Posts for: Doc110
Jun 3, 2015 01:52:07 #
(Main)
PeterS,
As I said earlier in the thread,
The federalist papers were never to have been written, by the Constitution delegation members. They all took an oath on this matter. But Madison in defiance did it anyway. History records this from the delegation in Philadelphia to create the Constitution.
This is why this statement was struck out or was never written into the Constitution. The Founding fathers did not want to put contentious statement in this the first amendment about personal freedoms and freedom of religion.
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution delegation members were some crafty intelligent, religious men for their times. They the Founding Fathers found it prudent not to include this statement "Separation of Church and State" from being in the Constitution, for wh**ever reason ?
We will never know the reason. The Monroe "federalist Papers" are only a guide a glimmer to what and how they were thinking, and like other members of the Constitution delegation members we have very little to go by for their reasoning, right wrong or indifferent.
Then the question is why did the Constitution delegation members keep this terminology out of the Constitution and use other wording to describe this statement in a different way. There is the Million dollar question ?
Like all things English, there may been a revulsion, a backlash in anything English from Roger Williams and or others saying the same thing.
My point is without the federalist papers we would have had no insight into the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Remember this is from one mans perspective.
My point is, no where in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America does it say "Separation of Church and State" and that this is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Do you see my reasoning, we will never know the reason for the final revisions to the document and the current Constitution wording. Everything else is theory, conjecture, semantics ect.
I'm not going to get into semantics of words that were written 239 years ago.
There was a reason for the wording from the framers and the Constitution delegation members to keep this contentious wording out of the delegation, to the public and the actual Constitution wording.
I'm not going to argue the point or be-little the point.
So there-for the statement the "Separation of Church and State" has crept back into this contentious forum on this very subject. Because of Monroe and the Federalist Papers this is why we are having this discussion. And these words would have been lost to history. I leave it to my points. We can ask why ? But we will never get the true answer or a true understanding on this matter.
Thats where i'm leaving this thread and have nothing more to say on the matter.
The Constitution framers wanted to keep out this statement and they succeeded. Sadly this statement is bering back to the light of day. And used incorrectly by some (OPP) site members. It maybe a technicality but it is a major technicality.
As I said earlier in the thread,
The federalist papers were never to have been written, by the Constitution delegation members. They all took an oath on this matter. But Madison in defiance did it anyway. History records this from the delegation in Philadelphia to create the Constitution.
This is why this statement was struck out or was never written into the Constitution. The Founding fathers did not want to put contentious statement in this the first amendment about personal freedoms and freedom of religion.
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution delegation members were some crafty intelligent, religious men for their times. They the Founding Fathers found it prudent not to include this statement "Separation of Church and State" from being in the Constitution, for wh**ever reason ?
We will never know the reason. The Monroe "federalist Papers" are only a guide a glimmer to what and how they were thinking, and like other members of the Constitution delegation members we have very little to go by for their reasoning, right wrong or indifferent.
Then the question is why did the Constitution delegation members keep this terminology out of the Constitution and use other wording to describe this statement in a different way. There is the Million dollar question ?
Like all things English, there may been a revulsion, a backlash in anything English from Roger Williams and or others saying the same thing.
My point is without the federalist papers we would have had no insight into the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Remember this is from one mans perspective.
My point is, no where in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America does it say "Separation of Church and State" and that this is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Do you see my reasoning, we will never know the reason for the final revisions to the document and the current Constitution wording. Everything else is theory, conjecture, semantics ect.
I'm not going to get into semantics of words that were written 239 years ago.
There was a reason for the wording from the framers and the Constitution delegation members to keep this contentious wording out of the delegation, to the public and the actual Constitution wording.
I'm not going to argue the point or be-little the point.
So there-for the statement the "Separation of Church and State" has crept back into this contentious forum on this very subject. Because of Monroe and the Federalist Papers this is why we are having this discussion. And these words would have been lost to history. I leave it to my points. We can ask why ? But we will never get the true answer or a true understanding on this matter.
Thats where i'm leaving this thread and have nothing more to say on the matter.
The Constitution framers wanted to keep out this statement and they succeeded. Sadly this statement is bering back to the light of day. And used incorrectly by some (OPP) site members. It maybe a technicality but it is a major technicality.
Jun 3, 2015 01:06:02 #
(Main)
KHH1,
Please, Cite the source URL, until then KHH1, all of your liberal posts are null-&-void and lack all and any credibility on the (OPP) website forum.
Journalism 101 say's:
1. Cite the source URL, the reader, should never have to do your homework for you and have to vet your source material. Unless your so gifted that your words are the original source and these authors are actually citing your works in their articles. Just a thought, to point this out to you.
The readers on this forum are very intelligent and don't need to be mislead by you, me or anyone else. It's called a writers common courtesy to the reader.
Cite the URL: Or this will be the standard reply to your diatribe. Then the (OPP) readers of the website forum will see that your Post-Article (PA) as disingenuous and misleading in your title.
Oh by the way KHH1, just another general journalistic 101observation;
2. The second journalistic observation; KHH1, your titles for this (PA) and several of your past titles and (PA). The titles are quite misleading to the actual article, written by a different author, than your written works.
KHH1, It's called plagiarism, if you use a known authors written work, and use them as your own, It's called plagiarism. Unless you cite the material source work or cite the URL and incorporate the author work into your title and giving credit to them in your title and (PA), then It's called plagiarism.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
Yet KHH1, still you continue ride down this written journalistic 101 plagiarism violation path, that you have taken. It's really time to clean up your act, on the (OPP) website forum and your posted (ehhm), your post article's. Readers can really see through this disguise and false bravado writing style. Its a f**e piece of work.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
3. The third journalistic observation is; "Why don't you ever really say, what you really mean" in your title's for your (PA) ? "Why is your message's so cryptic ? And misleading ?
KHH1, Isn't it hypocritical to say to the reader, the title says one thing. But in all actual reality, your title means something totally different than what the (PA) is written about. This is gross violations of Journalism 101.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
For your last titles and (PA's) quite frankly your past several titles and (PA) in question have had some glaring, misleading and contentious false statements, misleading facts incorporated in the title and into the (PA). In which I had to point out to you.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
4. Journalism 101 say's: Isn't that a fallacious argument, a "Red-Herring." This is yet another mis-nomer writing style and journalistic trap, that you weave into your Title's and (PA) on the (OPP) website forum.
