White house chastises media ! [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

View Full Version : White house chastises media !

SteamWake

10-13-09, 10:55 AM

Oh wait its only one particular media outlet :-?

Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

NeonSamurai

10-13-09, 11:11 AM

As a semi on topic comment, I wish TV news (and other sources) would return to the way it was 40 years ago or so, when it was more about objective news delivery, instead of this subjective crap they try to feed us. I can damn well think for myself; i don't need some anchorperson trying to tell me how to interpret events.

Most news on TV and print is subjective rubbish and often heavily biased towards a political orientation. That and all the rating grabbing stunts they pull, and the obsessive coverage of certain 'news' events (usually involving celebrities).

As for fox news, I freely admit I despise them, but I also have equal hatred for CNN and the rest of them pretty much.

On topic I agree that the white house should not be singling out specific news outlets unless their behavior is especially egregious (I don't think fox has quite gotten there.. yet anyhow).

AVGWarhawk

10-13-09, 11:40 AM

It is not hard news anymore. It is opinion news. Nothing more.

mookiemookie

10-13-09, 11:53 AM

It is not hard news anymore. It is opinion news. Nothing more.

They've learned that this is what sells. Unfortunately.

NeonSamurai

10-13-09, 12:13 PM

They've learned that this is what sells. Unfortunately.
That's cause the general public prefers to be entertained, amused, titillated, and so on rather than informed. That and it seems that an awful lot of people prefer to have their opinions spoon fed to them rather then forming their own independently.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-09, 12:20 PM

Opinions do sell. Ask Oprah. :88) Really, the old days of hard news are gone. Beck is like Howard Stern...shock jock:88) Scare tactics, innuendo are the order of the day at the news stations.

Skybird

10-13-09, 12:52 PM

Starring the maybe worst propaganda channel amongst the major programs in all the Western world. What a surprise. Defamatory and manipulative they have always been, since years, but they have also become so personally insulting over the past 12 months and so aggressive and emotionally hysteric in their antipathy that it is no wonder that Obama first excluded them from official presidential reactions where all other major networks were not, and now attack them - even if doing so by only pointing out what is very obvious to the outside observer anyway. No other of the major networks seems to be so closely tied to a given political camp, and in that camp the radical fraction, like FOX. Even in europe, where most people even cannot receive it, FOX' devastating reputation is already legendary and already a synonyme for the worst standard of journalism possible. I personally am reminded of "Der schwarze Kanal" of the former state TV of the GDR. And back then we thought political journalism could not become any worse than that: intentionally destructive, defamatory and hilarous at the same time. Today we know it better. Compared to what I time and again pick up from FOX occasionally, the Bildzeitung is a lecture of highly intellectual niveau.

Spit. :down: Not so much because they are at war with Democrats, but because of very, very, very bad style and bad manners.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-09, 12:59 PM

I do not believe you can encompass all of Fox's commentators/hosts. Personally I think Beck is neurotic as they come. O'Reilly is ok but does get a bit aggressive with his guests. However, I love it when he went after Barney Frank. Huckabee is fine and I believe could be an excellent journalist. You do have to admit. They have the hottest chicks on the show as part of the discussion about the news hands down.

August

10-13-09, 01:04 PM

Fox is tied to the Republicans far less than ABC and a few others are tied to the Democrats.

If anything Fox needs to be more partisan to counteract it.

SteamWake

10-13-09, 01:06 PM

Starring the maybe worst propaganda channel amongst the major programs in all the Western world. .

Cnn, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, Msnbc, Fox?

Which one has the most propaganda?

Which one has the most viewers?

There all culpable in my opinion.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-09, 01:21 PM

Cnn, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, Msnbc, Fox?

Which one has the most propaganda?

Which one has the most viewers?

There all culpable in my opinion.

Something to do with 'getting shivers up my leg' reporting. :doh:

mookiemookie

10-13-09, 02:30 PM

That's cause the general public prefers to be entertained, amused, titillated, and so on rather than informed. That and it seems that an awful lot of people prefer to have their opinions spoon fed to them rather then forming their own independently.

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought." —John Kenneth Galbraith

NeonSamurai

10-13-09, 04:34 PM

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought." —John Kenneth Galbraith

Have to say I don't agree at all with that quote. Give me thought and reason any day even if I have to work hard and suffer for it, rather than being grounded in nonsense where I need not think.

Aramike

10-13-09, 05:33 PM

No other of the major networks seems to be so closely tied to a given political camp, and in that camp the radical fraction, like FOX. REALLY?

How you ever watched MSNBC?

The brass at Fox News had it right when they said that the White House is incapable of distinguishing between news and commentary...

...either that, or they have a problem with commentary critical of them while being quite alright with the lineup of commentary shows supporting them, as is on MSNBC. Yet again its just more propaganda from this endlessly campaigning White House - and even you are buying into it, lock, stock, and barrel, without being fully informed of the issue on a first-hand basis.

FIREWALL

10-13-09, 05:36 PM

Castout

10-13-09, 05:56 PM

Well it's true imo. Nothing wrong with saying that.:)

Platapus

10-13-09, 06:16 PM

I think it is important to differentiate between news reporting and commentary.

Fox news is not any worse or better than the other news reporting. There is a difference in the priority of stories but that makes fox news a good alternative news source, just like MSNBC.

The commentary on Fox news/MSNBC is a different story. A commentary is just like an OP-Ed feature of a newspaper... it is just one person opinion and their opinion was chosen by the media because it appeals (entertains?) its customers.

