Tuesday, February 21, 2012

HANDING DOWN THE SENTENCE

Unless you're talking about the legal system, a sentence is a group of words that form one complete thought.

The rule of thumb in English is: One sentence, one thought.

Nowadays, sentences are punctuated with strange, unrelated words such as "like."

"Like" is the introduction to a simile, but in todays conversations it has come to mean someone has not though his/her sentence through well enough to complete it and must buy some time to think of his/her next word.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States of Americ knew full well how to construct intelligible sentences in such a way as to complete their thought accurately.  They also knew how to write and speak coherently, something sorely lacking in today's conversation and writning.

Let us consider an example one of their wonderfully complete and inspiring sentences.

"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."

That is one sentence and expresses one complete thought. It puts forth a principle that demonstrates that the government is not and must not be all powerful.

The sentence begins with the word, "Congress."

Congress is the law making body of the federal government. It is the second branch of government and is charged with the responsibility of writing laws and verifying or rejecting laws proposed by the executive branch, that is, the president. Their law-making is supposed to affect all Americans throughout the country.

This obligation to law making is found in the words "shall make," which constitutes the verb of the sentence.

Congress is divided into two parts: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Before a law can be enacted, these two parts, called "houses" must come to an agreement as to how the law should be written and what it should say.

"Congress" is the subject of the sentence that comprises the First Amendment. The subject is restricted to the federal government and has no bearing on the laws that can or cannot be made by other entities, such the head of a household in his/her own house.

There are certain laws the congress cannot write, and those are enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those laws are prohibited by the word "no" in the sentence.


The word "respecting" is used to indicate "having anything to do with."

The next words, "an establishment," have caused controversy over the years because people do not know how the English language is constructed and have twisted it to mean "the establishment."

"An establishment" is a place.

For instance, I own an establishment that provides legal services to people (I don't, really. That is only an example).

"The establishment" is what I did to bring my legal practice into existance.

"An establishment" is a noun (with its adjective/article, "an").

"The establishment" is a verb (with its adjective/article, "the").

The whole sentence that comprises the First Amendment, without its definitive phrases and/or objects, is: "Congress shall make no law respecting, prohibiting or abridging."

Thus, Congress cannot make a law that affects a place (an establishment) where religion is practiced (whether Christian, Muslim, Baptist, Catholic or whatever) or prohibiting the free exercise of that religion.

Neither can Congress pass a law that "abridges" (which means to change or to shorten or curtail) freedom of speech or peaceful assembly for the purpose of expressing greviences against the federal government.

The Supreme Court (charged with the responsibility of ensuring that laws passed by Congress do not violate the rest of the Constitution and with seeing to it that decisions of the lower courts conform to the Constitution) has made several rulings about the meaning of the First Amendment.

Moreover, they have inserted themselves into areas that are not their responsibility, such as abortion, the subject of which is not found anywhere in the Constitution.

"Roe vs Wade" needs to be overturned, not because of its moral stance, or lack thereof, but because it is unconstitutional.

Since the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, it must be right to proclaim abortion to be legal. We know that the Supreme Court is always right...right?

Yeah, and they were right on Dred/Scott, too.

The importance of the First Amendment cannot be overstated. It is the recognition that religion, speech, the press and assembly are "sacred" rights of the people and they cannot be trampled on by the federal government.

But trample they do.

And almost all liberals love it!

Liberals love the free speech part, as long as it means they can swear and curse and be vulgar in their speech. But when it comes to the speech of prayer, suddenly they don't like it so much.

They love the freedom of the press, so long as it does not comprise blogs that disagree with their warpped point of vies.

They also love the freedom of assembly part, so long as it is not the Tea Party doing the assemblying.

Typically, most liberals cannot see far enough into the future or anticipate the unintended consequences of certain decisions and actions.

The future does not matter to them because they are self-centered and do not care what happens to their posterity.

They willingly engage in decisions and actions that financially bind future generations in hopeless debt.

That attitude found its beginning in the twisting and revising of the First Amendment to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it actually means.

Isn't it time to return to one of the most important sentences in American history?

53 comments:

Ducky's here said...

The framers of the Constitution of the United States of AmericA knew full well how to construct intelligible sentences in such a way as to complete their thought accurately.

---------------
YEAH, LIKE THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

"......Unless you're talking about the legal system, a sentence is a group of words that form one complete thought......."

