You Might Be a Liberal If You...

[BMT (RIP)]

...still have an "Obama 2012" bumper sticker on your car -- right next to your "Obama 2008" bumper sticker.

...believe that achieving a record low percentage of Americans working, and record high percentage of Americans on food stamps and other "public assistance," are indicators of a successful economic recovery model.

...feel that voter fraud is a form of "social justice."

...are certain that any criticism of Obama is rooted in racism.

...believe Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are "journalists," and everything on MTV and in the New York Times is "journalism."

...look like "a deer in the headlights" if anyone mentions our Constitution because that is just "right-wing rhetoric."

... rail against racial discrimination but staunchly support Affirmative Action.

...feel the grassroots Tea Party Movement is a collection of ignorant racists, but the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is a coalition of thoughtful and principled reformers.

...believe CNN and The New York Times are objective, but Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are biased.
...feel George Soros is a benevolent patriarch but the Koch brothers are evil incarnate.

...support redistribution of wealth, as long as it's not your wealth.

...use hash tags like #hatewhitey, #taxtherich and #hateTEA on Twitter.

...believe that our Constitution is "living" but unborn children are not.

...are tolerant of diverse opinions as long as they do not divert from your own.

...want the government out of our bedrooms unless they're providing free birth control and abortions.

...feel people who are opposed to the redefinition of marriage, as Barack Obama was when elected, are bigots.

...feel the free market is where one goes to collect government handouts.

...have no idea that Franklin Roosevelt's "principle on taxation" was plagiarized from Karl Marx.

...still refer to Stalin as "Uncle Joe."

…believe that Che Guevara is a saint.

...know more than one vegan.

...oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of convicted criminals, while supporting the death penalty for the most innocent of unborn children.

...believe the only absolute in life is a brand of vodka.

...have joined Al Gore's cult of earth worshippers and feel "global warming" is all manmade.

...believe Oprah should be Obama's running mate in his third term.

...believe the phrase "separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution.

...reject the "paper or plastic" question because you're "bi-sacksual."

...feel that an open border with Mexico will provide you job security.
...believe that "clinging to guns and religion" is subversive anti-American behavior.

...believe that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an obstacle to Liberty rather than its best insurance policy, that "a well regulated militia" refers to the National Guard, and that "arms" refers only to shotguns and hunting rifles.

...feel Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are heroes for stealing millions of classified documents and making them available to Russia and China.

...trust that Obama's IRS enemies list is fully justified.

...believe that altering the "Benghazi talking points" is an Italian automaker's revised marketing plan.

...believe Bill Clinton is the best spokesperson for the Democrats.

...don't have a problem with a twice-elected mixed-race president who spews racist and classist rhetoric while living as the wealthiest of one-percenters.

...feel the primary objective of ObamaCare is to provide "affordable health care" to the uninsured.

...didn't know there are now 20 million more uninsured Americans now than when Obama took office.

...believe Barack Hussein Obama is trustworthy.

…believe jihadist Muslims are misunderstood peaceniks but Christians are cutthroat terrorists.

...protest against state censorship unless it's directed at anything "conservative."

...feel it's OK to require drug tests to keep a job but racist to require drug tests for welfare recipients.

...feel it's OK to mandate IDs to withdraw your own money from your own bank while it's racist to require IDs to vote.

...believe that making a "gun-like finger gesture" in elementary school is cause for expulsion while body guards for leftists should be armed to the teeth.

...believe that parents should provide permission slips for middle-school field trips but not abortion referrals.
...believe that "clinging to guns and religion" is subversive anti-American behavior.

...believe that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an obstacle to Liberty rather than its best insurance policy, that "a well regulated militia" refers to the National Guard, and that "arms" refers only to shotguns and hunting rifles.

...feel Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are heroes for stealing millions of classified documents and making them available to Russia and China.

...trust that Obama's IRS enemies list is fully justified.

...believe that altering the "Benghazi talking points" is an Italian automaker's revised marketing plan.