I really have a hard time believing that anyone with a brain in their heads truly turns to the commentary on Fox News/MSNBC as an unbiased and complete source of news. It is an opinion. It is someone's interpretation of the news. It is entertainment pure and simple.

So when people (the White House?) are slamming the media, I think it is important to differentiate between the news portions and the commentaries.

I will get my news from different sources, but I don't waste my time on the commentaries. I can make my own inferences thank you media. :know:

Sailor Steve

10-13-09, 06:18 PM

Have to say I don't agree at all with that quote. Give me thought and reason any day even if I have to work hard and suffer for it, rather than being grounded in nonsense where I need not think.
It appears to me that Mr. Gailbraith was being sarcastic. I think he agrees with you.

Aramike

10-13-09, 08:31 PM

NeonSamurai

10-13-09, 11:43 PM

It appears to me that Mr. Gailbraith was being sarcastic. I think he agrees with you.

That is quite possible :DL, but that quote still makes me cringe.

XabbaRus

10-14-09, 07:31 AM

Have to say I agree with Aramike et al.

I don't like Fox news but no administration can outwardly attack a particular news outlet because said news outlet has been critical of them, regardless whether it was spiteful or not.

You get into a situation as in Russia....

SteamWake

10-19-09, 11:16 AM

This aint going away.

The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

Marginilize the channel? Havent the libs been doing that for years already?

August

10-19-09, 12:20 PM

This aint going away.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

Marginilize the channel? Havent the libs been doing that for years already?

They've been trying, but all they end up doing is giving Fox free advertising.

Zachstar

10-19-09, 01:42 PM

While it needed to be said. The only thing the white house did was to help give that crap network more attention and make it a martyr.

Next day Glen Beck compares fox news to jews in the camps during the holocaust. Lovely network that fox news... Not!

And no there is absolutely zero chance of someday being a "ban" on Fox. Far as I am aware they semi follow FCC guidelines and laws.

The white house is just saying to sane people that Fox news has proven how far it is from "Fair and Balanced" for almost a decade now.

Zachstar

10-19-09, 01:53 PM

REALLY?

How you ever watched MSNBC?

The brass at Fox News had it right when they said that the White House is incapable of distinguishing between news and commentary...

...either that, or they have a problem with commentary critical of them while being quite alright with the lineup of commentary shows supporting them, as is on MSNBC. Yet again its just more propaganda from this endlessly campaigning White House - and even you are buying into it, lock, stock, and barrel, without being fully informed of the issue on a first-hand basis.

If you are referring to the major political commentary shows "Countdown" "Rachel Maddow" Yes those shows are pretty far left. The general news is more or less like CNNs or ABCs These shows were created to counter shows like Hannity and O'Reilly (Tho he now seems more central than far right these days likely reason they got Beck in)

The issue with Fox news is there is less time on there being objective and neutral than any other network I have seen in this nation. When the news reels roll oftentimes it seems they are just trying to make an issue a political issue to emflame the viewers. Do other networks do the same? Sometimes during election season they become rats but with fox its like a 24 hour thing.

That is my opinion tho many people share such. The white house is free to say Fox News sucks BTW. They have no power to alter their programming but they have the right to say what they think of it.

mookiemookie

10-19-09, 01:55 PM

They've been trying, but all they end up doing is giving Fox free advertising.

Pretty much. Now Fox News can use the "poor persecuted underdog...telling you the TRUTH that THEY don't want you to hear!" card and galvanize their hardcore fans.

They should have just left it alone.

SteamWake

10-19-09, 01:59 PM

They should have just left it alone.

I have to agree, however evidently the White House believes they cannot afford to. :hmmm:

geetrue

10-19-09, 02:08 PM

The real problem lies in the fact that Fox News is pissing off President Obama so much that it has come to this point in time.

Any polictical psychologist can see this frustration is coming from a common mental disorder that tends to blame someone else for your problems.

But to use your influence to shut down an entire news agency sounds anti-american to me, like an old black and white citzens cane movie or something.

Has anyone noticed Senator Kerry jumping into the news more often now that Mrs Clinton has firmly said she is not seeking the job of the president of the United States?

Kerry is acting like he might have another chance if Obama slips in the ratings game (whatever that is)

Zachstar

10-19-09, 02:11 PM

He has no influence to "Shut Down" a news agency. Nobody does. He pointed out that fox news is crap. The Right wing will still use it as their primary source of subsistence. Little has changed.

SteamWake

10-19-09, 02:14 PM

No influence eh?

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

Zachstar

10-19-09, 02:23 PM

If they had influence they would have had beck canned long ago now common folks!

No need to go Alex Jones on this. Its not a conspiracy its an opinion.

mookiemookie

10-19-09, 02:24 PM

No influence eh?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

This is why WND is as laughable as it is. They cannot understand the difference between the Obama campaign controlling their message (which is clearly what was said) and the White House controlling the media. Obama wasn't even in the White House in the timeframe in question, so how can it be a case of the White House controlling the media? It's deliberate spin to serve WND's agenda.

Tribesman

10-19-09, 02:25 PM

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Wow they control the media by ....errrr...controlling what they themselves say to the media.:rotfl2:

Sailor Steve

10-19-09, 05:34 PM

"White House says..."

"White House boasts..."

"White house attempts to control..."

Do you ever wonder if the White House gets a little tired of taking the blame for whatever its current occupants say or do? Has anyone ever asked the White House what its feelings are on this subject?

"White House says 'Stop saying I said this or that! I never said that! I don't even care! Keep my lawn trimmed and I'm happy.'"