KHH1, Lern some journalistic 101 writing etiquette, have some personal integrity; You might have some influence with the reader in-mind and or to better educate the (OPP) website reader. This would benefit you as well as the reader to encourage them, to understand your viewpoint, or dark written liberal philosophy style that you aspire to.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
5. Journalism 101 say's: Better yet, say what you really mean. Don't be cryptic, smart, "holier than thou" in your critical thinking and your God given talents.
Step up to the plate, in the real writers journalistic 101 game. Think man, step up to the big leagues, give the hole world your ten seconds of fame and your future destiny.
Didn't mean to be sarcastic, but this is the reality on the (OPP) website forum.
6. KHH1, enlighten us . . . Oh by the way, another a journalistic 101 observation: The title for your (PA) is called a "Lead-In," for the reader, to entice the reader, to read your pathos and ethos journalistic writing style.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
P.S. Keep writing at your own journalistic 101 peril KHH1, if not, then you marginalize your self and then become an obtuse writer, that is banging-clanging bell, that makes a lot of noise, but the (OPP) readers will never view your (PA) forum opinions ever quite the same... again.
Sure you may get a few core readers on the forum,that's what talking heads do. But you run the danger, of alienating the rest of the (OPP) forum readers.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
Please, Cite the source URL, until then KHH1, all of your liberal posts are null-&-void and lack all and any credibility on the (OPP) website forum.
Journalism 101 say's:
1. Cite the source URL, the reader, should never have to do your homework for you and have to vet your source material. Unless your so gifted that your words are the original source and these authors are actually citing your works in their articles. Just a thought, to point this out to you.
The readers on this forum are very intelligent and don't need to be mislead by you, me or anyone else. It's called a writers common courtesy to the reader.
Cite the URL: Or this will be the standard reply to your diatribe. Then the (OPP) readers of the website forum will see that your Post-Article (PA) as disingenuous and misleading in your title.
Oh by the way KHH1, just another general journalistic 101observation;
2. The second journalistic observation; KHH1, your titles for this (PA) and several of your past titles and (PA). The titles are quite misleading to the actual article, written by a different author, than your written works.
KHH1, It's called plagiarism, if you use a known authors written work, and use them as your own, It's called plagiarism. Unless you cite the material source work or cite the URL and incorporate the author work into your title and giving credit to them in your title and (PA), then It's called plagiarism.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
Yet KHH1, still you continue ride down this written journalistic 101 plagiarism violation path, that you have taken. It's really time to clean up your act, on the (OPP) website forum and your posted (ehhm), your post article's. Readers can really see through this disguise and false bravado writing style. Its a f**e piece of work.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
3. The third journalistic observation is; "Why don't you ever really say, what you really mean" in your title's for your (PA) ? "Why is your message's so cryptic ? And misleading ?
KHH1, Isn't it hypocritical to say to the reader, the title says one thing. But in all actual reality, your title means something totally different than what the (PA) is written about. This is gross violations of Journalism 101.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
For your last titles and (PA's) quite frankly your past several titles and (PA) in question have had some glaring, misleading and contentious false statements, misleading facts incorporated in the title and into the (PA). In which I had to point out to you.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
4. Journalism 101 say's: Isn't that a fallacious argument, a "Red-Herring." This is yet another mis-nomer writing style and journalistic trap, that you weave into your Title's and (PA) on the (OPP) website forum.
KHH1, Lern some journalistic 101 writing etiquette, have some personal integrity; You might have some influence with the reader in-mind and or to better educate the (OPP) website reader. This would benefit you as well as the reader to encourage them, to understand your viewpoint, or dark written liberal philosophy style that you aspire to.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
5. Journalism 101 say's: Better yet, say what you really mean. Don't be cryptic, smart, "holier than thou" in your critical thinking and your God given talents.
Step up to the plate, in the real writers journalistic 101 game. Think man, step up to the big leagues, give the hole world your ten seconds of fame and your future destiny.
Didn't mean to be sarcastic, but this is the reality on the (OPP) website forum.
6. KHH1, enlighten us . . . Oh by the way, another a journalistic 101 observation: The title for your (PA) is called a "Lead-In," for the reader, to entice the reader, to read your pathos and ethos journalistic writing style.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
P.S. Keep writing at your own journalistic 101 peril KHH1, if not, then you marginalize your self and then become an obtuse writer, that is banging-clanging bell, that makes a lot of noise, but the (OPP) readers will never view your (PA) forum opinions ever quite the same... again.
Sure you may get a few core readers on the forum,that's what talking heads do. But you run the danger, of alienating the rest of the (OPP) forum readers.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
Jun 3, 2015 01:04:28 #
(Main)
can't you read
Jun 3, 2015 01:04:09 #
(Main)
URL dumb ass
Jun 3, 2015 00:54:14 #
Jun 3, 2015 00:43:17 #
(Main)
3jack again your wrong, you must be liberal blind.
Court date January 20, 2016, Federal RICO-Racketeering court date, eat s**t and reply on that.
Court date January 20, 2016, Federal RICO-Racketeering court date, eat s**t and reply on that.
Jun 3, 2015 00:39:45 #
(Main)
3Jack,
Here is the docket # Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2015 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-80388-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRA
LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiffs)
VS.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al.(Defendants).
ORDER REFERRING CASE AND SETTING TRIAL DATE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled cause is hereby set for Trial before the
Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge, at United States District Court at 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, W est Palm Beach, Florida, during the two-week trial period commencing January 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the case may be called. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Status Conference/calendar
Call will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 1:15 p.m .
PRESENT. ALL COUNSEL MUST BE
1. JURY TRIALS
PRO POSED ORDERS: Pursuant to the CM /ECF Administrative Procedures, counsel shall send proposed orders in Word format for ALL motions directly to
middebrooks@isd.uscouds.gov.
1Bach Florida, DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach Florida May, 20l5.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150529-Order%20Setting%20Trial%20Clinton%20RICO.pdf
Here is the docket # Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2015 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-80388-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRA
LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiffs)
VS.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al.(Defendants).
ORDER REFERRING CASE AND SETTING TRIAL DATE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled cause is hereby set for Trial before the
Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge, at United States District Court at 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, W est Palm Beach, Florida, during the two-week trial period commencing January 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the case may be called. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Status Conference/calendar
Call will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 1:15 p.m .