...believe Bill Clinton is the best spokesperson for the Democrats.

...don't have a problem with a twice-elected mixed-race president who spews racist and classist rhetoric while living as the wealthiest of one-percenters.

...feel the primary objective of ObamaCare is to provide "affordable health care" to the uninsured.

...didn't know there are now 20 million more uninsured Americans now than when Obama took office.

...believe Barack Hussein Obama is trustworthy.

And finally, you are definitely a liberal if you don't take issue with any of the statements listed above.

[glebo]

soooo true...

"bi-sacksual"....LMAO

[uplink5]

[QUOTE=BMT

----everything-----
[/QUOTE]

Elections season must be upon us again. Hopefully enough voters agree and actually vote for Congressional control. I'm fairly confident....

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well in a way it is. Just not in those exact words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So no laws made based on religion and no laws that infringe on one's ability to practice their religion.

How does that wording keep me from putting a cross on a hill as a reminder of my faith?

TR

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How does that wording keep me from putting a cross on a hill as a reminder of my faith?

TR

It shouldn't but the other side has twisted those words and like fools too many of us have laid down and allowed them to have their way regardless of our feelings. The Ten Commandments at one time were displayed on or in nearly every county courthouse in the country, but not anymore.

On Memorial Day and Veterans Day I put out 9 white crosses near our VN Veterans Memorial at the courthouse, one cross for each young man from the county that we lost in the war. This does not sit well with many of the locals. One day one of the crosses was removed and a complaint was lodged with the county. Thank God that there was one cool head on the board of supervisors, a dem but a good veteran. He recognized that the cross was a symbol and not an endorsement of any particular religion, with his blessing the crosses stay.

We have let the minority push us around for too long and that is our fault.

[GratefulCitizen]

"Congress shall make no law"
Seems pretty straightforward.

Congress is not empowered to protect, they are prohibited from interfering.

[Fat Albert]

For too long we've given way to these so called offended people. I would like, for a change, to have a name and a face to go with each offense. When students, at a US school, are punished for wearing tee shirts showing the American flag during Cinco De Mayo so not to offend other students. I'm offended! When a student is suspended for wearing a "support our troops" tee shirt as offensive to the Muslims. Hey, feel free to go to the middle east to apologize. But, if the teacher is female she can't speak to a male in public, drive a car, get an education or become a teacher...that's is the true offense. Students being punished for show love of country is and should always be offensive. I just want to see a face and name of these sensitive people. Maybe they need to see true offense to their behavior.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well in a way it is.

Complicated it is. Always has been.

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

Justice Black (for the majority), EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 330 U.S. 1
February 10, 1947, Decided

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project.../estabinto.htm

Richard

[Pete]

".....No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs,....."

Word

Now some folks would take that as "See, I can do as I want". - BUT - That also means they can do as they want.

It was not that many years ago some folks were pressuring a local government to close all the parks on Sunday because people should be in church. It was then pointed out that by that reasoning the parks would have to be closed on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well in a way it is...

People should re-read the text of Jefferson's letter and understand its context. It was written to assure the Danbury Baptists that they would not find in him an enemy of religion (as many had made him out to be).

Oh, and it would be of some relevance to note that several states did indeed have their very own state-endorsed religions (religious sects - ALL of them Christian) at that time, something that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were in no way trying to impede. Their concern was that the Federal Government, as they proposed it, would not impose a Federally-sanctioned religion - or religious sect - as did England, with the Church of England. (The same church that imposed tithes even upon those people who did not belong to the C of E.)

For some insight into exactly what was meant by Jefferson's words and how (later, in the 20th century) Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black managed to twist an incidental phrase into something with a completely opposite meaning, thereby turning the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on its head, try reading the article I've linked below, written by Law Professor Daniel Dreisbach.

The Mythical “Wall of Separation”:
How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse (By Professor Daniel L. Dreisbach)

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-and-discourse

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until later via incorporation. In terms of separation of church and state, I am not referring to Jefferson's use of that phrase, but to the wording of the First Amendment itself, which it outlines a separation of church and state IMO pretty clearly.

