worth thinking about

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..

My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.

You guess wrong

Old habits are hard to break.

By the way, did you call me yesterday?......or did I have a really odd fever
induced dream?

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Wolfgang wrote:


"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...


I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.


That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet
doesn't say anything.

While I disagree with most of what each of them say,


And who do you suppose gives a ****?

Oh wow, 20 questions. I do, I do.

it's obvious that they believe what they say.


Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say anything.

Show me where I said that did.


You are just playing some silly game.


You're a dumbass.

Sticks and stones my little pretty.


My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.


Husband those guesses......they're all you've got.

Thank God. I'd hate to have to put up with you in real life.
On this board, you're just a pitiful little person.

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Wolfgang wrote:


"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...


I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.


That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and
dicklet doesn't say anything.

While I disagree with most of what each of them say,


And who do you suppose gives a ****?

Oh wow, 20 questions.

Looks like just one to me......but then, I'm not a good reader.

I do, I do.

Well, that makes roughly two of you.

it's obvious that they believe what they say.


Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say
anything.

Show me where I said that did.

Show me where I said that you said that did.

You are just playing some silly game.


You're a dumbass.

Sticks and stones my little pretty.

True enough......but it doesn't make you any less a dumbass, does it?

My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.


Husband those guesses......they're all you've got.

Thank God.

Well, MOST people would thank their gods on being informed that they have
something MORE than just guesses. To each his own, eh?

I'd hate to have to put up with you in real life.

You'd hate it more than you can possibly guess.

On this board, you're just a pitiful little person.

Yeah, not the sort of thing you'd bother with.......right?

Wolfgang

wrote

And just what do you think they meant, on that Fifteenth Day of December
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, when
they said, right out of the starting gate, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."

I think it's pretty clear there is a disagreement about what they meant.
I'm also pretty sure that after all the arguments are in and the dust
settles the disagreement won't be resolved. That's why we have a Supreme
Court. And they've made an interpretation about what was meant, which is
what they've been charged to do. It could be overturned ... or not. It
won't stop the losing side from ****ing and moaning about how badly the SC
misinterpreted language whose intent is obvious to all but the severly
obtuse.

And so it goes.

-dnc-

Fiddleaway wrote:
wrote


And just what do you think they meant, on that Fifteenth Day of December
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, when
they said, right out of the starting gate, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."


I think it's pretty clear there is a disagreement about what they meant.
I'm also pretty sure that after all the arguments are in and the dust
settles the disagreement won't be resolved. That's why we have a Supreme
Court. And they've made an interpretation about what was meant, which is
what they've been charged to do. It could be overturned ... or not. It
won't stop the losing side from ****ing and moaning about how badly the SC
misinterpreted language whose intent is obvious to all but the severly
obtuse.

The First Amendment, and in particular the Establishment Clause,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
is very clear and unambiguous. Compared to the Second Amendment, with
its "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, ...", the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw
... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity...

it clearly prohibits itself ;-)

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you call me yesterday?......or did I have a really odd
fever induced dream?


Yup, I called. I owe you half a lunch.

rb608 wrote:

So have we liberals "overcooked" the issue? I disagree. The separation of
government policies from religious dogma is of primary importance in this
country, and one that is under constant attack. Some of the battles can be
monumental, some seem trivial; but it is impossible to overstate the
importance of each one.


It's ironic (but an understandable development, since they
are linked) that while send boys and girls to die fighting
the Taliban in Afghanistan, our own homegrown version is
flourishing.

Fiddleaway wrote:
rw

... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity...


it clearly prohibits itself ;-)

How do you figure?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Fiddleaway wrote:
rw
... the Establishment Clause is a model of clarity...


it clearly prohibits itself ;-)

How do you figure?


yeah, i don't understand that position.

yfitons
wayno