PRESENT. ALL COUNSEL MUST BE
1. JURY TRIALS
PRO POSED ORDERS: Pursuant to the CM /ECF Administrative Procedures, counsel shall send proposed orders in Word format for ALL motions directly to
middebrooks@isd.uscouds.gov.
1Bach Florida, DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach Florida May, 20l5.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150529-Order%20Setting%20Trial%20Clinton%20RICO.pdf
Jun 3, 2015 00:20:26 #
(Main)
Just to prove you wrong once again. 3jack,
This is a really a big deal. RICO-Racketeering Charges at a court near you on 01/20/2015. The Clintons are s**tting bricks.
29 out of the 48 cited articles came from the mainstream media, or with no affiliation or from liberal news establishments. Thats over 60% from non-consertative news reporting websites and newspapers and television broadcasters,
There is something to this "Scandal" and don't be surprised if she gets fined, goes to prison, disbarred from her lawyers license, and is centered by congress. And we are not even talking about the Foundation, Bill, Chelsea and the governing board of the foundation and charities.
So there is substance to the Timeline news articles and the reporting of the news.
- Hillary Clinton's - RICO-Racketeering Charges - What it Means ?
But as usual you have your head up your ass. and your liberal head is up your ass.
1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-hit-with-racketeering-lawsuit/articl...
2. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/racketeering-rico.html
3. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
4. http://www.hg.org/rico-law.html
5. http://thompsonhall.com/overview-of-racketeer-influenced-corrupt-
6. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-state-department-staff-kept-tight-rein-on-re...
7. http://capitalresearch.org/2015/05/the-clinton-foundation-a-cauldron-of-conflicts-and-cro...
8. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-emails-judge-rejects-state-departments-proposed-20...
9. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article20568159.html
10. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/08/266113/under-pressure-clinton-foundations.html
11. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-29/1100-foreign-donors-clinton-foundation-never-dis...
12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
13. http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Bill-Hillary-Chelsea-Clinton-Foundation-...
14. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-23/hillarys-charities-suffer-geithner-moment-will-r...
15. http://gawker.com/clinton-lawyer-hillary-erased-all-emails-from-private-1694247035
16, http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-deleted-everything-on-her-email-server-201...
17. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-e******n-clinton-taxes-exclusive-iduskbn...
18. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-charities-refile-taxes-audit-erro...
19. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
20. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/what-if-dick-cheney-not-h_b_6900714.html
21. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-donations-iduskbn0mf2fq20150319
22. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/foia-hillary-clinton-email-daniel-metcalfe-116011.h...
23. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-hillary-clinton-delete-about-30000-emails-2015-3
24. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-use-of-personal-e-mail-at-state-dept-viol...
25. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/10-years-clinton-finally-releases-international-...
26. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r111:S21JA9-0007:
27. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/understanding.pdf
28. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/racketeering-rico.html
29. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
This is a really a big deal. RICO-Racketeering Charges at a court near you on 01/20/2015. The Clintons are s**tting bricks.
29 out of the 48 cited articles came from the mainstream media, or with no affiliation or from liberal news establishments. Thats over 60% from non-consertative news reporting websites and newspapers and television broadcasters,
There is something to this "Scandal" and don't be surprised if she gets fined, goes to prison, disbarred from her lawyers license, and is centered by congress. And we are not even talking about the Foundation, Bill, Chelsea and the governing board of the foundation and charities.
So there is substance to the Timeline news articles and the reporting of the news.
- Hillary Clinton's - RICO-Racketeering Charges - What it Means ?
But as usual you have your head up your ass. and your liberal head is up your ass.
1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-hit-with-racketeering-lawsuit/articl...
2. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/racketeering-rico.html
3. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
4. http://www.hg.org/rico-law.html
5. http://thompsonhall.com/overview-of-racketeer-influenced-corrupt-
6. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-state-department-staff-kept-tight-rein-on-re...
7. http://capitalresearch.org/2015/05/the-clinton-foundation-a-cauldron-of-conflicts-and-cro...
8. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-emails-judge-rejects-state-departments-proposed-20...
9. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article20568159.html
10. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/08/266113/under-pressure-clinton-foundations.html
11. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-29/1100-foreign-donors-clinton-foundation-never-dis...
12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
13. http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Bill-Hillary-Chelsea-Clinton-Foundation-...
14. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-23/hillarys-charities-suffer-geithner-moment-will-r...
15. http://gawker.com/clinton-lawyer-hillary-erased-all-emails-from-private-1694247035
16, http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-deleted-everything-on-her-email-server-201...
17. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-e******n-clinton-taxes-exclusive-iduskbn...
18. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-charities-refile-taxes-audit-erro...
19. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
20. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/what-if-dick-cheney-not-h_b_6900714.html
21. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-donations-iduskbn0mf2fq20150319
22. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/foia-hillary-clinton-email-daniel-metcalfe-116011.h...
23. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-hillary-clinton-delete-about-30000-emails-2015-3
24. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-use-of-personal-e-mail-at-state-dept-viol...
25. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/10-years-clinton-finally-releases-international-...
26. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r111:S21JA9-0007:
27. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/understanding.pdf
28. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/racketeering-rico.html
29. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
Jun 2, 2015 23:50:21 #
(Main)
Thats why your a fucking asshole, and is ignorant to the facts presented. They were there to inform the OPP site readers.
But as usual you have your head up your ass.
Hillary Clinton's - RICO-Racketeering Charges - What it Means ?
Court date January 20, 2016, Federal RICO-Racketeering court date, eat s**t and reply on that.
But as usual you have your head up your ass.
Hillary Clinton's - RICO-Racketeering Charges - What it Means ?
Court date January 20, 2016, Federal RICO-Racketeering court date, eat s**t and reply on that.
Jun 2, 2015 23:26:11 #
(Main)
Had enough Marcus Johnson, or do you need another kick in the ass.
The federalist papers were never to have been written,by the delegation But Madison did it anyways in defiance. So therefor the statement the "Separation of Church and State" has crept back into this contentious forum on this very subject. Because of Monroe and the Federalist Papers we are having this discussion.
The Constitution framers wanted to keep out this statement and they succeeded. but sadly this statement is bering back to the light of day by no other than (OPP) own Marcus Johnson. Stand-up and take a bow, Marcus you succeeded there thousands couldn't.
