid is a Democrat already, not a Republican who should be a Democrat. Lindsey Graham is no bargain either. Let us not
forget John McCain. Because of his military record, I supported him, but lately he has become an apologist. He would not be the first POW who suffered from dementia because of abuse while a POW. That's the only explanation I can think of for some of his actions. He has changed drastically from the early 2000s.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

WOW!!!!!!!!

You discuss your own topic with yourself; and you have the audacity to label me as the "WAKO"?

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

O.G. Could you explain what you mean in your last sentence, I'm particularly interested in the last part of it ?

Loki Loc: Georgia

The Liberalism of the Framers is based largely on the writings of John Locke. This is a Liberalism that expounds individual liberty and individual responsibility, a lassez faire approach to economic development, rather than the pseudo Keynesian approach apparently favored by both Democrats and establishment RINOs. Current Liberal philosophy favors larger, not smaller government, apparently in the belief that some nameless, faceless, and unaccountable bureaucrat is better able to order your affairs than you are. This approach minimizes, rather than maximizes personal responsibility that the Framers believed in, and the Socialism masquerading as Liberalism today is antithetical to the original intent of Locke's writings which influenced Thomas Jefferson so much.

viet vet

yes the separation of church and state is an issue that needs to be sustained , I am a liberal and I have strong religious beliefs , but I do not discuss those in public as I consider them a private matter between me and God
most of the issues from the far right are a fear reaction , to demographic changes , a change in social beliefs and structures , and I believe the bitterness comes from an inability to stop it

samarov

I agree with your comments. I think we're in a period of self-examination, as if we've just awakened from a sweet, protective, sleep only to find that the awakening brought with it hard decisions....especially if we're Republicans.
We find ourselves in disagreement with today's Democratic Party, we also have come to a fork in the road regarding the Republican Party. The "establishment" Republicans are very jealously guarding their "territory" against the growing trend towards constitutionalism and conservative ideology. We aspire to have candidates like Ted Cruz, he's admired for his "never say die" attitudes. He will be given one difficult time by establishment Republicans, it happened to Ronald Reagan too, until the establishment came to understand that Reagan really was the choice of the people. It meant the GOP could probably win with Reagan and the GOP got behind him. It did choose one of its own for the VP position, GHW Bush.
Therefore the conservatism of Reagan lasted for the two terms, USSR lost to Reagan's leadership, then the GOP returned to its former standards with GHW Bush.
The Republican Party as we know it can't help itself, it naturally gravitates to its usual stance. Only when an exceptional, driving, Conservative appears does it accede to that Conservatism.
I think it's inopportune to go third party at this time, we need to free this nation from the doldrums of a failing, inept, Obama presidency. Therefore, first things first.
Republicans can regain the Senate, while holding the House. Leadership in the House must change, the Minority Leader in our Senate cannot be the Majority Leader, the job requires action, not inaction and he's a "bad fit."
There needs to be primaries against Republicans who've become the quislings of the Beltway. They've been swamped by the status-quo of a too long Washington, DC experience. They want to be in constant accord with the opposition and the people's needs have become secondary to them. They need to be voted out.
The GOP/RNC will back their own people in office, they won't be much assistance to GOP challengers. If we want to return to adherence to the Constitution, Conservative challengers need to be elected. The GOP financial assistance will go to incumbents.
What I'm stating is that it'll be the people's task to financially support our choices. We probably can't match the money the GOP/RNC can raise, but we can keep our candidates in the game. Small donations from many folks can be effective. Personally, I have stopped donating to the RNC. I'm not wealthy, but what I can donate goes to Senate Conservative Funds, Heritage Foundation, and individually known Conservative Republicans.
Decisions must be made, the pondering must be ended. Unity must take its place.