Political Suicide for May 30, 2006
by matt at 10:00 am on May 30th, 2006 in Political SuicideIf Congressman Duncan Hunter gets sent to jail, will he order Fish, Chicken, or a Tossed Salad?
-
« Home
-
About This Post
- Written by matt
- May 30th, 2006 at 10:00 am
-
Categories
-
Interact
JimC wrote:
I love how you presume guilt, how American you are…
Posted 30 May 2006 at 11:46 am ¶
matt wrote:
do i need to explain the meaning of the word “if” to you?
also, i love getting lectured on what it is to be american by someone who doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 12:24 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Implies that he’s already been judged and is awaiting sentencing, a more appropriate sentence would have been “if he gets charged”…
Show me, in the Constitution, please…
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:01 pm ¶
matt wrote:
no douchebag, i didn’t imply it, you inferred it.
you know damn well where it is, and you know damn well what role you want religion to play as amply demonstrated in many comment threads.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:09 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
What are you offended by in my last comment?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:47 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you know the rules. i call you any damn thing i please. don’t like it? start your own blog.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:49 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I think I got it right this time, please let me know…thanks..
ok Matt, what steps must Duncan Hunter go thru in order for him to go to jail? I know this is an excercise in logic which may be difficult but try anyway…
Please humor me, show me almighty Matt, where it says anything about separation of church and state….
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
now you’re trying my patience. and flirting with an outright ban.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:54 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I resubmitted, that last one where I still had the wrong name was actually a cut and paste mistake. Sorry. I have since removed that and tried again…
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:55 pm ¶
matt wrote:
trial and conviction?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Seems to me that’s what they are trying to do, and it’s certainly what you want; an official recognition of your faith so that you don’t have to have anymore doubts.
We could also argue about the word “militia” if you like…
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:59 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Close, before this he has to be charged. So before he can go to jail He must first be charged, have a trial in which he is convicted….which of course he has not even been charged yet but you’re post gives the impression that this has happened…
Well, I know that’s what you think separation of church and state means and no I do not want official recognition of my religion over others by the government, just not persecution. The line Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means quite litterly that there will be no state mandated religion, i.e. the church of the United States or much like that of Eurpean governments which the Church had largely the control over the government. This is not what we see manifested today. This line does not mean sanction because 1 person may be offended, which is what we see today…
No need to debate militia right now…
Posted 30 May 2006 at 5:08 pm ¶
matt wrote:
my post? there’s no way you read my post.
that’s bullshit. and you are a liar. how many times have we pointed out special treatment that christians get? who the fuck is persecuting you?
right. constitutional schollar, jimc. whoot!
why? because you can only bend the constitution one amendment at a time?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 5:12 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
my post? there’s no way you read my post.
Actually, I did, I ventured there and to my surprise it was relatively isolated (no visible porn off your page, at least none that I saw, (and I was really looking) but I was referring to your stub post here…
Ahh, such eloquent use of our language, I’m surprised you haven’t written several children’s books. Furthermore, I am not a liar although you seem to know what everyone is thinking along with their motives, e.g. Bush lied about WMD’s, etc. Special treatment? All I see today is an all out effort to remove Christian symbols from the public eye, of which there are plenty of examples, removal of “under God” from the pledge, removal of the 10 Commandments from public property, removal of the cross in San Diego .
This last point is especially grievous for it very well could mean that eventually the removal of the Cross and Star of David that mark soldier’s graves in Arlington National Cemetery
Where does it end?
So, tell me, Matt, where does it in the Constituion say that all people must be bound by the lowest common denominator, in this case, one person who may be offended by the majority’s view?
Sure, whatever you say….
Posted 30 May 2006 at 8:05 pm ¶
matt wrote:
wow. for the record, i’m shocked. also for the record, there won’t be porn on that page as it’s open to non-members.
i’ll bet.
christian ones are the ones that make news.
i don’t accept your premise.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 8:16 pm ¶