Is displaying the Declaration of Independence in government buildings and schools unconstitutional?

[OpportunityCost]

Feel free to quote me.

You made a horses ass out of yourself with your last post and you know it.

Jefferson did not write the Constitution. Maybe you are going to tell us his first name was George? :roll::mrgreen:

Its funny.

Gone around this particular argument with you more than once. We both know I am being truthful about your negation arguments.

Not even dignifying the rest of your post, isn't worth my time.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Gone around this particular argument with you more than once. We both know I am being truthful about your negation arguments.

Not even dignifying the rest of your post, isn't worth my time.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Lets lay it one the line here without any BS either way. You have a huge personal issue against me and you show it over and over and over trying to nitpick at all kinds of stuff that is beyond trivial or an obsession in your own mind. This latest huge error you made about Jefferson is just the latest example of it.

So grow up and cut the crap.

Told you to quote me - and were impotent to do so. Its obvious that you have nothing but your own partisan venom that fuels almost every post you make to men. Its really obvious what you are doing.

 

[Fledermaus]

Is that a problem? Does one necessarily need to know who made an argument in order to evaluate it?

Or are you claiming joko did not mean the question as a straw man?

I am just noting your ignorance of the OP.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Lets lay it one the line here without any BS either way. You have a huge personal issue against me and you show it over and over and over trying to nitpick at all kinds of stuff that is beyond trivial or an obsession in your own mind. This latest huge error you made about Jefferson is just the latest example of it.

So grow up and cut the crap.

Told you to quote me - and were impotent to do so. Its obvious that you have nothing but your own partisan venom that fuels almost every post you make to men. Its really obvious what you are doing.

Dude, you are the one lobbing personal insults left and right. I am taking issue with your idea any portion of the constitution is negated by slavery specific to Jefferson. You know we have discussed it repeatedly. I don't need to quote it, you need to be honest about the discussions we have had previously.

I disagree with you because you are personally vested in removing freedoms and rights from others. You are a statist, you want tyranny of the masses, you don't give a damn about the constitution except when it suits you. You deserve to be opposed whenever possible because of these things. That's principle, not partisanship.

 

[btthegreat]

Dude, you are the one lobbing personal insults left and right. I am taking issue with your idea any portion of the constitution is negated by slavery specific to Jefferson. You know we have discussed it repeatedly. I don't need to quote it, you need to be honest about the discussions we have had previously.

I disagree with you because you are personally vested in removing freedoms and rights from others. You are a statist, you want tyranny of the masses, you don't give a damn about the constitution except when it suits you. You deserve to be opposed whenever possible because of these things. That's principle, not partisanship.

I have never read a more clearcut example of partisanship than the above. When your 'principles' demand consistent and unequivocal opposition to someone based on your perception of their political or ideological views, that is the very definition of partisanship. Partisanship is the prism through which you see the poster, his ideas and it drives your response to them.

 

[marke]

"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]

Those 'hateful' words will be removed if the democrats ever take control of the government again. Democrat idealism does not allow the creation of God to be acknowledged in their science, in their communist government, or in their godless public.

 

[Hari Seldon]

"[FONT=&quot]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]

I like the Laws of Nature and Nature's God part

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[OpportunityCost]

I have never read a more clearcut example of partisanship than the above. When your 'principles' demand consistent and unequivocal opposition to someone based on your perception of their political or ideological views, that is the very definition of partisanship. Partisanship is the prism through which you see the poster, his ideas and it drives your response to them.

You think opposing someone because they want to curtail rights is partisanship? You believe statism is more valuable than individualism? Do you want simple majority laws to govern everything irrespective of the constitution?

He does, do you?


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Dude, you are the one lobbing personal insults left and right.

How is you knot knowing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lobbing personal insults at you?

 

[OpportunityCost]

How is you knot knowing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lobbing personal insults at you?

I'm sure it will all be made clear to you. Don't try to bull**** your way out of what you know were personal remarks.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Individual]

Those 'hateful' words will be removed if the democrats ever take control of the government again. Democrat idealism does not allow the creation of God to be acknowledged in their science, in their communist government, or in their godless public.

The "Declaration of Independence" is NOT an amendable document.

 

[haymarket]

I'm sure it will all be made clear to you. Don't try to bull**** your way out of what you know were personal remarks.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Why are you made at me when it is your problem for confusing the Declaration and the Constitution and not knowing the difference between the two documents?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why are you made at me when it is your problem for confusing the Declaration and the Constitution and not knowing the difference between the two documents?

I am not angry, you obviously are. I didn't tell you to grow up and I didn't call you a horse's ass. But you did both. You can apologize, but you wont. Is that debate master tactics? Doesn't seem like it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I have never read a more clearcut example of partisanship than the above. When your 'principles' demand consistent and unequivocal opposition to someone based on your perception of their political or ideological views, that is the very definition of partisanship. Partisanship is the prism through which you see the poster, his ideas and it drives your response to them.