Should you not have pixellated:

'Unless you're talking about the legal system or Libruls, a sentence is a group of words that form one complete thought?'


"Roe vs Wade" needs to be overturned, not because of its moral stance, or lack thereof, but because it is unconstitutional.

Does not Roe v. Wade guarantee liberty over one's person? Surely the enactment of laws which increase freedom is Constitutional?

"......Thus, Congress cannot make a law that affects a place (an establishment) where religion is practiced (whether Christian, Muslim, Baptist, Catholic or whatever) or prohibiting the free exercise of that religion......"

What if the 'exercise of that religion' includes forced clitoridectomy or radical labial infibulation on its female members?
To what extent do we allow the 'free' exercise of the practises of a religion? Who gets to decide?

Lisa said...

"What if the 'exercise of that religion' includes forced clitoridectomy or radical labial infibulation on its female members?"

Those on the right always stand up against those barbaric practices ,though I have yet to ever see a post on that on left wing blogs.They are too busy calling conservatives afraid of those scary moozlims. I guess it depends on what gender you are.
That's probably one freedom of religion liberals would not object to,of course unless it was part of Christianity. Like being able to leave class 3 times a day to pray. I bet liberals wouldn't put up with Christians doing that.

Although I believe those things are not as much religious issues as they are moral and health issues.
Abortion is not a "health" issue although it can be to the women. It does have its risks,physical and mental. I think it's just another anti-woman policy. The burden is put on the woman as usual, with a risk to her well being. Too bad people can't see it that way. It turned us into a throw away socitey with lack of morals where if we don't want it so we can just get rid of it like trash.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

".....Those on the right always stand up against those barbaric practices....."

Barbaric indeed, but for those religions that support it, do they not get protection under the particular Amendment that affords protection of religious practices?
Or are some 'practices' protected and others not?
If so, who gets to choose which are acceptable and which are not?

Lisa said...

If so, who gets to choose which are acceptable and which are not?

The law does. These are our laws just like it's their laws to keep your hair covered and be killed to protect the family honor if your are in their country.
Just because it's legal in their country doesn't make it legal here. Muslim countries hang gays and adulterers. Here that is illegal.

Just like in the health care bill there are about 20 things that say "The Secretary shall decide"
That is unconstitutional?
But that doesn't seem to offend liberals. Probably because they don't know that little factoid.
I guess that is a liberal idea to leave things to interpretation.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

".....The Law does...."?

Yankee laws are couched in a Judeo-Christian tradition. So the Judeo-Christians decide what practices are acceptable then?
Fair enough I reckon.

".....Muslim countries hang gays and adulterers. Here that is illegal....."

And it is a good thing hanging for adultery is illegal in the Land of the Yankee. Otherwise you'd lose a significant number of your Politicians, Entertainers and Captains of Industry. In fact, yins would have to hang 25 percent, or more, of your population I reckon.

Liberals are not easily offended, the filthy beasts!

sue hanes said...

Joe - You continue to amaze me with your ability to write intelligent and LONG posts.
You are so smart - Joe.

I totally agree that the Writers of the Constitution were also intelligent too - and I urge Others - and I am going to do the same - to study the Constitution of the United States - and it can be done - even keep it with Other reading material - bedside, etc. - so that we can all discuss it intelligently and rationally during this Very Important Election Year.

Personally - I like this Really Cool Document.

Ducky's here said...

Liberals love the free speech part, as long as it means they can swear and curse and be vulgar in their speech. But when it comes to the speech of prayer, suddenly they don't like it so much.

-----------
This aversion you have to vulgarities takes on the symptoms of neurosis. I have to assume it has something to do with very authoritarian potty training.

Liberals have no such aversion to prayer. It just can't be coerced in public schools since it constitutes an establishment of state religion.

Craig said...

"An establishment" is a place.

Joe, you've broken new ground in Constitutional interpretation. Ground left undisturbed for over 200 years and for good reason. It's first class buffoonery. Here's the definition of establishment from 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language;

ESTAB'LISHMENT, n. The act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining.

1. Settlement;; fixed state.

2. Confirmation; ratification of what has been settled or made.

3. Settled regulation; form; ordinance; system of laws; constitution of government.


"An establishment" or, A settlement, a fixed state, a confirmation."