The wording of the First Amendment does not "outline a separation of church and state"; and the sooner people would shitcan that stupid metaphor with regard to the actual text of the First Amendment as written the better off we would all be.

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

To quote Professor Dreisbach on the subject:

Metaphors inevitably graft onto their subjects connotations, emotional intensity, and/or cultural associations that transform the understanding of the subject as it was known pre-metaphor. If attributes of the metaphor are erroneously or misleadingly assigned to the subject and the distortion goes unchallenged, the metaphor may re-conceptualize or otherwise alter the understanding of the underlying subject. The more appealing and powerful a metaphor, the more it tends to supplant or overshadow the original subject and the more one is unable to contemplate the subject apart from its metaphoric formulation. Thus, distortions perpetuated by the metaphor are sustained and magnified.

Jefferson's phrase powerfully illustrates this. Although the metaphor may felicitously express some aspects of the First Amendment, it seriously misrepresents or obscures others.

The repetitious, uncritical use of felicitous phrases, Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, bedevils the law: "A phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition; and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas." Figures of speech designed to simplify and liberate thought end often by trivializing or enslaving it. Therefore, as Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo counseled, "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched."

This is advice that courts would do well to heed.

A year after Everson, Justice Stanley F. Reed denounced the Court's reliance on the metaphor. "A rule of law," he protested, "should not be drawn from a figure of speech." Justice Potter Stewart similarly opined in the first school-prayer case that the Court's task in resolving complex constitutional controversies "is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In a stinging repudiation of the Court's use of the trope, Justice William Rehnquist offered that the wall "is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Stobey

[S]omething that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were in no way trying to impede. Their concern was that the Federal Government, as they proposed it, would not impose a Federally-sanctioned religion - or religious sect - as did England, with the Church of England. (The same church that imposed tithes even upon those people who did not belong to the C of E.)

Then why did Madison believe that the Constitution should have had a provision forbidding the individual states from violating "the equal rights of conscience" of their citizens?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Stobey

The wording of the First Amendment does not "outline a separation of church and state"; and the sooner people would shitcan that stupid metaphor with regard to the actual text of the First Amendment as written the better off we would all be.

Really? I think Mr Jefferson made his opinions on the matter pretty well known when he drafted The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1779 three years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence. The act was passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia...red/vaact.html

James Madison made his thoughts on the subject known, as well, when he wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, just a few months before the General Assembly passed Jefferson's religious freedom bill.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia..._m&r_1785.html

Looking at the expressed thoughts and actions of our Constitution's drafters, and combining those thoughts as expressed by them in the First Amendemnt and Article VI (which provides that all state and federal officials "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") certainly cements in my mind that although the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the text, the idea of separation certainly was in theirs when they wrote the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by Stobey

...Justice William Rehnquist offered that the wall "is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

Well, speaking of "bad history":

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com..._rehnquist.htm

And as far as History goes, if you're interested in where such an idea (a "wall of separation" and why the concept that use by political leaders of religion for their own ends was a danger both to the faithful and to the peace of society the Constitution embodies) came about:

"...wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world..."

http://clio.missouristate.edu/FTMiller/Docs/wall.htm

And on this matter, I agree with Justice O'Connor's opinion in MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. (03-1693) 545 U.S. 844 (2005) 354 F.3d 438, affirmed:

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZC.html

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

It's just a mincing of words between eggheads.

I pledge to "one Nation, under God, indivisible, and with liberty and justice for all."

The libs are in the process of forsaking God and removing liberty and justice in order to divide the Country in accordance with a plan of attack set up by a fan of Satan-Saul Alinsky- and other anti-Christians. I and others have been fervently warning people of this for 7, 8 years, but it actually started when they took the Lord's Prayer out of the school.

The shoulders of the camel are inside the hooch...

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The shoulders of the camel are inside the hooch...

The camel is a Bactrian and the first hump is in the tent.

Pat