Veepstakes, McCain edition

[bicker]

And again when you bring this BS out. Please post specific examples....

Your interrogation is inadequate. If you're going to object to what I write, please object to what I write, not something easier to argue against.

 

[corndog]

Say what? If those three are "Lefties," what American would be your choice to run the country?

Well, I'm still a couple of years away. Can I choose anyone?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Your new pic in your sig

That is awesome.

 

[Master Mason]

Your interrogation is inadequate. If you're going to object to what I write, please object to what I write, not something easier to argue against.

No, I am pointing out what it is illegal to legislate, that is the establishement of a religion of the free exercise there of. Nothing more.

And since you can't produce a single case of a law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise there of, then your claims of a Christian Jihad in government is simply false.

 

[corndog]

Romney. Leftie. Oooookay..... (backs away slowly).

You had him for a governor and a senate candidate. Aren't you familiar with his record?

 

[punkin]

From what I read, Sara Palin.

She is a complete unknown and can't deliver a contested state. What would be the point? Just because she's in a skirt? Then again, maybe an unknown pro-lifer is exactly what the Repub base wants. Who knows.

 

[DISUNC]

She is a complete unknown and can't deliver a contested state. What would be the point? Just because she's in a skirt? Then again, maybe an unknown pro-lifer is exactly what the Repub base wants. Who knows.

This is unfamiliar territory for me too!!!!!

 

[MossMan]

Actually, I do know someone who has met with John & Cindy McCain (he's not a McCain supporter) and he has said that McCain is a genuinely honest and honorable man.

I spent quite a bit of time in 2000 working on McCain's campaign. I would agree with the person you know. McCain is a nice guy and he's wonderful to the people who work for him.

But like most people, there is another side of John McCain that emerges occasionally. When that side did emerge, it was common to remove some of the more inexperienced staffers from his presence. If someone had only had one chance to meet the Senator, we wanted to make sure the only side they saw wasn't the Senator at his irritable worst.

So when I hear stories about other politicians being like this or that, I just assume I'm not getting the whole story.

 

[corndog]

No, I am pointing out what it is illegal to legislate, that is the establishement of a religion of the free exercise there of. Nothing more.

And since you can't produce a single case of a law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise there of, then your claims of a Christian Jihad in government is simply false.

Locke v. Davey is one case where the Supreme Court upheld a restriction on the free exercise of religion, specifically Christianity.

 

[Master Mason]

Locke v. Davey is one case where the Supreme Court upheld a restriction on the free exercise of religion, specifically Christianity.

um no, the supream court ruled that it was legal to prohibit the recipient of a scholarship from using the scholorship to pay for a seminary school. That does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in any way.

 

[agentpleakley]

I spent quite a bit of time in 2000 working on McCain's campaign. I would agree with the person you know. McCain is a nice guy and he's wonderful to the people who work for him.

But like most people, there is another side of John McCain that emerges occasionally. When that side did emerge, it was common to remove some of the more inexperienced staffers from his presence. If someone had only had one chance the meet the Senator, we wanted to make sure the only side they saw wasn't the Senator at his irritable worst.

So when I hear stories about other politicians being like this or that, I just assume I'm not getting the whole story.

I don't disagree. I met Harold Ford Jr - the first couple of times, before he was a representative. So - my opinion of him was formed prior to him entering the political arena officially (if you know of the Ford family - I think they enter politics unofficially at birth).

Back to the meat of the coconut, I am actually good friends with my state senator. However, I just can't bring myself to vote for him because of his political leanings. So in the end, issues will trump personality - but let's just say that if Harold Ford Jr was on the right side of the coin for me -I still wouldn't vote for him.

 

[MossMan]

Yes dad.

I'm gratified you would agree with me on anything Junior. Everyday I see signs of maturity in you that weren't there the day before. In fact I've extended your curfew to 9:15 (in bed by 10, lights out at 10:30).

 

[corndog]

um no, the supream court ruled that it was legal to prohibit the recipient of a scholarship from using the scholorship to pay for a seminary school. That does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in any way.

Your analysis is uninformed and incorrect.

 

[What the Heck]

Powell or Romney add nothing. They're both lefties like McCain and won't score him any points with the right.

Powell brings in more than 30 years experience in politics, a person that is ready to lead, a person who appears extremely knowledgable, a thinker who doesn't spend too much time thinking, someone with conviction, someone who has led in peace and in war.

 

[bicker]

No, I am pointing out what it is illegal to legislate, that is the establishement of a religion of the free exercise there of. Nothing more.

Which was totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

And since you can't produce a single case of a law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise there of, then your claims of a Christian Jihad in government is simply false.

Bull. You simply don't want to face the fact, and so you try to plow it under by misinterpreting what I wrote and then pointing out how what you thereby claim I wrote doesn't make sense. If you can't argue with what I actually wrote, then just accept that and move on. You repeatedly engage in this intellectual dishonesty, trying to distract from the points I make, presumably because you don't have a real rebuttal (as if there could be one, since it isn't someone else's religious beliefs being imposed on you). Every time you do it I will call you out on it.

You had him for a governor and a senate candidate. Aren't you familiar with his record?

Very familiar.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Because I can't say anything without it being a personal attack....

 

[Database]

You must be new around here. Ask around. Folks here know me as ultra-pro-business and ultra-small government -- true conservatism, not the Christian Jihad stuff that some people claiming to be conservatives, these days, try to pass off as conservatism.

Again with the Christian Jihad reference?

 

[Master Mason]

Your analysis is uninformed and incorrect.

No I actually went and looked it up and read the decision...

Washington State established its Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use such a scholarship to pursue a devotional theology degree. Respondent Davey was awarded a Promise Scholarship and chose to attend Northwest College, a private, church-affiliated institution that is eligible under the program. When he enrolled, Davey chose a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. It is undisputed that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional. After learning that he could not use his scholarship to pursue that degree, Davey brought this action under 42 U.S. C. §1983 for an injunction and damages, arguing that the denial of his scholarship violated

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Because I can't say anything without it being a personal attack....

No guts, no glory.

 

[Master Mason]

Which was totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

Bull. You simply don't want to face the fact, and so you try to plow it under by misinterpreting what I wrote and then pointing out how what you thereby claim I wrote doesn't make sense. If you can't argue with what I actually wrote, then just accept that and move on. You repeatedly engage in this intellectual dishonesty, trying to distract from the points I make, presumably because you don't have a real rebuttal (as if there could be one, since it isn't someone else's religious beliefs being imposed on you). Every time you do it I will call you out on it.

Very familiar.

And you continually try to claim that something is being done that is not the case, and you don't have a single example of it being so..... So I will continue to call you on it.

the Constitution is very clear on what can and can not be done with respect to religious legislation. You have never given a single example of either one of those two things being violated, although you contiually try to say that they are.