Poll: IF, and this is a BIG if...

[LSUsoph]

Dick Cheney due to health reasons decides to withdrawl his name from the ticket in 2004 after a very successful term as Vice President. He figures he can still stay close to the President and advise him in any way possible, but not have to deal with the every day hustle of being the Vice-President of the country. So who would President Bush pick to be his new VP? I think Condi Rice would be a wonderful choice but I dont know if this country (especially the Republican Party) is ready for a VP who is black, a woman, and from the South (Alabama). I also love Powell but would he and Pres Bush be able to work hand in hand as P-VP? Donald Rumsfeld is a terrific Sec of Defense and I think he would make a great President one day...maybe him being VP could lead us to 8 great years of a Rumsfeld Presidency after 8 great years of Bush. Other candidates that come to mind would be Tom Ridge, Liddy Dole, Ashcroft, and dare i say it...JOHN MCCAIN ( i know, i know, but i think the Bush-MCcain ticket would be a shoe in). My pick would have to be Rice, she is worth her weight in Gold. She is a genius, works well with Bush, and would really be great for the country. And what would the naysayers say after Bush nominates a black woman to be his right hand WOMman?? I think they would just have to throw up the white flag! GO DUBYA!

[Judith Anne]

Gosh, in the Constitution, there is something regarding the separation of Church and State? Where? Just tell me....I'm not debating, I just want to know where it is in the Constitution. A scholar such as yourself should be able to tell me.

[pcl]

The US Constitution provides for the separation of Church and State. Night follows day. Neither is debatable. If you want a debate it, go find someone to debate with you. I have no more to say about this.

[proudofthesouth]

As much as I like Rudy, he wouldn't be a good choice due to his personal life right now. The Demorats would focus on that and would make it reflect badly on President Bush.

[Judith Anne]

Well, then, you just might be an idiot. I say it ISN'T in the Constitution. I say, you made that up. I say you can't prove that separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution because it ISN't in the Constitution.

You say it is, and that it's not debatable. I say you're a liar, maybe even a pathological liar, like you call me. So, it should be simple. Where is "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution?

Furthermore, I say you haven't read the Constitution, that's why you don't know what you're talking about. And you call ME a pathological liar?

End of debate? Hah! You've made an assertion you can't prove, because it's wrong, and you refuse to talk about it? What kind of American are you? Are you American? Where is "separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution?

[Judith Anne]

Well, well, well...I guess by now you've discovered that you are wrong...no wonder you won't "debate" --there's nothing to debate when you are wrong, is there?

[Equality 7-2521]

Tommy Thompson would make a good running mate. The guy knows how to win elections. He made history in Wisconsin when he was elected to a third term and then broke his own record when elected to a fourth.

[Judith Anne]

Now, let's see, I think that makes two things you've been wrong on the last 24 hours....

Okay, number one was your figures about how many people support abortion--I posted above a Gallup poll from August of this year with the web address (so you can see that it's true) that shows that 60% of all Americans think abortion should be against the law in all but a few cases...

And then, number two is just now, you messed up on the U. S. Constituton...tsk tsk...

Don't thank me, it was a work of spiritual mercy, I was obligated.

[Equality 7-2521]

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16]   ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

So while the US Constitution doesn't specifically use the phrase "separation of church and state" that phrase is effectively what the "establishment of religion" clause means. As PCL has stated, there are a multitude of SCOTUS decisions that uphold this fact.

To put it another way, if I were to tell you that my shirt is "the color of fresh snow" and then PCL were to tell people that "Equality 7-2521 is wearing a white shirt" he would be correct even though I had never used the word "white."

[Judith Anne]

Then, on the other hand, we have Rehnquist's opinion, which I do value more than yours:

"It would seem...that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations...The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson... The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

So I guess there's more than one way to look at it...;-D

But I'm sure that pcl appreciates the helping hand, since pcl didn't know what it was talking about.

[pcl]

You said in post 327: 60% of all Americans think abortion should be against the law in all but a few cases.

I am amazed. You are compelled to lie even when the facts are right in front of your face.

The Gallop Poll on abortion says:

Legal only in a few circumstances: 43%
Legal under most circumstances: 12%
Legal under any circumstances: 26%
Illegal under all circumstances: 17%
No opinion: 2%

It says 43% not 60%. You are so much of a pathological liar that you can not even copy information from a web page without making a lie out of it.

Can you understand why I don't want to debate issues with you? You are so compelled to lie that it makes logical debate simply impossible.

[IM2Phat4U]

I think if you were able to add 17 + 43, you wouldn't be calling Judith Anne a pathological liar.

Legal only in a few circumstances: 43%

Illegal under all circumstances: 17%

Merry Christmas.

[pcl]

I think if you were able to add 17 + 43, you wouldn't be calling Judith Anne a pathological liar.

Pure coincidence. She has lied time and time again. She is a liar. She does what liars do. She lies.

[Equality 7-2521]

I agree that there has been a dissention in several of the court cases upholding the meaning of the "establishment of religion" clause. That's why there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court bench--to keep one lone wolf zealot from creating the law of the land.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Justice Rehnquist on many issues. But on this one, he is at odds with the history books, his own Court's historical precedent, and the words of men like Thomas Jefferson.

[Judith Anne]

pcl, you keep calling me a liar, when time and time again it is proven to you that I am not. Keep it up--it speaks volumes about you, and says nothing about me at all.

The fact that you are ignorant of how many Americans are opposed to abortion also says a lot about you--because the facts are there to see, not what I say, but what the Gallup poll this year says, what Americans have told the Gallup organization...

For you to try to convince people that I am a liar, when time and again it is proven BY OTHER POSTERS that I have done nothing but tell the truth that you do not wish to hear is nothing...I don't care what you believe. You can be as willfully ignorant as you wish. You have insulted far too many people to garner much support. But you are welcome to keep trying.

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for your reasoned answer...I do actually continue to disagree with you on this issue, but I hope that you have a Merry Christmas! ;-D

[Judith Anne]

It is nothing but pure coincidence that I am able to add the two numbers, of course. (/sarc

[Capitalist Eric]

You're a putz.

As your name demonstrates.

As you have aptly demonstrated, wisdom and intelligence are two distinct things. Unfortunately, however, you have neither.

[Capitalist Eric]

Can they understand this? No. You are dealing with fanatics. They have an ability to reason. Pro-life is a one-horse theme that clouds out all their ability to be rational.

Gee... That kinda' makes them sound like liberals.

Fanatics, unable to use reason, irrational...?

Yep, definitely traits of liberal bed-wetters.

FReegards.

[Capitalist Eric]

Obviously, you've come into the conversation quite late in the game, and not read the comments in context.

A typical newbie mistake.

If this wasn't a mistake, and you did read the comments in context, then I suggest you demonstrate retroactive abortion, by demonstrating it. Use yourself for the subject.

Become a member of the Darwin Club, as it's readily apparent you're too stupid to live as a fuctional individual in society.

Face it- you're JAFO.

[Capitalist Eric]

BTW, it's nice that you typed that definition.

Unfortunately for you, I don't make exhorbitant claims.

If it seems that way to you, I suggest you seek a psychiatrist. Tell him/her that you're suffering from massive inferiority complexes, coupled with delusions of rational thought.