"The establishment" could also refer to your particular legal services concern, a noun.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That would be some tortured syntax for anyone constructing an intelligible sentence that meant "a place (an establishment) where religion is practiced". "Respecting a religious establishment" would have been proper if that's what they meant.

But when it comes to the speech of prayer, suddenly they don't like it so much.

Pray anywhere, anytime you want as long as it's not proscribed or prescribed by the State.

They love the freedom of the press, so long as it does not comprise blogs that disagree with their warpped point of vies.

Is someone trying to shut down your blog? Any Righty blog?

They also love the freedom of assembly part, so long as it is not the Tea Party doing the assemblying.

Who has said the Tea Party doesn't have the right to peaceably assemble? The Constitution doesn't protect them from being criticized or ridiculed. It, also, doesn't say anything about needing a permit.

They willingly engage in decisions and actions that financially bind future generations in hopeless debt.

Reagan tripled the debt, Bush doubled it. Of the $15T debt, Repubs are responsible for 2/3 of it.

sue hanes said...

Craig - 'Is someone trying to shut down your blog?'

If you know who that might be - Craig - please let me know because I will personally hunt them down and challenge them to a Fair Fight - fists only.

Joe's Blog is the Last Of The Really Great Blogs - a place where Insanity and Incoherence coexist with Important and Intelligent Opinions - and all this is done without Vulgarity - unlesss you are a Conservative.

Joe said...

ALTC: We already have laws against such things a mutilations, murders, thefts, etc.

If a "religion's" behavior results in human sacrifice, its members can be charged with murder without infringing on the "religions" freedom to worship.

If there is really some doubt in someone's mind about whether a religion can physically, mentally or emotionally harm another, all they have to do is ask me.

I know the difference between what is real religion and what is nothing more than barbarism.

If you don't know the difference, I feel sorry for you.

I think most of you do...don't you?

Joe said...

ALTC: Besides, the point of the article is that each element in the First Amendment carries the same weight as the others.

It is NOT up to the feds to oversee the religious practices of any religion.

If a "cult" starts sacrificing people in my town, we can take care of it quite easily, thank you, without federal interference.

Lone Ranger said...

Roe v Wade does NOT guarantee liberty over one's person. It guarantees that a second person -- the baby -- has NO rights, including the right to life.

Furthermore, the two ACLU lawyers who victimized the young girl known as Roe LIED to the Supreme Court. That fact alone should be grounds for overturning this barbaric ruling.

And we are talking here about Congress. Congress did not make abortion legal, a court did -- a total perversion of the Constitution.

But then, Democrats saw nothing wrong with the Dred Scott decision either.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "If a "cult" starts sacrificing people in my town, we can take care of it quite easily, thank you, without federal interference."

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of a "cult" and how it differs from your definition of a religion.

Joe said...

XO: The word cult usually refers to a new or small religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by mainstream religions or the majority of people.

In Christianity, "cult" refers to those groups who call themselves "Christian" but do not make Christ the center and the object of their worship and belief system and who do not see Him as God.

In Christianity, God the Father is not the Son and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. Christ is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and He is not the Son, but He is God.

It's the Trinitarian concept of the Godhead.

I sort of thought you were so smart that you already knew all of that without my help.

You're welcome.

Ducky's here said...

They also love the freedom of assembly part, so long as it is not the Tea Party doing the assemblying (sic).

-------------

That's fascinating considering your reaction to #Occupy.

One might go so far as to point out what a hypocrite you are, Joe.

By the way, when was one of your astrturfed Tea Bagger bus ins ever shut down?

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

Joe said,

"......I know the difference between what is real religion and what is nothing more than barbarism......"

This was my point exactly. We all think we can do this, buit are we being subjective or objective in our determinations?
How one defines 'religion' and 'barbarism' depends on one's religion in the first place - circular reasoning, yes?
For instance, the piercing of little girl's ears by the Papists is barbaric in my mind. Yet it seems to be accepted.
The practise of male circumcision is also barbaric. It also seems to be accepted.
A culture starts with a 'default' religious tradition from which it then derives laws and definitions of 'barbarism' then applies these concepts to other 'religions'.
The Yankee has 'Freedom of Religion', if and only if, the religion is similar in philosophy to the Judeo-Christian Tradition.