Platapus

10-19-09, 05:44 PM

I do think it was inappropriate of the administration to make such comments about any news media. The Executive Administration should be above such matters. If they did not like Fox News, then simply ignore them.

CaptainHaplo

10-19-09, 05:46 PM

If the white house wants to go head to head with fox - its their loss. No-win situations exist, but creating one yourself and then stepping into it isn't real smart.

As for how they feel? Well, maybe if they decided to stay within the role of the Executive Branch instead of what they (and fairly speaking, just about every administratinon in the last 150+ years) are choosing to do, they wouldn't have to worry about it. But stepping outside the guidelines in power grabs are nothing new, both political parties do it when they are in power, so why should this group be any different?

SteamWake

10-23-09, 10:21 AM

Of course there is no effort to manipulate the media that would be just unthinkable.

White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The White House

10-23-09, 10:39 AM

Do you ever wonder if the White House gets a little tired of taking the blame for whatever its current occupants say or do? Has anyone ever asked the White House what its feelings are on this subject?

"White House says 'Stop saying I said this or that! I never said that! I don't even care! Keep my lawn trimmed and I'm happy.'"

:cry: You're so right.

SS107.9MHz

10-23-09, 03:59 PM

It was a huge mistake of the administration...
Bt I have yet to hear anyone of the current White House administration stating that !"Fox News are now considered enemies" or anything like that... It's more of a media exageration than anything, bu here go my 2 cents just about the Fox "News"...

Portugal has it's shares of media manipulation/exaggeration and such downfalls... But having seen that so called News Channel made me gag... More than 5 minutes seeing Fox News had me almost throwing my lunch to the otherside of the room... I've never seen such complete dispise of news reporting responsabilities... I felt disgusted and ashamed that a TV channel can manipulate so many people as they seem to be able to, by professing their ideals in a shallow and warped way, to their own gain :nope:

August

10-23-09, 06:24 PM

SS107.9MHz

10-23-09, 06:57 PM

No actually I carried on watching it for about an hour... It's like beeing a deer in front of a car at night you just keep staring in disbelief... And I'm beeing serious, maybe that's how they get their audience, you start by loathing it and tthen they get you, like on of those fruity cults... And sometimes I even go back at it but after about half an hour I'm so revolted I have to change the channel... REALLY!!! I'm not just beeing sarcastic!!!

Ducimus

10-23-09, 07:13 PM

Faux news aside, gotta love jibjab.

"What we call the news"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2EPKKVrqI

August

10-24-09, 01:08 AM

Stealth Hunter

10-24-09, 01:16 AM

On a slightly related note, does anybody here recall when Glenn Beck misspelled "oligarchy"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oc_U4n-p0&feature=related

(complete with the stylings of Keyboard Cat)

Platapus

10-24-09, 08:00 AM

Faux news aside, gotta love jibjab.

"What we call the news"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2EPKKVrqI

That JibJab is one of their best! :yeah:

SS107.9MHz

10-24-09, 09:51 AM

So what program did you watch? Who was the host? What was the subject? I'm curious.

Ithink one of them was "America's Newsroom" another one was Fox News Report or something? I can't recall all of the other ones some were about the protesters of the tea parties, the majority of them were about the H(w)ealth Care System, and the insurance companies that won't be able to compete wih the governmetn (those poor insurance and finance companies who cause the internacioanl crisis anyway , booowoowooo :03:)

CaptainHaplo

10-24-09, 11:00 AM

August

10-24-09, 11:42 AM

SS107.9MHz

10-26-09, 08:12 AM

Health insurance companies didn't cause any "international crisis". Have a rather obvious anti-corporate sentiment?

Fox has both opinion pieces, as well as news pieces. So do the other networks. No matter which you watch, you have to discern between the two.

Though if your already biased one way or the other, your going to see an opinion portion and it will resonate with you, or infuriate you - depending on its stance in relation to your own.

I've never seen any news agency promoting (fabricating) the news they want to cast, either as endorcement to protesters, or simply by misquoting or taking deliberatly out of contest sentences only to bash someone's charachter (ok this last one it's pretty common). Also I've never seen a news channel where their anchors use their screen time to sell their books and merchandise adding "their the perfect gift and a great bargain", like that O'Reilly chap...

For me that's disgusting, and more importantly UNETHICAL, and my collegues of the radio's information department tend to agree in that.

PS: I don't have a any beef with any corporate enterprise, why would I? I just pointed out that the great majority of insurance companies are closely related to the banking entities that led to the crisis.

August

10-26-09, 09:15 AM

I've never seen any news agency promoting (fabricating) the news they want to cast

Really? Google "Dan Rather George Bush National Guard record"

Also note the lack of coverage on the ACORN scandal, Van Jones and the multi media character assassination of Sarah Palin.

You see Fox bias but you don't see much more blatant bias by the other networks, especially MSNBC.

mookiemookie

10-26-09, 11:20 AM

Really? Google "Dan Rather George Bush National Guard record"

Also note the lack of coverage on the ACORN scandal, Van Jones and the multi media character assassination of Sarah Palin.

You see Fox bias but you don't see much more blatant bias by the other networks, especially MSNBC.

Palin was suicide, not assassination :rotfl2:

August

10-26-09, 11:25 AM

Palin was suicide, not assassination :rotfl2:

So you're another one who actually believes she said she can see Russia from her house, eh?

SteamWake

10-26-09, 12:01 PM

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/news.jpg

mookiemookie

10-26-09, 12:36 PM

So you're another one who actually believes she said she can see Russia from her house, eh?

