Loyalty Oaths? I thought this crap stopped after the 50's

Re: republican hypocrisy

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

Agreed, and sometimes I wonder why I waste the time here arguing with such insanity. It is a hopeless pursuit.

I actually mean "insanity" in the "men in little white coats" sense.

I hope that means you two are finally admitting that you have been off your rockers for at least the past 8 yrs., while suctioned to the ass of one Chicken George.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Magginkat wrote:

I hope that means you two are finally admitting that you have been off your rockers for at least the past 8 yrs., while suctioned to the ass of one Chicken George.

No, but I really hope you are resting and getting good care and treatment.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Ticomaya wrote:

Magginkat wrote:

I hope that means you two are finally admitting that you have been off your rockers for at least the past 8 yrs., while suctioned to the ass of one Chicken George.

No, but I really hope you are resting and getting good care and treatment.

So tell me what do you think of Chicken george these days? Still your hero and savior of the world?

0 Replies

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/award_shows/emmys/images/roots.jpg

Old George is doing well. I hear he has 2 productions coming out this year.

0 Replies

Re: republican hypocrisy

Magginkat wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
okie wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Insanity reigns supreme in the republican party, this corrupt administration & it's followers.

Speaking of "insanity" .....

Agreed, and sometimes I wonder why I waste the time here arguing with such insanity. It is a hopeless pursuit.

I actually mean "insanity" in the "men in little white coats" sense.

I hope that means you two are finally admitting that you have been off your rockers for at least the past 8 yrs., while suctioned to the ass of one Chicken George.

Are you still advocating the murder of a FL state rep?
Remember, you are the one that said "a bullet was to good for him".
But you never did say you didnt want him dead, you just didnt want him shot.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Did I mention... Eat me?

Do you seriously still read it's posts, Finn.

I haven't for years.

I don't take his posts seriously, as the nature of my replys to him would, I hope, indicate.

This may come as a surprise to you, but JTT actually sent me not one but two PM's pledging that he would no longer post anything untoward about me.I don't know why he felt the need -- maybe he was feeling lonely that night. In any case, his pledge is, obviously, worth as much as his opinion.

Sometimes "blow me," "eat me," or "bite me," seems the perfectly balanced reply. I appreciate balance.

0 Replies

contrex wrote:

Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution?

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were very careful about this issue.

The final two paragraphs of Article II, Section 1 ("The President") read:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (emphases added)

The final paragraph of Article VI ("Debts, Supremacy, Oaths") reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

I rather suspect that this woman has a strong case against her former employer.

0 Replies

I don't know if she does or not, but I'm interested in the arguments. Hard to read this thread with all the furls to wade through.

0 Replies

contrex wrote:

Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution?

Where exactly is that located?

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

contrex wrote:
Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution?

Where exactly is that located?

The final paragraph of Article VI ("Debts, Supremacy, Oaths") reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

The First Amendment reads:

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. (emphasis added)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

jasonrest wrote:
contrex wrote:
Indeed, and who would have thought it would happen in the USA, where the separation of church and state is guaranteed -- so I thought -- by the Constitution?

Where exactly is that located?

The final paragraph of Article VI ("Debts, Supremacy, Oaths") reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

The First Amendment reads:

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. (emphasis added)

Indeed.
However, I am sure you're aware of how semantics play a very important part in laws and lawmaking. I hear the phrase "Separation of church and state" often but it's only suggested not stated.

Also, I can recall many other conversations that I've had where the enforcement of this suggestion is undermined by the government's own actions. One that comes to mind immediately.....The issue of Gay rights.

Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

0 Replies

Why are you asking me that? I've not either "denied gay rights," nor suggested that it be done, nor yet again any religious basis for doing anything.

As for the "separation of church and state," we have Mr. Jefferson to thank (or to blame) for that felicitous phrase, in his reply to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why are you asking me that? I've not either "denied gay rights," nor suggested that it be done, nor yet again any religious basis for doing anything.

As for the "separation of church and state," we have Mr. Jefferson to thank (or to blame) for that felicitous phrase, in his reply to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists.

I was not accusing you of anything. Excuse me.
I was trying to point out that
this has been used as a good example by some that, do not feel this country practices what it preaches.

In my opinion however, this country does far better than most so...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why are you asking me that? I've not either "denied gay rights," nor suggested that it be done, nor yet again any religious basis for doing anything.

As for the "separation of church and state," we have Mr. Jefferson to thank (or to blame) for that felicitous phrase, in his reply to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists.

And that famous letter did NOT mean what people today have decided it meant.
It was a specific response to a specific question by the Baptist Church in Danbury.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Why are you asking me that? I've not either "denied gay rights," nor suggested that it be done, nor yet again any religious basis for doing anything.

As for the "separation of church and state," we have Mr. Jefferson to thank (or to blame) for that felicitous phrase, in his reply to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists.

And that famous letter did NOT mean what people today have decided it meant.
It was a specific response to a specific question by the Baptist Church in Danbury.

It's funny I can even remember long ago, one of my school books with that topic for the chapter. "Separation of church and state". I had to write a report and everything. I hated school.

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

.............
Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

That is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Asking about "denial" of ANY "rights" whose existence only appears in some vague or feverish imagination - certainly not in the US Constitution, or in Christianity for that matter - is AB INITIO an illogical query.

NO "rights" can be presumed to exist without SOME basis in law.

To see the formal mathematical proof of the above pls refer to Principia Mathematica (Whitehead and Russell) chapter on "The Golden Mountain does not Exist".

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

What grounds if not religious, are used to ban robbery? If I need something, why not just take it from somebody that doesn't need it? What could be wrong with that?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What grounds if not religious, are used to ban robbery? If I need something, why not just take it from somebody that doesn't need it? What could be wrong with that?

You mean like taking the lives of millions of innocents just to feed your rapacious greed?

0 Replies

Did you mean to say our rapacious greed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

jasonrest wrote:

Honest question: What grounds if not Christian, are used to support the denial of Gay rights?

What grounds if not religious, are used to ban robbery? If I need something, why not just take it from somebody that doesn't need it? What could be wrong with that?

Robbery isn't banned because of religion, it's banned because it disturbs good order.

Joe(Just because Moses had a sentence about stealing on his plaques doesn't give the idea that theft is wrong for society any greater meaning.)Nation

0 Replies

Loyalty Oaths? I thought this crap stopped after the 50's

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know