I think the Yankee should eshew Judeo-Christian Tradition and adopt Kantian Ethics as its default moral framework. Yins will end up with the same society, plus or minus, but at least you can defend it without playing favourites with other religious traditions.

Jeez, I hate being serious.

Ducky's here said...

Christian cults like the Branch Davidians, Joe?

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "The word cult usually refers to a new or small religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by mainstream religions or the majority of people."

So radical Jews who thought a carpenter from Nazareth was born from a virgin, was the prophesied Messiah and son of God and who had supernatural powers to heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water and turn water into wine would have fit the textbook definition of a cult perfectly.

That's what I always thought. Nice to have you confirm it.

Joe said...

Ducky: I never said the Tea Partiers were shut down. But I read a lot of liberal blogs that said they ought to be.

I also never advocated shutting down OWS, just said that they were a bunch of entitlement oriented, selfish, uncivilized, lazy noaccounts who did not want to work for their wealth.

And yes, the Davidians were a cult.

I don't advocate wiping out cults the way Reno, Clinton and friends wiped out the Davidians.

I do advocate that if someone commits a crime against one or more human beings that he/she ought to experience the full weight of the law and should not be allowed to hide behind his "religion" to escape its consequences.

ALTC: "The Yankee has 'Freedom of Religion', if and only if, the religion is similar in philosophy to the Judeo-Christian Tradition."

Absolutely untrue.

The First Amendment applies to all religions as far as the federal government's control over them is concerned, just as it applies to speech and assembly.

Outside of federal control is another matter.

Try to assemble in my front yard without my permission and I'll have you arrested or shoot you, which ever comes to mind first.

Use foul language in my house and I'll throw you out, as I have done to people several times.

"Does not Roe v. Wade guarantee liberty over one's person?"

A simple DNA test will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child in the womb is not the same person as the one carrying him/her.

She can do what she wants to her own body, just not to the body growing inside of her.

Thus, abortion is not about the mother's "rights," but about the child's right to live.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

All organisations are cults - until they become accepted and embraced by the Status Quo.
Just like rebellions against the existing authorities are considered 'treasonous' until they succeed.

To all those in the Cult of the Yankee Librul:

If one can read Ancient Greek one quickly discovers that the word used to describe Mary - 'virgin' - is a mistranslation of the Greek word for 'maiden'. Maidens are not necessarily vigins. That's why the Papists had to translate the word 'maiden' as 'virgin' and infer she was peri-pubescent - 13/14 years old - to maximise the probability the faithful would accept the 'fact' she was a virgin.
The concept of virginal birth pre-dates Christianity by several centuries.

Joe said...

XO: Yes, you are absolutely right. Christianity, in its beginning, could very well have been (and, in fact was) considered a cult.

Of course, the way you expressed it, "cult" carries some moral meaning.

Aside from the fact that you don't know what is moral and what is not, the word "cult" in and of itself does not indicate "good" or "bad," only that it is as defined in my above comment.

Joe said...

XO: Quit trying to play "Gotcha." You're not smart enough to win that game with me as your opponent.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

".....ALTC: "The Yankee has 'Freedom of Religion', if and only if, the religion is similar in philosophy to the Judeo-Christian Tradition."

Absolutely untrue......"

You are reading me literally Joe. I am still harping on about the different definitions of that which is barbaric and that which is not.

".....A simple DNA test will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child in the womb is not the same person as the one carrying him/her....."

Agreed, but the Yankee Laws state that feotus is not a person under the Law. Therefore 'it' must be some form of malignant tumour to be dealt with as the 'person' who possesses it sees fit.
By defining the legal status of the foetus, one defines the laws of liberty for the carrier, yes?

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

Oooops!
Make that 'foetus'.
Damn Queen's English!

sue hanes said...

Joe - Aquarina said 'Damn' - aren't ya gonna delete her - Joe?

I know the differnce between barbarism and real religion - Joe.

Shaw Kenawe said...

JOE wrote: "XO: Quit trying to play "Gotcha." You're not smart enough to win that game with me as your opponent."

"Joe said...
SK: I've had my IQ tested several times over the years, and have always had a high one...over 140."