No, the "I can't name a newspaper, magazine or Supreme Court case" bit was enough for me. :03:

August

10-26-09, 01:09 PM

No, the "I can't name a newspaper, magazine or Supreme Court case" bit was enough for me. :03:

Yet 57 states apparently wasn't. Odd that.

Stealth Hunter

10-26-09, 05:23 PM

Yet 57 states apparently wasn't. Odd that.

Perhaps that's because he misspoke in a split-second moment about one thing that he later corrected himself on. She had minutes to think of something related to the three things posed to her, one of which is very relevant to her job as a politician. Off the top of my head I can name Plessy v. Furgeson, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. The Board of Education, and Scopes v. Tennessee for Supreme Court cases alone. Why couldn't she?

Stealth Hunter

10-26-09, 05:23 PM

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/news.jpg

QFT.

CaptainHaplo

10-26-09, 06:04 PM

Stealth Hunter....

Could it be because, unlike the current President - she isn't yet another Lawyer turned politician?

Obama has his Law Degree from Harvard. I would say that to earn that he had to study a bit of law.....

As a governor, do you think you would have time to follow all the various legal proceedings going on, or in the past? Did it occur to you that Mrs. Palin's education may not have been focused on social history, which is where such topics come up? Is it possible that in the day to day duties of a governor, a specific understanding of needs of the people would outweigh the need to know what the latest item is on Court TV?

It's ok to dislike the person, or their politics. But judge them because they don't know something you do? That opens you up to alot of judgements - because we all have things we don't know.

That's why its important for any governmental leader to have good advisors - people who ROUND out their knowledge base.

Unfortunately, the current president has surrounded himself with communists, socialists and other activists instead of a varied group that can offer him ideas from a broad spectrum.

Stealth Hunter

10-26-09, 07:08 PM

Could it be because, unlike the current President - she isn't yet another Lawyer turned politician?

That... or she could just be an idiot. Given that this isn't one of the only majorly stupid things she's said (let alone done), I'm going with the latter. I mean seriously, not even Brown v. The Board of Education? One of the more recent and most famous Supreme Court issues that is addressed in every school across the United States from junior high as far on as mandatory history in college? I don't expect her to know every single one. But she wasn't even able to come up with a name or basic summary of one, which is disturbing given her ambitions to become vice president (and possibly president).

Obama has his Law Degree from Harvard. I would say that to earn that he had to study a bit of law.....

Agreed, but see above.

As a governor, do you think you would have time to follow all the various legal proceedings going on, or in the past?

Not all, just some. At least some of the mandatory ones needed for a high school education.

Did it occur to you that Mrs. Palin's education may not have been focused on social history, which is where such topics come up?

Yep, as far as a college education is concerned. But we're talking national cirriculum level stuff. Schools have been required for something like 40 years have been required to teach about Brown and the Board of Education, let alone Marbury v. Madison, or for that matter Roe v. Wade.

Is it possible that in the day to day duties of a governor, a specific understanding of needs of the people would outweigh the need to know what the latest item is on Court TV?

Well to begin with, this was an interview that she was supposed to have been prepared for to begin with- not at all related to the "day to day duties of a governor".

It's ok to dislike the person, or their politics. But judge them because they don't know something you do? That opens you up to alot of judgements - because we all have things we don't know.

You're ignoring, however, the other things she said- like her statement about Russia, God elects presidents- not the people, and my personal favorite: the vice president is in charge of the Senate. Among other things. The very simple matter of it is she's not intelligent enough to succeed at her own game. She can woo a crowd with a nice speech, but she lacks the intelligence and rational thought process to become what is the very substance of a great leader.
That's why its important for any governmental leader to have good advisors - people who ROUND out their knowledge base.

Which would be a bar-none for her. At least McCain would have been in charge if they'd won. If he died though... then god have mercy on us all...

Unfortunately, the current president has surrounded himself with communists, socialists and other activists instead of a varied group that can offer him ideas from a broad spectrum.

:haha:

Before I go any further, what knowledge do you have on Socialism and Communism? Because from the looks of it, you don't understand one of the most basic things between the two SEPARATE ideologies: Communists are not Socialists, and vice versa.

August

10-26-09, 07:49 PM

Which would be a bar-none for her. At least McCain would have been in charge if they'd won. If he died though... then god have mercy on us all...

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?

CaptainHaplo

10-26-09, 08:08 PM

my personal favorite: the vice president is in charge of the Senate.

Actually - this is factual. The VP is the "President of the Senate" by constitutional law. The fact that they have not, for the last 50 years or so, presided regularly over the Senate Chamber does not make the statement false. In fact, on certain occasions, the VP will still preside.

I did a quick google search on the other two comments. The "God elects presidents" came up blank, so I could only comment if I see the context. As for a Russian comment, not sure which one your referencing. Not that its important, but we can always discuss it.

As for "Communists" and "Socialists" - let me put it this way.

"Green Energy Czar" - Van Jones - self identified COMMUNIST.

"Energy Czar" Carol Browner - formerly listed as a member of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (though in all fairness, she "highly regards" Mao, a Communist)

*Do a quick google search on her name - you will find the data.*

As for the differences, socialism is focused purely on the economy, where communism is concerned with both the economy and political structure. Its also often missed that socialism can tolerate a level of capitalism, provided its controlled centrally, where communism cannot abide the free market in any form.

So yes, I am familiar with the differences. And its also obvious my statement was correct about the president , and those he chooses to advise him, are in fact either Communists, or Communists and Socialists, depending on the person.