Marcus Johnson your still full of "Bull-S**t" nothing more, nothing less, "Bull-S**t."
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madison.htm
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in Saul K Padover, ed, The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings (1953), also; from Jack N Rakove, ed, James Madison: Writings, (1999), p. 789, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion"
The purpose of separation ... &c.
-- Please Note: The quip that once lived here was moved to our "Phony James Madison Quotations" feature. -- the editors
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J M on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
-- James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 (October, 1946) p. 555. The parenthetical note at the end, which lacks a closed parenthesis in Fleet, was apparently a note Madison made to himself regarding examples of improper encroachment to use when the "Detatched Memoranda" were edited and published, and seems to imply clearly that Madison supported taxing churches. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church."
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way wh**ever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others.
-- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams, in Robert L Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom (1987) p. 39, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
The federalist papers were never to have been written,by the delegation But Madison did it anyways in defiance. So therefor the statement the "Separation of Church and State" has crept back into this contentious forum on this very subject. Because of Monroe and the Federalist Papers we are having this discussion.
The Constitution framers wanted to keep out this statement and they succeeded. but sadly this statement is bering back to the light of day by no other than (OPP) own Marcus Johnson. Stand-up and take a bow, Marcus you succeeded there thousands couldn't.
Marcus Johnson your still full of "Bull-S**t" nothing more, nothing less, "Bull-S**t."
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madison.htm
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in Saul K Padover, ed, The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings (1953), also; from Jack N Rakove, ed, James Madison: Writings, (1999), p. 789, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion"
The purpose of separation ... &c.
-- Please Note: The quip that once lived here was moved to our "Phony James Madison Quotations" feature. -- the editors
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J M on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
-- James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 (October, 1946) p. 555. The parenthetical note at the end, which lacks a closed parenthesis in Fleet, was apparently a note Madison made to himself regarding examples of improper encroachment to use when the "Detatched Memoranda" were edited and published, and seems to imply clearly that Madison supported taxing churches. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church."
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way wh**ever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others.
-- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams, in Robert L Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom (1987) p. 39, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
Jun 2, 2015 22:57:38 #
(Main)
Marcus Johnson,
No where in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America does it say "Separation of Church and State" and is a cornerstone of our
Constitution.
I dare you to find this statement in the Constitution. . . you liberals always get it your facts and statements wrong. You make s**t-up all the time, and I'm calling you out on this statement.
Find the statement in the Constitution, and prove me wrong. Double dare you.
But I know, exact where "Separation of Church and State" can be found and which founding father said it, and in which document, where it was written in.
"Separation of Church and State" is not written in the Constitution, nor is it the cornerstone of the Republic of United States of America.
Prove me wrong, Marcus Johnson !
But you didn't know this fact, and you commented for the sake of commenting. In other words your talking out of your liberal-ASS.
Marcus Johnson, this is your reply to me. and I've taken the liberty to break down your lying comment-message.
1. I never claimed it does. "What a "bull-s**t" reply.
2. It's call deductive reasoning. "What another "bull-s**t" reply.
3. Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. "What a third "bull-s**t" reply.
Good luck[/quote] Good luck Marcus Johnson with you "bull-s**t" reply to me.
Marcus Johnson,
This is your exact statement that you wrote on this forum thread.
"The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
So Let me address your exact statement broken down into three parts...so your squirrelly ass, won't weasel your way out of this huge mistake on your part.
1. I never claimed it does. "What a "bull-s**t" reply. You said it, you own it.
a. Marcus Johnson, First of all you say things that are incorrect. You wrote the statement, you own it. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way." You did say this and to the (OPP) forum readers.
b. Secondly, you are retreating from your original statement. " I never claimed it does." What a fool-heartley thing to say and do.
You got caught up in your usual propaganda lying "bull-s**t". I've just called you a lier on the (OPP) website forum and to its readers. Deal with your lying "Bull-S**t." You talk with forked tongue, Marcus Johnson.
2. It's call deductive reasoning. "What a "bull-s**t" reply.
a. Marcus Johnson, What deductive reasoning did you do to come up with that statement ?
b. Marcus Johnson, It's called an "assumption," thats what you actually did. It's an educated guess, and that you figured out that no one would call you out on your "alleged deductive lying reasoning."
c. No, Marcus Johnson, you "assumed" when you assume, then it makes an "ASS"-ume" out of you.
3. Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. "What a third "bull-s**t" reply.
No, Marcus Johnson, there is where your wrong, with your "fallacious argument" which has now been compounded, wrong three times with your "bull-s**t" reply to me.
This is a Red Herring fallacy, that you use time and time again, by you Marcus Johnson and I' calling you out on your fallacious reply to me and others on the (OPP) website forum.
How many times do I have to point this out to you. Not only are you wrong once, twice but three times, to deflect the injustice, of your original fallacious statement.
You Liberals, can never say your wrong, "Be a Man." You said it. Man-up."
Again Marcus Johnson, here is what you said in your "bull-s**t" statement.
"The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
This is your own written statement, Marcus Johnson, your wrong for saying it.
Marcus Johnson, No where does it say in the United States Constitution, "Separation of Church and State."
Nor is it written as the cornerstone, "Separation of Church and State." of the Republic of United States of America.
Marcus Johnson, you find me one institution of higher learning that promotes this misnomer and I will prove you and the Institution, they are wrong.
Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. What bunch of double speak nonsense and "Bull-S**t."
a. Marcus Johnson, when have you ever been "reasonable" with me, Doc110.
You have always been antagonistic and obtuse with me, When your wrong I'm obligated to return the favor and point out your fallacies and where your wrong.
b, Marcus Johnson, Intelligent. "What a "bull-s**t" statement.
This is an "oxi-moron," statement if I ever heard one. If you were intelligent we would be having this conversation. In other words you did not do your research and I had to call you out for your lying statement. How intelligent is that.
c. Marcus Johnson, rational thinking person. "What a "bull-s**t" statement. statement.
Here we go again with your fallacious statement and fallacy argument. You failed to do your research to your fallacious statement. There is no rational to your made-up case statement, "Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution." Now try and back up your argument with facts and source material. Else you are really lying and an a Neanderthal-ingrate-liberial with a chip on his shoulder.
Marcus Johnson, deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement.
"What a "bull-s**t" statement again that you say.