Yes. I know. You've told us that many times, and it still amazes us.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Ducky The OWS(Obama Wall Street)protest was disruptive and left their garbage all over the place. Something like Obama's Union Thugs and Acorn losers that he organized in the mean streets of corrupt Chicago politics.
They even caused some businesses to lose business.
Unlike what Nancy Pelosi said they were unfocused and ineffective.They "were" nothing more than a bunch of s--stirrers.
Notice how the democrats are now ignoring it after the rest of the country started connecting the dots the the White House?

The Tea Party on the other hand was peaceful,organized and picked up after themselves,unlike the "AstroTurf" name Pelosi publicly called them. Say what you want about the Tea Party but the fact is their influence is what happened in 2010 and continues on.
You are just like Obama and the media,when you have no message and you have been exposed you attack your opponents because you have nothing else but failed policy.
Obama can sing and entertain his base at his parties,maybe he should stop pretending to be president and go back to what he does best which seems to be partying and having fun like every other adolescent.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

Shaw, the Librul who is not as bright as he thinks he is said,

".....Yes. I know. You've told us that many times, and it still amazes us......"

Speak for yourself!
One should refrain from using the objective plural pronoun 'us' unless one is certain it is apropos.

I once scored '47' on an IQ test.
If I were not an Idiot (IQ: 0 - 50), and therefore deserved of such a score, I imagine it would be difficult to purposefully 'earn' that score.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

Dearest Shaw, he of the Brobdignagian ego and Liliputian intellect,

Instead of employing the objective plural pronoun 'us' perhaps you should have pixellated 'we of the school of thought who use the sophomoric neologism 'whatevah' to counter an opponent's argument and think it to be clever' as a 'pronoun-esque' phrase instead?
Just a thought.

By the way, that comment string of ours o'er your place? - you know, the one where you countered my statement with the above non-word 'whatevah'? - it garnered me $537.42 US, after tax and bribes.

Thank you.

Lisa said...

Here you go Ducky this is what you get when you have an entitlement society

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

In keeping with my Swiftian metaphor, feel free to infer I've the countenance/constitution of a Houyhnhnm in your riposte.

Perhaps:

"Whatevah, Houyhnhnm!"

I'd hee-haw, even chortle, at that one.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

Lisa,

In a true 'Entitlement Society', there would be no need for an 'Occupy' movement.
The 911 call might still be ignored though, 'cause the responders were on their entitled coffee break.

Ducky's here said...

Here you go Ducky this is what you get when you have an entitlement society

-----

Entitlement society? Man, "Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine" Limbaugh has you reciting that like a trained parrot.

What does your link have to do with entitlements?

The Berkeley cops were so excited at the idea of hassling peaceful demonstrators that they don't leave anyone to respond to 911. Seems like the cops are the problem.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

If you urinate on the corpses of Muslim Jihadis you get a mild Diplomatic rebuke.
If you somehow defile, even inadvertantly, the Qur'an, a book, many die in riots.
Perhaps we are Fighting Terrorism incorrectly. Repatriate the troops and burn a multitude of Holy Books - the offended will eventually kill each other in protest.
Just a thought.

sue hanes said...

Come on Joe.

Get out here and fight these People who are trying to shut your Really Cool Blog Down.

I Believe In You Joe.

Aquarians Love To Cuddle said...

"Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine"?

I suspect I understand what this idiom is supposed to infer, but if you have any knowledge of opioids, synthetic or otherwise, and their effect on the cognitive brain, you'll realise the idiom does not actually state what it is assumed to mean.

Did you know that it was the Bayer Aspirin Company (German) that brought heroin into the world? And it was the Nazis that gave us methadone?
The Hun giveth and the Hun taketh away.

Jarheads Blog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jarheads Blog said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
"Joe Yes. I know. You've told us that many times, and it still amazes us."

Not as many times as you've been kissing Obama's behind, and making excuses for him I'd bet

Ducky's here said...

Aquarius, the last time I encountered as useless a Sophist as yourself I was reading Aristophanes.

He thought they were pretty risible also.

Joe said...

SK: "You've told us that many times, and it still amazes us."

Actually, I've never told you that before, although I have said that I was smarter than the whole lot of you.

My real IQ shall remain my secret.

As you know, I don't like to brag.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Joe said...
SK: I've had my IQ tested several times over the years, and have always had a high one...over 140.

How about you?

February 20, 2012 11:01 PM"



JOE wrote: "XO: Quit trying to play "Gotcha." You're not smart enough to win that game with me as your opponent."