LOL, you haven't been here long enough, those are his actual stances on various things.

 

[marke]

The "Declaration of Independence" is NOT an amendable document.

That is tough for those wanting God separated from the Constitution and the American public in accordance with their agenda to build a tax-payer funded wall of separation between God and the state.

 

[btthegreat]

You think opposing someone because they want to curtail rights is partisanship? You believe statism is more valuable than individualism? Do you want simple majority laws to govern everything irrespective of the constitution?

He does, do you?


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

I don't accept your premise, nor your characterizations of someone else's opinions. You see people here primarily through an ideological lens, then you feel entitled to first label then divide them into adversary and ally based on those perceptions. The word for that process and result is 'partisan'. Don't deny it. Embrace it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't accept your premise, nor your characterizations of someone else's opinions. You clearly see people here primarily through an ideological lens, then you feel entitled to label divide them into adversary and ally based on those perceptions. The word for that process and result is 'partisan'.

Laughable. Most interactions here have some sort of partisan bent to them. If you asked 100 people what haymarket is for the answer you will hear most is advancement of democratic party policy.

You are being naive and trying to pass it off as wisdom but you really don't have a clue. After seeing upwards of 20k posts I believe I have much better grasp on his beliefs than you do.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[btthegreat]

Laughable. Most interactions here have some sort of partisan bent to them. If you asked 100 people what haymarket is for the answer you will hear most is advancement of democratic party policy.

You are being naive and trying to pass it off as wisdom but you really don't have a clue. After seeing upwards of 20k posts I believe I have much better grasp on his beliefs than you do.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Here is a quote from post #79.

" I disagree with you because you are personally vested in removing freedoms and rights from others. You are a statist, you want tyranny of the masses, you don't give a damn about the constitution except when it suits you. You deserve to be opposed whenever possible because of these things. That's principle, not partisanship."

there is no useful distinction between 'principal' and 'partisanship' here, if you conflate the two and that is exactly what you have done describing his ideology to justify your opposition to him 'whenever possible' . When I say I do not accept your characterization of his views, that means I do not accept your characterization of his views. I don't nessiarily know his beliefs better than you do, but he sure does and he is not likely to characterize them the way you choose to! I will let him tell me what he believes in his words, not your re-interpretation of what he believes. He gets to tell me he is a statist, that he is vested in removing freedoms, that he wants the tyranny of the masses and he gets to tell me when he cares about the constitution. You get to tell me what you believe which is what you do when you refer to yourself as a conservative.

 

[yankintx]

None. It’s a strawman constructed by those who believe in government sponsored religion.

The GOP would like nothing more than a one party State with Christianity being the official religion. Make no mistake, this is there ultimate goal.

 

[haymarket]

Laughable. Most interactions here have some sort of partisan bent to them. If you asked 100 people what haymarket is for the answer you will hear most is advancement of democratic party policy.

You are being naive and trying to pass it off as wisdom but you really don't have a clue. After seeing upwards of 20k posts I believe I have much better grasp on his beliefs than you do.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Why does it bother you personally that I cast my vote the way I want to cast my vote as am American?

 

[haymarket]

I am not angry, you obviously are. I didn't tell you to grow up and I didn't call you a horse's ass. But you did both. You can apologize, but you wont. Is that debate master tactics? Doesn't seem like it.

I will be happy to treat your posts with the respect they warrant. And that is what I have attempted to do from the very beginning.

It takes two to tango however and you should examine your own style and posts at the same time.

 

[pinqy]

The GOP would like nothing more than a one party State with Christianity being the official religion. Make no mistake, this is there ultimate goal.

I’m assuming you’re stating that to show another example of a strawman.

 

[Individual]

That is tough for those wanting God separated from the Constitution and the American public in accordance with their agenda to build a tax-payer funded wall of separation between God and the state.

Although I have no belief in the existence of any supernatural God like being, there is nothing in the Constitution I'm aware of that prohibits religious beliefs from government, simply the establishment of a single national religion. Our government neither mandates nor prohibits individuals from religious beliefs, and it's highly unlikely any one religion has or ever would have enough followers to elect a majority in both or even one of the Houses of Congress. I never minded having a morning prayer when I went to school, or display of the 10 commandments either.

 

[marke]

Although I have no belief in the existence of any supernatural God like being, there is nothing in the Constitution I'm aware of that prohibits religious beliefs from government, simply the establishment of a single national religion. Our government neither mandates nor prohibits individuals from religious beliefs, and it's highly unlikely any one religion has or ever would have enough followers to elect a majority in both or even one of the Houses of Congress. I never minded having a morning prayer when I went to school, or display of the 10 commandments either.

Good for you, bad for Judge Moore and thousands of other American Christians having their Christianity assaulted by unbelievers claiming they are doing it to preserve "the separation of church and state."

 

[yankintx]

I’m assuming you’re stating that to show another example of a strawman.

call it what you like, I speak the truth