What kind of "Bull-S**t" are you trying to weasel out of now you liberal puke.
There is no "deduce or inferred meaning of this given statement.
Marcus Johnson, "you made an assumption," you were wrong, you were caught red handed. And I'm not letting this liberal "Bull-S**t" comment or "Bull-S**t" statement pass any further.
Marcus Johnson, I feel like I'm talking to a child, who does-not know any better, but still has to continue to lie his way out of everything.
Man-up, Marcus Johnson, and tell the (OPP) readers on the forum that you were wrong and was misinformed and spoke out of context as to the validity and accuracy of your statement.
Never gonna happen, your a Liberal first, then a man secondly.
Marcus Johnson, you said that "The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
When your wrong your dead wrong, Marcus Johnson.
No where, does it say in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America "Separation of Church and State" and is a cornerstone of our
Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
Marcus Johnson your full of "Bull-S**t" nothing more, nothing less, "Bull-S**t."
No where in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America does it say "Separation of Church and State" and is a cornerstone of our
Constitution.
I dare you to find this statement in the Constitution. . . you liberals always get it your facts and statements wrong. You make s**t-up all the time, and I'm calling you out on this statement.
Find the statement in the Constitution, and prove me wrong. Double dare you.
But I know, exact where "Separation of Church and State" can be found and which founding father said it, and in which document, where it was written in.
"Separation of Church and State" is not written in the Constitution, nor is it the cornerstone of the Republic of United States of America.
Prove me wrong, Marcus Johnson !
But you didn't know this fact, and you commented for the sake of commenting. In other words your talking out of your liberal-ASS.
Marcus Johnson, this is your reply to me. and I've taken the liberty to break down your lying comment-message.
1. I never claimed it does. "What a "bull-s**t" reply.
2. It's call deductive reasoning. "What another "bull-s**t" reply.
3. Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. "What a third "bull-s**t" reply.
Good luck[/quote] Good luck Marcus Johnson with you "bull-s**t" reply to me.
Marcus Johnson,
This is your exact statement that you wrote on this forum thread.
"The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
So Let me address your exact statement broken down into three parts...so your squirrelly ass, won't weasel your way out of this huge mistake on your part.
1. I never claimed it does. "What a "bull-s**t" reply. You said it, you own it.
a. Marcus Johnson, First of all you say things that are incorrect. You wrote the statement, you own it. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way." You did say this and to the (OPP) forum readers.
b. Secondly, you are retreating from your original statement. " I never claimed it does." What a fool-heartley thing to say and do.
You got caught up in your usual propaganda lying "bull-s**t". I've just called you a lier on the (OPP) website forum and to its readers. Deal with your lying "Bull-S**t." You talk with forked tongue, Marcus Johnson.
2. It's call deductive reasoning. "What a "bull-s**t" reply.
a. Marcus Johnson, What deductive reasoning did you do to come up with that statement ?
b. Marcus Johnson, It's called an "assumption," thats what you actually did. It's an educated guess, and that you figured out that no one would call you out on your "alleged deductive lying reasoning."
c. No, Marcus Johnson, you "assumed" when you assume, then it makes an "ASS"-ume" out of you.
3. Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. "What a third "bull-s**t" reply.
No, Marcus Johnson, there is where your wrong, with your "fallacious argument" which has now been compounded, wrong three times with your "bull-s**t" reply to me.
This is a Red Herring fallacy, that you use time and time again, by you Marcus Johnson and I' calling you out on your fallacious reply to me and others on the (OPP) website forum.
How many times do I have to point this out to you. Not only are you wrong once, twice but three times, to deflect the injustice, of your original fallacious statement.
You Liberals, can never say your wrong, "Be a Man." You said it. Man-up."
Again Marcus Johnson, here is what you said in your "bull-s**t" statement.
"The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
This is your own written statement, Marcus Johnson, your wrong for saying it.
Marcus Johnson, No where does it say in the United States Constitution, "Separation of Church and State."
Nor is it written as the cornerstone, "Separation of Church and State." of the Republic of United States of America.
Marcus Johnson, you find me one institution of higher learning that promotes this misnomer and I will prove you and the Institution, they are wrong.
Where by any reasonably intelligent, rational thinking person can deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement. What bunch of double speak nonsense and "Bull-S**t."
a. Marcus Johnson, when have you ever been "reasonable" with me, Doc110.
You have always been antagonistic and obtuse with me, When your wrong I'm obligated to return the favor and point out your fallacies and where your wrong.
b, Marcus Johnson, Intelligent. "What a "bull-s**t" statement.
This is an "oxi-moron," statement if I ever heard one. If you were intelligent we would be having this conversation. In other words you did not do your research and I had to call you out for your lying statement. How intelligent is that.
c. Marcus Johnson, rational thinking person. "What a "bull-s**t" statement. statement.
Here we go again with your fallacious statement and fallacy argument. You failed to do your research to your fallacious statement. There is no rational to your made-up case statement, "Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution." Now try and back up your argument with facts and source material. Else you are really lying and an a Neanderthal-ingrate-liberial with a chip on his shoulder.
Marcus Johnson, deduce the inferred meaning of a given statement.
"What a "bull-s**t" statement again that you say.
What kind of "Bull-S**t" are you trying to weasel out of now you liberal puke.
There is no "deduce or inferred meaning of this given statement.
Marcus Johnson, "you made an assumption," you were wrong, you were caught red handed. And I'm not letting this liberal "Bull-S**t" comment or "Bull-S**t" statement pass any further.
Marcus Johnson, I feel like I'm talking to a child, who does-not know any better, but still has to continue to lie his way out of everything.
Man-up, Marcus Johnson, and tell the (OPP) readers on the forum that you were wrong and was misinformed and spoke out of context as to the validity and accuracy of your statement.
Never gonna happen, your a Liberal first, then a man secondly.
Marcus Johnson, you said that "The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
When your wrong your dead wrong, Marcus Johnson.
No where, does it say in the Constitution, in the Republic of United States of America "Separation of Church and State" and is a cornerstone of our
Constitution. And needs to stay that way."
Marcus Johnson your full of "Bull-S**t" nothing more, nothing less, "Bull-S**t."
Jun 2, 2015 20:44:24 #
(Main)
KHH1,
Please, Cite the source URL, until then KHH1, all of your liberal posts are null-&-void and lack all and any credibility on the (OPP) website forum.
