Oh, Huck, Say It Ain't So...

Can you go far enough right to lose conservative Christians? And do the other primary candidates say he's too Christian? I don't think so. That's where the votes are in the GOP.

 

I doubt it. But you can go too far and alienate the centrists within the party and any undecided centrists, which are the key 20% we always hear about when it comes to winning elections.

 

There is, sadly, no evidence to support this.

 

Hurrah!
Except for the mustard part.

 

I'd like to think that if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's shrimp po-boys.

 

America was founded on Christian principles and even Americans who weren't Christian accepted these values as part of the American culture, and when immigrants came here they assimilated to those values even if they weren't Christian. Even the atheists accepted those values. They kept their atheism to themselves. They didn't go out and profess "I am an atheist, and I want America to reinterpret the constitution and change its culture, so my rights aren't infringed upon."
Homosexuals kept to themselves about their sexual preference for the same gender, and conducted their sexual affairs in private. They didn't ask for the culture or constitution to be altered for them. Atheists were never forced to participate in school prayer, which was theistic rather than oriented to a specific religion. They could have excused themselves for the school prayer. There is no need to trample on the rights of Christians. In the Bill of Rights, amendment one; the bill says, "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

There is nothing about the separation of church and state in any of the amendments of the Bill of Rights or in the constitution. This separation of church and state was established by one of the supreme court justices when he interpreted amendment one with a misunderstanding of the intentions of the founding fathers and a misunderstanding of the literal meaning of the words themselves. He said that the intentions of the fathers were to have a separation of church and state and then this became a judicial precedent. Once a judicial precedent has become established, it becomes law. Even if the interpretation is so erroneously incorrect that the judge becomes a legislator rather than an umpire. The precedents can be overturned, which then makes that law void, yet they rarely ever are because cases can only be brought in front of the supreme court in specific circumstances, and overturning a precedent isn't one of them, unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this precedent has violated the law, which is very hard to do.

James Madison in his Federalist papers (51) talks about the power and divisions of the branches of government and remedies to limit the passions and interests of individuals. He implies that the remedy to this problem is to have many factions with many different interests, so the majority could not oppress the minority, but also so the minority couldn't oppress the majority. The latter is happening via the Democratic Party power base because it knows it is the only way to force their agenda on the American people.

 

Whence was this clipped?

 

http://www.helium.com/tm/468416/think-liberals-taking-traditional

Do you have any thoughts of your own on these matters, Yawn, or are you just going to continue your usual plagiarism?

 

This has the potential--and I stress potential--of reaching Wal-Mart's "!0,000 workers, 400 jobs" thread.


And the blog that Yawn posted is practically Raguworthy.

 

Um, would David Duke's failed presidential bid count as evidence? How about Pat Robertson's failed presidential bid? How about Pat Buchanan's failed presidential bids? Correct me if I am wrong but none of those guys even came close to getting the nomination.

So I'd say there is PLENTY of evidence to support this -- more evidence than there is to support crackpot theories, like, oh evolution......

And I always find it interesting that the same people who are constantly ripping religious conservatives for mixing politics and religion have no problem embracing the REVERAND Jesse Jackson and going into baptist churches in the south to stump for black votes.......

 

I save what I agree with.


You just lap up what your "boys" say... plagiarism in a different form. It's called blowjobs.

 

That's fine. But when you present it without an accompanying link, without setting it of with italics or without an introductory note crediting the author, it's plagiarism.

This is a journalist's board, you know.