Joe: "...although I have said that I was smarter than the whole lot of you.

My real IQ shall remain my secret.

As you know, I don't like to brag."

Of course you don't. You just like to remind people, as often as you can, how brilliant you are.

"Who knows himself a braggart,
Let him fear this; for it will come to pass
That every braggart will be found an ass."
~ William Shakespeare

Sergeant D Honored Veteran said...

Quote "Why don't people shut-up and mind their OWN business?"

It must suck to be someone like Shaw Kenawe who is always trying to blame others for the disastrous policies and leadership of their Hero. People like her are so blatantly dishonest that she reeks from dishonesty. And as always lacks any sign of intelligent, rational, or logical thought?
The liberal-progressive brainwashed policy has failed and that is the FACT.
One of the reasons why I like to respond to the comments made by people like Shaw Kenawe is that these people can’t see what it’s all about. They can’t see the change that has happened and that is about to happen even though it’s right there before their eyes. What liberals are all about is arguments, makes no difference if there is no logic, no facts, just childish anger and hostility. The create their own logic, and facts.
This is my country as well as theirs, and that is why I can’t stand to see the what these FOOLS in the Obama administration dragging this country down, depleting our great military, killing our economy, making a disaster out of the housing and job market and the list goes on. No wonder we see the creation of The Tea Party the "Don’t Tread On Me" flags and the tension in the county. Obama's policies are killing our country.
I love this country, and that is why I oppose liberalism and progressivism.
We need this man and his buttinsky wife to go home, to Chicago, Hawaii, Kenya or any other freaken place that he claims to come from. ....anyplace but the White House!

Joe said...

SK: Smile when you say that.

Joe said...

SK: As a matter of fact, I'm so brilliant my father used to call me "Sun."

sue hanes said...

Joe - Having slept on it - and you know how things always look better In The Morning - I've decided what - for me - is the most Important Sentence In The History Of Our Great Country:


WE THE PEOPLE - IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION...


and well I think We all know how the Rest of it goes - Joe

and doesn't it just get ya all choked up - I mean thinking about those Great Men - The Founding Fathers - and well here we are - a new Group Of Really Cool People -
and I'm talkin' about BOGGERS here - who are stepping up - to fight for what they Believe in and
make Our Country A Better Place -

For Us And For Posterity

God Bless The United States Of America

and

God Bless You - Joe

Thanks.

sue hanes said...

But - Joe - With all due respect to the Founding Fathers -'perfect' is one of those words - like 'unique' - that ya simple can't modify - so when they said 'a MORE perfect Union' - well - Joe - that Really isn't perfectly correct grammar.

Joe - I wonder if 'correct' is always one of those words...

Ducky's here said...

The importance of the First Amendment cannot be overstated. It is the recognition that religion, speech, the press and assembly are "sacred" rights of the people and they cannot be trampled on by the federal government.

But trample they do.

---------



Joe, was it the liberals who recently banned Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" from the schools in Arizona?

Notice they also banned Sherman Alexie's "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven".

Well, we don't want liberal thought creeping into the schools. Do we?

But pardon me if I'm a little skeptical when you dump on libs while supporting a mentally ill candidate who thinks the 1st Amendment allows him to establish a theocracy.

The question man said...

So your buddy Rick Santorum, the bigot, attacked President Obama’s faith. And unfortunately, it kind of has some relevance on this election. As I kept saying over and over, it’s 2012 and racism is on the rise. The racist right has a chance to get rid of President Barack Obama; they no longer hide their racism anymore.
It's a shame that, this is all you people have to represent you.

Ducky's here said...

Nah, L'il Ricky Retardo has as much chance of beating Obama as Lone Ranger has of running a 3:50 mile.

Lisa said...

So your buddy Rick Santorum, the bigot, attacked President Obama’s faith.

He attacked Obama's enviromenal faith. What you would expect from Obama Zombies when they repeat sound bites from Media matters?

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Lisa said...

So your buddy Rick Santorum, the bigot, attacked President Obama’s faith.

Lisa, who cares?
We should learn from these lefties and attack away, it seems that that's the only way to win.

Honesty is not the best policy any longer. At least if you want to win the presidency.
Obama is the best example of that. You won't find a bigger fraud than he is. Look at his past and yet he won.
If I were Rick Santorum, I'd throw everything I had at Obama and hope that something stuck.