Journalism 101 say's:
1. Cite the source URL, the reader, should never have to do your homework for you and have to vet your source material. Unless your so gifted that your words are the original source and these authors are actually citing your works in their articles. Just a thought, to point this out to you.
The readers on this forum are very intelligent and don't need to be mislead by you, me or anyone else. It's called a writers common courtesy to the reader.
Cite the URL: Or this will be the standard reply to your diatribe. Then the (OPP) readers of the website forum will see that your Post-Article (PA) as disingenuous and misleading in your title.
Oh by the way KHH1, just another general journalistic 101observation;
2. The second journalistic observation; KHH1, your titles for this (PA) and several of your past titles and (PA). The titles are quite misleading to the actual article, written by a different author, than your written works.
KHH1, It's called plagiarism, if you use a known authors written work, and use them as your own, It's called plagiarism. Unless you cite the material source work or cite the URL and incorporate the author work into your title and giving credit to them in your title and (PA), then It's called plagiarism.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
Yet KHH1, still you continue ride down this written journalistic 101 plagiarism violation path, that you have taken. It's really time to clean up your act, on the (OPP) website forum and your posted (ehhm), your post article's. Readers can really see through this disguise and false bravado writing style. Its a f**e piece of work.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
3. The third journalistic observation is; "Why don't you ever really say, what you really mean" in your title's for your (PA) ? "Why is your message's so cryptic ? And misleading ?
KHH1, Isn't it hypocritical to say to the reader, the title says one thing. But in all actual reality, your title means something totally different than what the (PA) is written about. This is gross violations of Journalism 101.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
For your last titles and (PA's) quite frankly your past several titles and (PA) in question have had some glaring, misleading and contentious false statements, misleading facts incorporated in the title and into the (PA). In which I had to point out to you.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
4. Journalism 101 say's: Isn't that a fallacious argument, a "Red-Herring." This is yet another mis-nomer writing style and journalistic trap, that you weave into your Title's and (PA) on the (OPP) website forum.
KHH1, Lern some journalistic 101 writing etiquette, have some personal integrity; You might have some influence with the reader in-mind and or to better educate the (OPP) website reader. This would benefit you as well as the reader to encourage them, to understand your viewpoint, or dark written liberal philosophy style that you aspire to.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
5. Journalism 101 say's: Better yet, say what you really mean. Don't be cryptic, smart, "holier than thou" in your critical thinking and your God given talents.
Step up to the plate, in the real writers journalistic 101 game. Think man, step up to the big leagues, give the hole world your ten seconds of fame and your future destiny.
Didn't mean to be sarcastic, but this is the reality on the (OPP) website forum.
6. KHH1, enlighten us . . . Oh by the way, another a journalistic 101 observation: The title for your (PA) is called a "Lead-In," for the reader, to entice the reader, to read your pathos and ethos journalistic writing style.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
P.S. Keep writing at your own journalistic 101 peril KHH1, if not, then you marginalize your self and then become an obtuse writer, that is banging-clanging bell, that makes a lot of noise, but the (OPP) readers will never view your (PA) forum opinions ever quite the same... again.
Sure you may get a few core readers on the forum,that's what talking heads do. But you run the danger, of alienating the rest of the (OPP) forum readers.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
Please, Cite the source URL, until then KHH1, all of your liberal posts are null-&-void and lack all and any credibility on the (OPP) website forum.
Journalism 101 say's:
1. Cite the source URL, the reader, should never have to do your homework for you and have to vet your source material. Unless your so gifted that your words are the original source and these authors are actually citing your works in their articles. Just a thought, to point this out to you.
The readers on this forum are very intelligent and don't need to be mislead by you, me or anyone else. It's called a writers common courtesy to the reader.
Cite the URL: Or this will be the standard reply to your diatribe. Then the (OPP) readers of the website forum will see that your Post-Article (PA) as disingenuous and misleading in your title.
Oh by the way KHH1, just another general journalistic 101observation;
2. The second journalistic observation; KHH1, your titles for this (PA) and several of your past titles and (PA). The titles are quite misleading to the actual article, written by a different author, than your written works.
KHH1, It's called plagiarism, if you use a known authors written work, and use them as your own, It's called plagiarism. Unless you cite the material source work or cite the URL and incorporate the author work into your title and giving credit to them in your title and (PA), then It's called plagiarism.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
Yet KHH1, still you continue ride down this written journalistic 101 plagiarism violation path, that you have taken. It's really time to clean up your act, on the (OPP) website forum and your posted (ehhm), your post article's. Readers can really see through this disguise and false bravado writing style. Its a f**e piece of work.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
3. The third journalistic observation is; "Why don't you ever really say, what you really mean" in your title's for your (PA) ? "Why is your message's so cryptic ? And misleading ?
KHH1, Isn't it hypocritical to say to the reader, the title says one thing. But in all actual reality, your title means something totally different than what the (PA) is written about. This is gross violations of Journalism 101.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
For your last titles and (PA's) quite frankly your past several titles and (PA) in question have had some glaring, misleading and contentious false statements, misleading facts incorporated in the title and into the (PA). In which I had to point out to you.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
4. Journalism 101 say's: Isn't that a fallacious argument, a "Red-Herring." This is yet another mis-nomer writing style and journalistic trap, that you weave into your Title's and (PA) on the (OPP) website forum.
KHH1, Lern some journalistic 101 writing etiquette, have some personal integrity; You might have some influence with the reader in-mind and or to better educate the (OPP) website reader. This would benefit you as well as the reader to encourage them, to understand your viewpoint, or dark written liberal philosophy style that you aspire to.
But KHH1, you already knew this.
5. Journalism 101 say's: Better yet, say what you really mean. Don't be cryptic, smart, "holier than thou" in your critical thinking and your God given talents.
Step up to the plate, in the real writers journalistic 101 game. Think man, step up to the big leagues, give the hole world your ten seconds of fame and your future destiny.
Didn't mean to be sarcastic, but this is the reality on the (OPP) website forum.
6. KHH1, enlighten us . . . Oh by the way, another a journalistic 101 observation: The title for your (PA) is called a "Lead-In," for the reader, to entice the reader, to read your pathos and ethos journalistic writing style.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
P.S. Keep writing at your own journalistic 101 peril KHH1, if not, then you marginalize your self and then become an obtuse writer, that is banging-clanging bell, that makes a lot of noise, but the (OPP) readers will never view your (PA) forum opinions ever quite the same... again.
