O'Donnell Intends to Make You All Convert to her Religion

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hey I am just saying. If I have two neighbors that each claim to be members of the Tea Party but are both voting for different people because of it, I do not understand the point of having that label. Know what I mean?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Curiousisall
What do you think it means?

That you are incorrect in your interpretation.

Please educate me.
Do us both a favor and either actually say something to me in your posts or stop responding to me.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Hey I am just saying. If I have two neighbors that each claim to be members of the Tea Party but are both voting for different people because of it, I do not understand the point of having that label. Know what I mean?

People can call themselves whatever they wish; it doesn't always make it true.

That's the trouble with labels.

You have the actual Tea Party movement which has it basic beliefs, and then you have the Tea Party label with was stolen by the GOP.

reply to post by Curiousisall


I understand, but if it were not this way, it would really just be part of the problem wouldn't it?

I mean, suppose the "Tea Party Express" that is so popular, well-funded, and off target were to incorporate the name, form a PAC, and register as a legitimate party. Then they spent the next year or two "forcing" all the local Tea Parties to either get on board with their agenda, or stop using the name. By the time 2012 rolled around, the whole movement would be dead! Destroyed from within. Even if the party was still around, it would just be a repackaged Republican party with a new power structure.

This is the worst fear of us common folks. I am afraid that the scenario above is exactly what will happen after this election. If I were on "their" side, it is exactly what I would do. If it does happen, and if the November elections have results like the last several elections, and if the grassroots movement stalls or spins or is gobbled up by a well-funded pseudo movement, then I believe the country will be in REAL danger! I am worried that violence is the next step if politics fails.

I guess there are some who need to check facts.

She was asked "Where in the Consititution does it talk about the separation of church and state."

She correctly answered that it doesnt.

Originally posted by eNumbra
People can call themselves whatever they wish; it doesn't always make it true.

That's the trouble with labels.

You have the actual Tea Party movement which has it basic beliefs, and then you have the Tea Party label with was stolen by the GOP.

edit on 10/19/2010 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

Well I guess I am still waiting for someone to point out the difference between the two and that is kind of the reason I do not see the need for the label. I am not sure what it does, what it is for, or why anyone cares.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by eNumbra
People can call themselves whatever they wish; it doesn't always make it true.

That's the trouble with labels.

You have the actual Tea Party movement which has it basic beliefs, and then you have the Tea Party label with was stolen by the GOP.

edit on 10/19/2010 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

Well I guess I am still waiting for someone to point out the difference between the two and that is kind of the reason I do not see the need for the label. I am not sure what it does, what it is for, or why anyone cares.

Because of it massive rise in popularity in a short period of time. If a message of reform is what the people want then what better way to get your people back in power then to relabel your own party?

The GOP sought to get its hold on the government back and it found a great way to potentially do it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

I understand, but if it were not this way, it would really just be part of the problem wouldn't it?

Is it not still part of the problem? I am going to vote how I want. My two Tea Party neighbors are going to vote differently than myself and each other. That just seems like all three of us are still part of the problem but they go home feeling morally supperior somehow because of an arbitrary label. See what it looks like from here?

I mean, suppose the "Tea Party Express" that is so popular, well-funded, and off target were to incorporate the name, form a PAC, and register as a legitimate party. Then they spent the next year or two "forcing" all the local Tea Parties to either get on board with their agenda, or stop using the name. By the time 2012 rolled around, the whole movement would be dead! Destroyed from within. Even if the party was still around, it would just be a repackaged Republican party with a new power structure.

What I am getting at though is that I do not see what movement there would be to kill until they actually made it one. At this point, if there is no cohesive Tea Party voting line, what movement?

This is the worst fear of us common folks. I am afraid that the scenario above is exactly what will happen after this election. If I were on "their" side, it is exactly what I would do. If it does happen, and if the November elections have results like the last several elections, and if the grassroots movement stalls or spins or is gobbled up by a well-funded pseudo movement, then I believe the country will be in REAL danger! I am worried that violence is the next step if politics fails.

It kind of looks like calling yourself Tea Party is a way of explaining how you are regular folk and the rest of us are something different? I guess that is what I am asking. If the Tea Party is really just regular folk who want a better country, then how am I not one even if I vote all democrat? My motives would be the same so am I not regular folk if I were to vote that way?

Originally posted by Curiousisall
Please educate me.

Already did but let me put it more clearly.
That is your incorrect interpretation. Since you cannot show me in the Constitution where "seperation of church and state" is actually written, then by default it is an interpretation.

It clearly means that Congress cannot establish or promote a specific religion which is a far cry from the total seperation of church and state. It should be pretty clear.

Do us both a favor and either actually say something to me in your posts or stop responding to me.

So I guess you conveniently forgot your in depth smiley face reply to me first.



Oh, and what's with the she is going to make everyone convert to her religion garbage?

reply to post by eNumbra


So you do NOT think there is a real Tea Party and the GOP usurped Tea Party as two different entities? Sorry if that is what I thought you were saying with your last post.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
It clearly means that Congress cannot establish or promote a specific religion which is a far cry from the total seperation of church and state. It should be pretty clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

To me, and the Supreme Court, and most Americans, the interpretation is clear. Either (1) support ALL religions; OR (2) Support NONE of the Religions.

Since #1 is impossible, the answer is #2 by default. Since #2 is the only option, there must be a separation of church and state. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by eNumbra

 

So you do NOT think there is a real Tea Party and the GOP usurped Tea Party as two different entities? Sorry if that is what I thought you were saying with your last post.

