White house chastises media !

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Faux news aside, gotta love jibjab.

"What we call the news"

Best vid ever..

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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"?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

*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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So yes, I am familiar with the differences.

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

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by August

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"? 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? Sorry for the excessive use of emoticons, but he is right: this sounds exactly like something SUBMAN would say.

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by SS107.9MHz

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]

Originally Posted by August

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:


social democrat:


national socialist


socialist


hope~change

[nikimcbee]

What tipped you off?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What "clause" would that be?

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

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

People THINK their is because they are ill informed.

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

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by August

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

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.

Originally Posted by August

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?

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

*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. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] 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 in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

Take note of the latter, if you'd kindly.

[CaptainHaplo]

...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 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 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. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 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 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

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]

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."