Platapus

10-26-09, 08:29 PM

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1. :nope:

August

10-26-09, 08:48 PM

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1. :nope:

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

Wolfehunter

10-26-09, 11:13 PM

Faux news aside, gotta love jibjab.

"What we call the news"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2EPKKVrqIBest vid ever.. :yeah:

Stealth Hunter

10-28-09, 06:23 PM

Actually - this is factual. The VP is the "President of the Senate" by constitutional law. The fact that they have not, for the last 50 years or so, presided regularly over the Senate Chamber does not make the statement false. In fact, on certain occasions, the VP will still preside.

In the context which she states it, however, it's not. The Vice President is not able to totally control everything the members of the Chamber do or say. While they act as a presiding officer and can cast tie-breaking votes (only in the case that there is in fact a tie on an issue, that is), address specific members' appeals, and call to order the Chamber (among some other things), they really are quite limited in what they can do, which is why most don't even bother anymore (for better or worse).

I did a quick google search on the other two comments. The "God elects presidents" came up blank, so I could only comment if I see the context.

There's several different quotes from her about it floating the round, but the specific one I was referring to was the one where she said "God will help me decide what to do in 2012," word for word. It reminded me to a startling extent of Bush's statement that god had told him to invade Iraq.

As for a Russian comment, not sure which one your referencing. Not that its important, but we can always discuss it.

The one where she was discussing diplomacy with the Russian Federation and other "enemies of the United States" and said, "You can see Russia from Alaska"?

As for "Communists" and "Socialists" - let me put it this way.

"Green Energy Czar" - Van Jones - self identified COMMUNIST.

Van Jones is not a "self-identified Communist". You're thinking of his institution supporting the rights of the pro-Marxist group STORM, from the 1990s (by the way, Marxism is not modern Communism; it was the foundation for Leninism which gave rise to the theory of modern Communism with the inclusion of Stalinism).

"Energy Czar" Carol Browner - formerly listed as a member of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (though in all fairness, she "highly regards" Mao, a Communist)

You're thinking of her membership in the CSWS. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society is there to create diplomatic ties and international, fair governance with nations the world over; it hasn't been a part of Socialists International for nearly 35 years.

I typed in "Carol Browner, Mao, highly regards" into Google, AskJeeves, and Yahoo! and got no results back. Though this doesn't surprise me, because contrary to the idiocy and half-mindedness that has gone in to creating this myth, Communists do not like Socialists, Socialists do not like Communists. So assuming she was in fact a member of Socialist International, she would not even bother commenting on Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist revolution.

The theory of modern Socialism (let alone the theory of a Social Democracy, which I identify myself with) is over a hundred years older than the writings of Marx and Engels, just so everyone here knows.

*Do a quick google search on her name - you will find the data.*

Did. Just found her membership to the CSWS, nothing about her being a member of Socialists International- nor did I find her quote about Mao Zedong. Though if she did say that she "highly regards" Mao, can't really say I could blame her. I mean, he successfully took over one of the planet's most populous nations and then turned it into a military, industrial, and economic giant that still exists as such now. Whether people want to admit to it or not, that's an impressive feat.

As for the differences, socialism is focused purely on the economy, where communism is concerned with both the economy and political structure. Its also often missed that socialism can tolerate a level of capitalism, provided its controlled centrally, where communism cannot abide the free market in any form.

These would depend on the type of Socialism you're discussing. Utopian Socialism is not the same as Social Libertarianism (Utopian Socialism is what you're thinking of when describing the "differences" here, where the state of the nation and society of a whole are focused on entirely by improving elements of the economy, market, trade, etc.- basically anything related to finances; it does not, however, bother to comment on how such a society would be sustained, whereas Social Libertarianism focuses almost entirely on the same tired old things like freedom, justice, you know the drill), just as Democratic Socialism is not the same as Market Socialism. They all believe in the means of production and equality, that much is true. But otherwise, they are all very, very different. This is what sets us apart from Communists. Communism has very few differences (if any) between its many theories: Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. all hold the ideas of means of production, equality, a classless and stateless society, common ownership, anti-Capitalism, and freedom-from-oppression.

I ascribe myself to the Social Democracy theory, which actually fully accepts and endorses Capitalism; it just states that the corporations and businesses are what need to be regulated, not the actual marketeering system itself. It's because of the work of Social Democrats that we have things today like the national parks system (which Theodore Roosevelt almost immediately supported), labor rights, elements of fair trade, consumer rights and protections, guidelines for modern-day civil rights, enforced secularism within the state (the reason why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously), social security, and funding for alternative fuel sources.

So yes, I am familiar with the differences.

You are somewhat informed of the differences, but not as much as you seem to think.

And its also obvious my statement was correct about the president , and those he chooses to advise him, are in fact either Communists, or Communists and Socialists, depending on the person.

Ignoring the contradictions between what you've said and what the reality of the matter is, why is it exactly that you seem to think Socialism (or Communism, for that matter) is "bad" and Capitalism is "good"? While I would be inclined to agree with you about Communism because it has essentially no differences between its theories, Socialism has a wide variety of theories to select from.

Stealth Hunter

10-28-09, 06:30 PM

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

"Known dumbass"?:haha: Sorry, but I don't recall a speech Biden made where he said that as VP he'd have total control over the Senate, that he was able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska, nor do I remember an interview (or general question, for that matter) where he could not name a single Supreme Court case.

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat. When will your lot understand the difference?:roll: Sorry for the excessive use of emoticons, but he is right: this sounds exactly like something SUBMAN would say.