There was a real Tea Party, it may even still be around, the GOP simply took the label. Some from the real movement were fooled by the move and have been drifting between the few real independents out there and what Beck has been telling them. From what I've seen it's been a complicated series of events that were compounded by spin from MSM outlets.

There is no Political Party known as the Tea Party however; nor do I think there should ever be. People already let everyone else do their thinking far too often. Forcing people to actually research their candidates will only be good for America.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Already did but let me put it more clearly.

Not to seem rude or anything but may I ask where? All I saw was this

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Curiousisall
What do you think it means?

That you are incorrect in your interpretation.

That is an education?

Or do you mean, this part?

Originally posted by WhatTheory
That is only a incorrect interpretation.

Maybe I got distracted by the glaring errors in grammar and this gem.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I guess you could also have a reading comprehension problem in which case I understand why you don't get it.

So where was this education? I see arrogance, condescention, and barely English attempts at "Nuh Uh!"

That is your incorrect interpretation. Since you cannot show me in the Constitution where "seperation of church and state" is actually written, then by default it is an interpretation.

You are right, that is my interpretation. I used a little trick called reading. I know what English words mean when they are put together in a sentence.

It clearly means that Congress cannot establish or promote a specific religion which is a far cry from the total seperation of church and state. It should be pretty clear.

Where do you see that?
"Congress shall make NO LAWS"
Ok, that is about laws, not promoting any specific religion.
"RESPECTING an establishment of religion"
That means those laws that they can not make would be laws with respect to any established religion. Can you break down how you read it for me?

So I guess you conveniently forgot your in depth smiley face reply to me first.

You mean the one with the text of the 1st ammendment in it? Did you not see that? Again, you deflect. Just because you did not think to tell me my post was lacking first is no reason to get upset about it now. Why do you feel the need to make all this so personal? That other thread really upset you, huh?

Oh, and what's with the she is going to make everyone convert to her religion garbage?

edit on 10/19/2010 by WhatTheory because: (no reason given)

You might want to start with the OP on that one.

Originally posted by eNumbra
There was a real Tea Party,

That is probably as close to an answer as I think I am going to be able to accept so I appreciate that then. I can believe it was real once.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Don't worry about it. She can't win.

That's too bad.
I was hoping she'd help us take back "Amercia"...wherever that may be.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/547d1f443269.jpg[/atsimg]

Gotta love Teabonics.

These guys always have the funniest signs.
Or maybe the saddest, it is hard to decide.

I'm of course in no rush to see anyone they back, coming into political power.



- Lee

reply to post by Curiousisall


The "movement" part is the fact that we have rallies and protests and we don't mind talking politics and having discussions such as this one, and that we are at least serving as examples of how people can get involved and educated in politics without being affiliated with the two established parties.

What makes us "different" than you is nothing! Maybe that is the key difference between what you see on FOX, and what is reality in your town. There is nobody trying to act authoritatively or influence your vote or pretend they know more than you know. Quite the opposite. The whole point of having a "Tea Party" at all is that it gets regular people involved, it provides some method and event for letting people meet the candidates that are from their town and support their communities.

How does one call themself a "Tea Partier?" I guess you are as much of one as I am. It isn't like you have to sign up or pay a membership fee, all you have to do is empathize with the cause and identify yourself however you see appropriate.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Curiousisall

What are you confused about?

I hope you are not saying that means the seperation of church and state.

Learning the meaning of words requires effort and a dictionary. No where in the Constitution does it prohibit the church from establishing a government.....That ought to rattle a few cages...lol

reply to post by Curiousisall


"Where do you see that?
"Congress shall make NO LAWS"
Ok, that is about laws, not promoting any specific religion.
"RESPECTING an establishment of religion"
That means those laws that they can not make would be laws with respect to any established religion. Can you break down how you read it for me?"

I beg to differ: There is quite a difference between the "respecting the establishment of religion" and making "laws with respect to any established religion. Established: means it's already in place. Establishment: to create it and put it in place..See the difference? The government is disallowed from forming a national religion. However the constitution says nothing about religion establishing a new government.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Like I said, it is a pointless title. If I can vote all Democrat and still call myself a Tea Partier then it is pointless. It is kind of like saying you belong to the Human species. No kidding, me too. But for some reason the Tea Party has no problem portraying itself as something rather than nothing which can only mean that the title actually means some people are real, normal people, and the rest of us are something else. The Tea Party here certainly is trying to tell me which way to vote. They are fully behind Palladino for governor. Not a chance I would vote for him. So I guess I am not a Tea Party person. But I want a better country, fewer laws, and a better economy so I guess I am a Tea Party person and around we go. Thank you for solidifying my theory. The name "Tea Party" is just a pointless little term people use to try and pretend there is a difference between people like me and "real folks." I am not buying it.

Look at this thread right here. You got TP fanboy Whattheory who fully supports Christine Odonnell and Sarah Palin. Is he a real Tea Party person or not? If so, what does that say about the title? If not, what does that say about it?

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I beg to differ: There is quite a difference between the "respecting the establishment of religion" and making "laws with respect to any established religion. Established: means it's already in place. Establishment: to create it and put it in place..See the difference?

Beg harder. You completely overlooked the actual words. "make no LAWS RESPECTING..."
What congress cannot do is make laws. It does not say anything about government establishing religion of whether or not the status of a religion being established yet or not changes the fact that laws can be made respecting it. Any religion, once established, falls under this. That is how it reads. They can not MAKE LAWS RESPECTING. Why did you leave that part out?

The government is disallowed from forming a national religion.

Where does it say that?

However the constitution says nothing about religion establishing a new government.

Never said it did.