Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

ok so basically what alot of people are pulling is of course the constitution. in my cases, i put alot about free market place of ideas(neg) basically if we dont have a strict separtaion of church and state, then the free market place of ideas would be open for people to leaarn about the different religions out there. and what is so wrong with be educated on different religions, NOTHING. that was a key point in my neg case. for the aff i cant remember what i put but i'll get back to you with that latter today most likely in about an hour and like 20 min. when i can get to my cases and my ballots to tell ya'll what ppl are running out there. any ways so long for me. hope this helped ya'll out some how!! till later....

~Sara

ohh and for neg. trapping the aff. say "What is so wrong with ppl acting on their morals?" "is it wrong for a person to have morals?" *****"Is everybody satisfied all the time?"*****
***** for this use only if you are going to use if religion is going to be neutral because if you are going to have NO religion than ppl are not going to be satisfied about that.

I'll be back for some more stuff ya'll!!!

Oh that post......well Spendius, I didn't respond to it because it was a long question that you answered yourself at the end. I will say there is a world of difference in finding out what a loved one wants for a gift than in taking it upon yourself to declare motive in what a person you do not know says or to announce what a person you do not know thinks or means. (Figurature, not literal 'you' here).

spendius...
"Check out Spoonerisms.I think you might be good. "

"You hissed all your mistery lessons and tasted two whole worms"

one of the few literary terms I know!

ahhs, I had an undefeated neg which ran...

cont 1- religion is moral, government needs to be moral, ethics of reciprocity(golden rule) are in most religions

cont 2-religion is the cause of most historical evil, so it needs to be regulated by the government

got them every time!

they tried to pull contradiction, but I just affirmed my point that I was showing two real, logical reasons why the church and state should not be separated if democracy is to be best served. Hope I helped!

Forgive me if I am a little out of touch with modern thinking but I have always had the impression that the sound conservative position on the marriage bargain is that the lady of the house,the party of the second part,remained within the domestic precincts as much as possible and concerned herself with the perfection of those skills and accomplishments which are conducive to satisfying the head of the household that the terrible sacrifice he has made for the sake of orderly governance and other utilitarian purposes has been worthwhile.
How a wife and mother can adopt the concentration distraction of a second career outside of the exigencies of dire necessity and claim to be a conservative at the same time is outside of my competence.I can only fall back on the trite explanation that labels,such as "conservative" and "wife" (a legal term) are capable of a flexibility of an order which allows them to mean anything which takes the fancy and,with constant recourse to this flexibility,become meaningless.The "Liberal" is not in this unfortunate position.
I am aware that these considerations are balanced about the expression "dire necessity" and at that point psychological categories take over of the type outlined in Mr Packard's The Hidden Persuaders and many other weighty tomes which purport to deal with this vexing subject.

The logic of the working mother with young children
leads,step by step,to state rearing in institutions from birth and in the Yucky we have got as far as about nine months and counting.Whatever the merits of such things,and there are plenty of arguments on either side,they are totally socialistic and those engaged in them are socialists despite labels to the contrary.
This is presumably why working mothers focus on aspects of government about which they have little knowledge,or even capacity to understand,in order to evade the true meaning of the word "conservative".
If all the mothers of young children (up to 14 and that's a concession on my part) were to stay at home men's wages would be considerably higher
which leads to the conclusion that the mothers who work are working for nothing and thus out of some other need.

hyper:-

That one is already on the thread.You missed out the pinal fart about the town drain.

But it's a start.See the thread.I think you will find it both challenging and amusing.The more the merrier.

Regards.

hmm, didn't realize i missed anything.

Are you being sexist? what was the relevance of that post?

hyper:-

I don't know but it sounded pretty good I thought.

What's a sexist?

a sexist is someone who separates the hens from the roosters.

if the women are home, they are separated from the male dominated business world.

Hyper:-

That might be the general idea.

hyper:-

On reflection I suppose I ought to explain the relevance of the post you asked about.

There are a number of ladies on these threads who claim to be conservatives under the specious justification of whatever they feel like.I was simply trying to point out to them,as career women,that they are bang at it flat out socialists who any serious conservative would disown as fast as he could get his vocal chords moving.And that they are in this fix for psychological reasons associated with Media Productions Inc which has a vested interest in marriage wrecking.

It is a complex tale.

Hens and Roosters.......what does this have to do with God?

cluck cluck

Lola:-

And pray what do career women have to do with God?

Lola:-

Check out 1204508 on previous page.

spendius is going to have all of us forget what thread we are on!

wandy:-

It isn't as far off thread as you seem to think.What sort of God is it that isn't there in everything you do.

hyper~
I showed my coach yor cont. 2. I loved it!!! its great! but my coach did not where did you come up with that??? What school are you from?

hyper~
I showed my coach yor cont. 2. I loved it!!! its great! but my coach did not where did you come up with that??? What school are you from?

Heck, I am not debating this anymore, so I will give you my links. (well, the ones i still have)

www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html (this is my most used link; I used it in both cases, but this is one of the primary bases of my cont.2; *chill bumbs*)

www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=886
www.mtio.com/articles/aissar79.htm
www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm (my contention, works both aff and neg, well, it did for me)
www.religioustolerance.org/rel_hate.htm
www.religioustolerance.org/genocide4.htm (list of atrocities since wwii, many of the perpetrators are religiously motivated)
www.religioustolerance.org/rel_host.htm (currant N. American religious oppression)
www.religioustolerance.org/genocide0.htm
www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_8.html
www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm
www.naopathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

and yes, i do realize i used religioustolerance.org alot, but it was good.

btw, I am from Holliday