CaptainHaplo

10-28-09, 07:29 PM

why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously

What "clause" would that be?

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation. People THINK their is because they are ill informed. Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

August

10-28-09, 07:43 PM

able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska,

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

SS107.9MHz

10-29-09, 01:48 PM

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Lol, Social democrats in my country are the right wing party. There's no left left in the states ;) , only center right (democrats) and far right (GOP).

August

10-29-09, 02:33 PM

Lol, Social democrats in my country are the right wing party. There's no left left in the states ;) , only center right (democrats) and far right (GOP).

That's nice.

nikimcbee

10-29-09, 03:07 PM

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:
http://www.freefoto.com/images/01/08/01_08_52---Duck_web.jpg

social democrat:
http://animal.discovery.com/guides/wild-birds/gallery/mallard_duck.jpg

national socialist
http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/oc-donald-as-a-nazi.jpg

socialist
http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_ducks3.jpg

hope~change
http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_lame_duck_potus_obama_gear_button-p145340734390050224t5sj_400.jpg

nikimcbee

10-29-09, 03:10 PM

What tipped you off?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aHjT9u_jJug/Sqe7ERUkiqI/AAAAAAAAAb4/aNTiWmwGCoE/s400/socialist_warning_sign.jpg

Stealth Hunter

10-29-09, 05:18 PM

What "clause" would that be?

Well to name one, the "No Religious Test Clause".

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation.

Article 6, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That is a form of Separation of Church & State, and it is within the Constitution. Argue about it all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is although the specific phrase isn't in there, the principles/ideas of the phrase are. Similarly, nowhere in the Constitution will you find phrases "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does that mean no citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Or that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not. The absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. To put it bluntly, the right to a fair trial is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise (and I only consider the moral aspect here because you seem so hell-bent on always talking about them, even though they are really quite useless in a debate or in real life because you will always have people with different moral opinions and beliefs around you).

Furthermore, this is what the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Nothing is mentioned in there about a "fair trial"- but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials, that being public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thusly so, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional. It's a simple matter of law and logic.

Additionally, the courts have found that the principles of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Again, separating religious beliefs from state affairs. Try and spin it how you want, but the words and ideas of the Framers are spelled out quite clearly there.

To cite something outside of the Constitution that further signifies that the United States holds true these beliefs, I also call to your attention the Treaty of Tripoli's statement that:

{Article 11} As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

People THINK their is because they are ill informed.

Oh the irony runs as thick as a vein of curd here.

Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

Well as you can see above, that's not the case. But persist if you wish. It's your right to, no matter how wrong it may be. It was also the DanBURY Bapists, BTW.:up:

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

This is somewhat incorrect (but not totally). As far as law interpretation is concerned, it is incorrect however. Jefferson's writings have been used as, for the last two centuries, a means for making legal rulings, by courts in all jurisdictions. In the 1879 decision of Reynolds v. the United States, for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment."

The man himself didn't see the letter as an unimportant one. He had Levi Lincoln, the attorney general under him at the time, review it to him before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

The letter itself has a clear connection to the First Amendment. Even the phrase "wall of separation" stands as a direct testament and reference to it (does the specific quote from the Constitution ring any bells up there for you?). He meant it to have a larger political meaning. This is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact and logic. And an excellent example of why would be his efforts to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that:

...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...

But don't confuse me on this, I know full and well that he was not an Atheist, just as you k now full and well that he was not a Christian. He was a self-professed Deist.

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your professional foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of.

There was also her interview with Charlie Gibson where she discussed Russia, but that yielded fewer lulz. The SNL skit certainly delivered however.:haha:

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Actually, there is such a thing as Conservative Democrats, which are on the right side of the spectrum. But you just forgot about them... right?

*random pictures of ducks*

Do you ever contribute anything more than just image macros to a debate, or is it that you in fact have nothing to contribute? I'm guessing it's that you have nothing to contribute, yet you feel the need to get your political beliefs in there somehow- be it in a rational manner or not.

Anyway, you would be wise to note that National Socialism is generally a right-wing political system (as in there are more right-wing ideas it incorporates than left-wing ones), though it denotes its beliefs from both sides of the spectrum. But don't take my word for it. Try our beloved Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism). While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics), the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-8) The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program) in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-parliamentarism), Pan-Germanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Germanism), racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism),[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-Hayek-10) eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics), antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism), anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism), totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) and opposition to economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) and political liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_liberalism).Take note of the latter, if you'd kindly.

CaptainHaplo

10-29-09, 06:48 PM

...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...

You say this somehow states that a man cannot use, as a basis for his decisions as a governmet official, his own religious beliefs? In fact, it says exactly the opposite - that while government may not REQUIRE a man to support any worship, it also has no right to REQUIRE a man to NOT have his own opinions that may be based on his religious stance.

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

NO religious test..... so if a man is religious, and would use his moral or ethical compass, which is often based on faith, your saying that this is a violation of the "church and state clause", when in reality your applying a "religious test" to the person simply because of his faith - which violates the clause you claim supports your position.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Again - you cannot prohibit a government official from the "free exercise" of their beliefs - but the claim that there is a "wall" between church and state that is somehow sacrosanct directly contradicts the free exercise.

The only way you could have total seperation of church and state is if government was restricted to those who identify themselves as athiests, and even then, some could argue that athiesm is nothing but the religion of "no god".

There is a huge difference between the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion and having people of faiths involved in government.

You can try and twist it however you want, but NO religious test means exactly that.