Sure you may get a few core readers on the forum,that's what talking heads do. But you run the danger, of alienating the rest of the (OPP) forum readers.
Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.
Jun 2, 2015 01:40:00 #
(Main)
Who made you a self appointed fucking lawyer. You don't know jack-s**t and your not a legal scholar. Your a tick on an amoeba ass.
Your just a little s**t who mouths off and doesn't know what the fuck your talking about. Commenting for the sake of commenting.
S**t-Head They are going to court on January 20, 2016 for RICO Racketeering Charges. Klayman has filed in Federal court twice and won.
Are you in fucking La La La land, can't you even fucking read, or click onto the article to inform yourself.
Again 3jack do you think that this is a frivolous lawsuit. This a federal crime not some stinking civil lawsuit. Man your dumber than a box of rocks.
Not anything you say or your comments, which are stupid blind opinion, will not change the court date on 01/20/2016. The Clintons will have their day in court.
This is one of the largest scandals. Larger than Watergate and the missing 18 Minutes of recorded tape by Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods.
This is money laundering and we are talking about hundreds of million's of dollars. The Clinton and the foundation did not abide by the Obama disclosure agreements. This was disclosed by the Obama administration. They just thru Hillary under the bus. Democrats did this to other democrats.
S**t-Head the timeline is everything, it corroborates the FIOC and the Constitutional laws that governs all politicians and people in government.
This court case in 01/20/2016 will destroy Hillary chances for the presidency. Thats why you haven't heard her talk to the press in 45 + days now.
And how is that refiling of 501-C-3 tax forms, and Form 900 working out for Hillary and their foundation. Hillary is having to go back 5 years or more and refile IRS taxes.
So what about the missing 27 million dollars, and the 15 million dollars that cannot be accounted for. 3jack it docent bode well for the Clintons, the charitable foundations.
Not only are you a dumb-ass, your ignorant, naive and do not possess a Law degree or do you have any understanding and implications of the RICO Racketeering federal criminal charges. Your completely ignorant and your comments are worthless. Thats why i put the legal definitions in the news article to understand what title 18 chapter 95 and 96 and what defines Racketeering and the RICO Act.
Read the fucking article and read the News sources, Why do you think that there in the post-article, they are to inform and allow (OPP) readers to make up their minds with facts.
You have not added one piece of evidence to support your statement and only have given asinine comments. And you can't rebut one of the 48 articles that were put in the Time-line.
3jack your pathetic, you have made up your mind. Your the blind leading the blind,and just a just a foolish hypocrite.
Your conjecture and fallacious argument is just that, Lame, Lame, Lame, lame.
Your Straw-man and Red-herring comments are just that, methane farts coming out of your mouth and demented narrow-minded liberal amoeba brain.
If you have anything to offer other than fallacies types of arguments, comment on the article, if not then I advise you, to just go away.
This by far is one of you i***tic comments that I ever heard from you.
Didn't God give you a brain, Then use it, to rebut one of the 48 cited news sources. They were an assembled right, center and l*****t news sources to show balance to the post article.
Ignorant and stupid is no way to go through life 3jack.
Just fade away, if you can't add to the post article, or rebut one of the 48 cited articles in the post i dare you...
If not go away with your tail between your legs and go away.
Your just a little s**t who mouths off and doesn't know what the fuck your talking about. Commenting for the sake of commenting.
S**t-Head They are going to court on January 20, 2016 for RICO Racketeering Charges. Klayman has filed in Federal court twice and won.
Are you in fucking La La La land, can't you even fucking read, or click onto the article to inform yourself.
Again 3jack do you think that this is a frivolous lawsuit. This a federal crime not some stinking civil lawsuit. Man your dumber than a box of rocks.
Not anything you say or your comments, which are stupid blind opinion, will not change the court date on 01/20/2016. The Clintons will have their day in court.
This is one of the largest scandals. Larger than Watergate and the missing 18 Minutes of recorded tape by Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods.
This is money laundering and we are talking about hundreds of million's of dollars. The Clinton and the foundation did not abide by the Obama disclosure agreements. This was disclosed by the Obama administration. They just thru Hillary under the bus. Democrats did this to other democrats.
S**t-Head the timeline is everything, it corroborates the FIOC and the Constitutional laws that governs all politicians and people in government.
This court case in 01/20/2016 will destroy Hillary chances for the presidency. Thats why you haven't heard her talk to the press in 45 + days now.
And how is that refiling of 501-C-3 tax forms, and Form 900 working out for Hillary and their foundation. Hillary is having to go back 5 years or more and refile IRS taxes.
So what about the missing 27 million dollars, and the 15 million dollars that cannot be accounted for. 3jack it docent bode well for the Clintons, the charitable foundations.
Not only are you a dumb-ass, your ignorant, naive and do not possess a Law degree or do you have any understanding and implications of the RICO Racketeering federal criminal charges. Your completely ignorant and your comments are worthless. Thats why i put the legal definitions in the news article to understand what title 18 chapter 95 and 96 and what defines Racketeering and the RICO Act.
Read the fucking article and read the News sources, Why do you think that there in the post-article, they are to inform and allow (OPP) readers to make up their minds with facts.
You have not added one piece of evidence to support your statement and only have given asinine comments. And you can't rebut one of the 48 articles that were put in the Time-line.
3jack your pathetic, you have made up your mind. Your the blind leading the blind,and just a just a foolish hypocrite.
Your conjecture and fallacious argument is just that, Lame, Lame, Lame, lame.
Your Straw-man and Red-herring comments are just that, methane farts coming out of your mouth and demented narrow-minded liberal amoeba brain.
If you have anything to offer other than fallacies types of arguments, comment on the article, if not then I advise you, to just go away.
This by far is one of you i***tic comments that I ever heard from you.
Didn't God give you a brain, Then use it, to rebut one of the 48 cited news sources. They were an assembled right, center and l*****t news sources to show balance to the post article.
Ignorant and stupid is no way to go through life 3jack.
Just fade away, if you can't add to the post article, or rebut one of the 48 cited articles in the post i dare you...
If not go away with your tail between your legs and go away.
Jun 2, 2015 01:39:59 #
(Main)
Who made you a self appointed fucking lawyer. You don't know jack-s**t and your not a legal scholar. Your a tick on an amoeba ass.
Your just a little s**t who mouths off and doesn't know what the fuck your talking about. Commenting for the sake of commenting.
S**t-Head They are going to court on January 20, 2016 for RICO Racketeering Charges. Klayman has filed in Federal court twice and won.
Are you in fucking La La La land, can't you even fucking read, or click onto the article to inform yourself.
Again 3jack do you think that this is a frivolous lawsuit. This a federal crime not some stinking civil lawsuit. Man your dumber than a box of rocks.
Not anything you say or your comments, which are stupid blind opinion, will not change the court date on 01/20/2016. The Clintons will have their day in court.
This is one of the largest scandals. Larger than Watergate and the missing 18 Minutes of recorded tape by Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods.
This is money laundering and we are talking about hundreds of million's of dollars. The Clinton and the foundation did not abide by the Obama disclosure agreements. This was disclosed by the Obama administration. They just thru Hillary under the bus. Democrats did this to other democrats.
S**t-Head the timeline is everything, it corroborates the FIOC and the Constitutional laws that governs all politicians and people in government.
This court case in 01/20/2016 will destroy Hillary chances for the presidency. Thats why you haven't heard her talk to the press in 45 + days now.
And how is that refiling of 501-C-3 tax forms, and Form 900 working out for Hillary and their foundation. Hillary is having to go back 5 years or more and refile IRS taxes.
So what about the missing 27 million dollars, and the 15 million dollars that cannot be accounted for. 3jack it docent bode well for the Clintons, the charitable foundations.
Not only are you a dumb-ass, your ignorant, naive and do not possess a Law degree or do you have any understanding and implications of the RICO Racketeering federal criminal charges. Your completely ignorant and your comments are worthless. Thats why i put the legal definitions in the news article to understand what title 18 chapter 95 and 96 and what defines Racketeering and the RICO Act.
Read the fucking article and read the News sources, Why do you think that there in the post-article, they are to inform and allow (OPP) readers to make up their minds with facts.
You have not added one piece of evidence to support your statement and only have given asinine comments. And you can't rebut one of the 48 articles that were put in the Time-line.
3jack your pathetic, you have made up your mind. Your the blind leading the blind,and just a just a foolish hypocrite.
Your conjecture and fallacious argument is just that, Lame, Lame, Lame, lame.
Your Straw-man and Red-herring comments are just that, methane farts coming out of your mouth and demented narrow-minded liberal amoeba brain.
If you have anything to offer other than fallacies types of arguments, comment on the article, if not then I advise you, to just go away.
This by far is one of you i***tic comments that I ever heard from you.
Didn't God give you a brain, Then use it, to rebut one of the 48 cited news sources. They were an assembled right, center and l*****t news sources to show balance to the post article.
Ignorant and stupid is no way to go through life 3jack.
Just fade away, if you can't add to the post article, or rebut one of the 48 cited articles in the post i dare you...
If not go away with your tail between your legs and go away.
Your just a little s**t who mouths off and doesn't know what the fuck your talking about. Commenting for the sake of commenting.
S**t-Head They are going to court on January 20, 2016 for RICO Racketeering Charges. Klayman has filed in Federal court twice and won.
Are you in fucking La La La land, can't you even fucking read, or click onto the article to inform yourself.
Again 3jack do you think that this is a frivolous lawsuit. This a federal crime not some stinking civil lawsuit. Man your dumber than a box of rocks.
Not anything you say or your comments, which are stupid blind opinion, will not change the court date on 01/20/2016. The Clintons will have their day in court.
This is one of the largest scandals. Larger than Watergate and the missing 18 Minutes of recorded tape by Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods.
This is money laundering and we are talking about hundreds of million's of dollars. The Clinton and the foundation did not abide by the Obama disclosure agreements. This was disclosed by the Obama administration. They just thru Hillary under the bus. Democrats did this to other democrats.
S**t-Head the timeline is everything, it corroborates the FIOC and the Constitutional laws that governs all politicians and people in government.
This court case in 01/20/2016 will destroy Hillary chances for the presidency. Thats why you haven't heard her talk to the press in 45 + days now.
And how is that refiling of 501-C-3 tax forms, and Form 900 working out for Hillary and their foundation. Hillary is having to go back 5 years or more and refile IRS taxes.
So what about the missing 27 million dollars, and the 15 million dollars that cannot be accounted for. 3jack it docent bode well for the Clintons, the charitable foundations.
Not only are you a dumb-ass, your ignorant, naive and do not possess a Law degree or do you have any understanding and implications of the RICO Racketeering federal criminal charges. Your completely ignorant and your comments are worthless. Thats why i put the legal definitions in the news article to understand what title 18 chapter 95 and 96 and what defines Racketeering and the RICO Act.
Read the fucking article and read the News sources, Why do you think that there in the post-article, they are to inform and allow (OPP) readers to make up their minds with facts.
You have not added one piece of evidence to support your statement and only have given asinine comments. And you can't rebut one of the 48 articles that were put in the Time-line.
3jack your pathetic, you have made up your mind. Your the blind leading the blind,and just a just a foolish hypocrite.
Your conjecture and fallacious argument is just that, Lame, Lame, Lame, lame.
Your Straw-man and Red-herring comments are just that, methane farts coming out of your mouth and demented narrow-minded liberal amoeba brain.
If you have anything to offer other than fallacies types of arguments, comment on the article, if not then I advise you, to just go away.
This by far is one of you i***tic comments that I ever heard from you.
Didn't God give you a brain, Then use it, to rebut one of the 48 cited news sources. They were an assembled right, center and l*****t news sources to show balance to the post article.
Ignorant and stupid is no way to go through life 3jack.
Just fade away, if you can't add to the post article, or rebut one of the 48 cited articles in the post i dare you...
If not go away with your tail between your legs and go away.
Jun 2, 2015 00:35:17 #
(Main)
your a boring black s*********t r****t, that all you will ever be, go justify your self to someone who gives a s**t about what you think. Your a Indigent self appointed black r****t.
you speak h**e speech. you never add anything more to your longwinded diatribe. Ive got your r****t number. h**e h**e h**e, i hope it consumes you.
you speak h**e speech. you never add anything more to your longwinded diatribe. Ive got your r****t number. h**e h**e h**e, i hope it consumes you.