It should also be noted, since you bring up the Treaty of Tripoli, that Article 11 of said treaty in reality does not exist as claimed.

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp) shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11) of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11). The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art10) and 12 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art12) is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11) of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

This is a quote directly from the notes of one Hunter Miller, who was commissioned by the US Government to analyze the treaty in 1931.

You may find the information here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp)

I totally concur that the US is not a "christian" nation as many claim, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, yet there is no denying the fact that deists and christians share both a very similiar moral and ethical code that stems from common roots.

Skybird

10-29-09, 07:00 PM

The freedom to practice religion freely ends where this practice means the limitation of the freedom of others that do not want to participate in that practicing. The freedom of free religious practice also means the freedom FROM religious practice. Your freedom ends where you start limiting the freedom of others for the sake of increasing your own beyond theirs.

The first amendement is very clear, CaptainHaplo. and yes, it does serve as a very logical and solid reason for secular state order and separation of state and church.

A religion claiming the right to enter the public sphere, is no more a spiritual thing. It is then acting purely political. The first amendement makes it clear that the state should not assist that kind of interests.

Or very simply said: your freedom to practice your religion ends where you limit my freedom not needing to take note of it if I do not wish to be effected by your religion. You are causing something, so it is your duty to make sure the consequence does not worry others anymore. Like the radio you turned up too loud. Not the others have to move away or arrange themselves with it, but you have to turn down the volume.

Because of the two, freedom from religion is so much more important for people than the freedom to religion.

I recommend carefully reading the pieces of info here:
http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment
'Seperation of Church and State': a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

In a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)
"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [forbid] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…."
James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:
"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].
U.S. Supreme Court

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"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 remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
[Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of a God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
[Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)]
Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court:

'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
More
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion."
[Melvin v. Easley (1860)]
"First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another."
[Justice Tom C. Clark, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]
"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
[Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 (1968)]

Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

SteamWake

10-29-09, 07:23 PM

Ya cant yell 'FIRE' ! in a theater I tell you... :salute:

Platapus

10-29-09, 07:39 PM

But you CAN yell "Theater" in a crowded fire.....

Although why one would want to do so escapes me.. But you do have the right! :yeah:

Stealth Hunter

10-29-09, 08:33 PM

You say this somehow states that a man cannot use, as a basis for his decisions as a governmet official, his own religious beliefs? In fact, it says exactly the opposite - that while government may not REQUIRE a man to support any worship, it also has no right to REQUIRE a man to NOT have his own opinions that may be based on his religious stance.

The Danbury Baptists wanted free of extreme oppression, and they were being discriminated against to the point where members were being beaten and exiled from the community. And this is exactly what Jefferson is making reference to: extreme oppression. The principle of separation of church and state as the Constitution does is not endorse that kind of behavior. It does, however, maintain that the government keep religious and political affairs separate. That's all. Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment makes that point quite clear. And that's the simplicity of it.

NO religious test..... so if a man is religious, and would use his moral or ethical compass, which is often based on faith, your saying that this is a violation of the "church and state clause", when in reality your applying a "religious test" to the person simply because of his faith - which violates the clause you claim supports your position.

You fail to see the point: this is separating religion from state affairs. No religious tests shall be used as a necessary qualification for a position in service of public affairs. Again, this upholds the idea of separation of church and state. It's not hard to understand. You're making it more complex than it is.

Again - you cannot prohibit a government official from the "free exercise" of their beliefs - but the claim that there is a "wall" between church and state that is somehow sacrosanct directly contradicts the free exercise.

Outside of their office. Inside, it's a different story. For example, a principle of a public high school is an official of a state establishment. He/she has a right to exercise his/her religious beliefs freely outside of the school. Inside, however, he/she is bound by United States law which states that he/she cannot force students to pray, push a specific religious stance on them, etc. Again, they are separating his/her state affairs as an official of the of the public high school from personal religious/church affairs. You can prohibit them in this case. And it can be applied to other government offices. Now a private school is a different story. Because it's not a state establishment, you're only bound by what the officials of it have set in place.

The only way you could have total seperation of church and state is if government was restricted to those who identify themselves as athiests, and even then, some could argue that athiesm is nothing but the religion of "no god".

You misunderstand the primary intent of the law here: keep religion out of your line of work (I'm speaking strictly from the politician's perspective here) because the people you're working for all have different beliefs, regarding all kinds of issues; it's fine to have a personal opinion about such matters outside of the office, but inside you are not there to worship; you are there to do your duty according to the law.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. Really not a belief in anything. Not by popular consensus, but by definition.

There is a huge difference between the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion and having people of faiths involved in government.

No, there isn't. Again you fail to see the point: all religious affairs are to be kept out of state ones. It's simple. And to be honest, it really isn't that bad of a deal. People just feel the need to push their beliefs on others. I have the utmost respect for the ones who can keep their mouths shut about their faith, but too many cannot. But the meaning of this is that the United States cannot be classified solely as a Christian nation, an Islamic nation, a Jewish nation, a Mormon nation, etc. It takes no specific stance, because that's not the purpose for it existence; just as the people who work in the infrastructure of government itself- their purpose is not to worship or carry out their religious practices while in office, but to do the duty their job demands as an important member of the state, as a gear/cog in the machine that is the nation. Outside, they're free to pray, worship, do whatever they want along the lines of religion. Inside, they are there to keep the country alive, in good shape, and with it help the people to whatever ends.

You can try and twist it however you want, but NO religious test means exactly that.

You're running just off the title, not what the full clause says. The simple fact of the matter is that clause (a verified legal document) combined with Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment (a supreme legal document) makes it quite clear that separation of church and state is to be held in high regard as inherent law.

It should also be noted, since you bring up the Treaty of Tripoli, that Article 11 of said treaty in reality does not exist as claimed.

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp) shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11) of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11). The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art10) and 12 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art12) is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11) of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

This is a quote directly from the notes of one Hunter Miller, who was commissioned by the US Government to analyze the treaty in 1931.

You may find the information here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp)

You're forgetting that it's not the Arabic version that was presented to, read aloud to, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate. Whether or not the Arabic version states that or not is irrelevant, because the fact remains that the English Barlow copy (with Article 11 included) of the Treaty of Tripoli, preserved in Washington, D.C.'s National Archives, is the one that the Senate agreed to, and it states that:

http://i35.tinypic.com/nccq6t.jpg

I totally concur that the US is not a "christian" nation as many claim, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, yet there is no denying the fact that deists and christians share both a very similiar moral and ethical code that stems from common roots.

Deists ascribe to the belief that a higher power created the universe in which we reside, and then, for whatever reason that they or someone that they follow and hold in high regards, abandoned it. Moral and ethics need not be denied, because all Deists vary in their morals and ethics; all people do really. It depends on the upbringing they've had. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was not at all Christianlike in his actions; the man drank and partied all the time, he had frequent affairs while away in France, he fathered several bastard children, and he basically didn't take care any further of his family after he journeyed for the last time to Paris.

Stealth Hunter

10-29-09, 08:35 PM

Ya cant yell 'FIRE' ! in a theater I tell you... :salute:

But there is a fire. Right there. That robot just blew up that building, and the people are running out engulfed in flames.:O:

August

10-29-09, 10:06 PM

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be :DL). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

OneToughHerring

10-29-09, 10:57 PM

OneToughHerring

10-29-09, 11:25 PM

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:

national socialist

socialist

hope~change

Let me explain too.

GOP
http://images.whatsthatbug.com/images/camel_spider_sandoval.jpg

Nazis
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/12/74%20Crazy%20Ol%27%20Crab%20Head.jpg

Neo-nazis
http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/48bef_head-lice-on-head.jpg

Stealth Hunter

10-29-09, 11:30 PM

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be :DL). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

Nope, but she is the one who was described as the professional in foreign policy experience.:up:

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

:haha:

Right, right. I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, though. But whatever. From the defensive behavior you Republicans seem to be showing on these issues (not to mention the touchiness and sensitivity) I sense your confidence in victory over the Democrats is now wavering. It is nevertheless interesting viewing the reactions from both sides in the stands.

Stealth Hunter

10-29-09, 11:31 PM

Let me explain too.

GOP
http://images.whatsthatbug.com/images/camel_spider_sandoval.jpg

I'm surprised you'd even acknowledge such a rhetorical and nonsensical post, Herring, but I lol'd at that pic of the camel spider.

nikimcbee

10-30-09, 01:35 AM

Speaking of white house and news media, what ever happen to the body count in the Middle East? Is it just me, or have they lost count? Atleast they can count the number of times odufus has gone golfing:shifty: in the last 8 months. The thing that really makes me mad about the right currently, is the new call to withdraw. After all the time we spent beating up on the left for "cut and run", some seem awflly eager to get out of there now.

Here' my solution to the problem: I'll comprimise; Not one more troop to the region, in exchange, I want ALL ROE removed. I don't know where we went wrong on our history, that we nolonger fight to win (Except Gulf War 1) It seems like every military affair since Vietnam, we just make a half assed effort to fight:nope:. With the exception of use of NBC, get put of the way of our military leaders and let them win. All of the micro-managing just drives me crazy. You can bomb here, but not there, you must assault the city, but no air or artillery support.:shifty: And then we ring our hands when we get bogged down.

It's not a partisan issue, but a national issue.

nikimcbee

10-30-09, 02:04 AM

If Joe Biden is a "known dumbass" then how would you characterize George W. Bush? :haha:

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/george-w-bush-quotes.jpg

Checkmate:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/F/i/2/obama-bunny-outfit.jpg

OneToughHerring

10-30-09, 10:10 AM

Yea but Obama is not hugging the rabbit? Bush is. The mark of a clear fool.

SteamWake

10-30-09, 10:26 AM

Oh noes ! Bunny hugging is foolish !

Im going to break down in tears.. poor un loved bunnys...

Oh that reminds me !

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/al_franken_bunny_web.jpg

Musta been

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/obama_youth_04.jpg

Back on topic

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/Newshour.jpg

OneToughHerring

10-30-09, 11:41 AM

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o210/bherring24/bush_cocaine-1.jpg

nikimcbee

10-30-09, 12:53 PM

wow this thread has such potential...better than the lolcat thread.:hmmm:

nikimcbee

10-30-09, 12:54 PM

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-02/conan-finland-president.jpg

ETR3(SS)

10-30-09, 01:51 PM

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/al_franken_bunny_web.jpg
Does this constitute as a congressional sex scandal now?:har:

Stealth Hunter

10-30-09, 04:57 PM

Does this constitute as a congressional sex scandal now?:har:

They would certainly try and pass it off as one to get him out of there.:haha:

August

10-30-09, 10:08 PM

I sense your confidence in victory over the Democrats is now wavering.

Is that so. Well we'll see if you're threatening to leave again in a couple years.

Stealth Hunter

10-30-09, 10:16 PM

Is that so. Well we'll see if you're threatening to leave again in a couple years.

Fair enough.:salute: