 |
Duration: 06:25 minutes
Upload Time: 2007-12-17 05:43:55
User: Ryokibin
:::: Favorites
:::: Top Videos of Day
|
Description:
It is amazing when you find someone crazier then Bill, but Laura never fails to let us down.
|
Comments |
eldiablo10028 ::: Favorites 2008-01-03 12:20:17
I would like to have sex with both laura ingraham and ann coulter with my liberal sized cock.
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-26 11:25:49
Gyrin:
1. "people such as myself"? And what people might those be?
2. Wikipedia widely known as less than definitive on topic.
3. You're "positive" I use it? Why? What is your source for that info? (Wikipedia again?)
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-24 11:27:02
Harharhar. Of course, I forgot, wikipedia is infinitely fallible.
It's unfortunate that people such as yourself are so two-faced, i.e., you build this strawman that wikipedia invalidates an argument, yet I'm positive you use it for basic information when you encounter something you're unfamiliar with.
I'm sorry, but wiki is free. I would show you the same thing in Britannica online, but it's NOT free...
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-24 09:34:39
I was going to say that you seem too intelligent to be making these wrong statements, and that I believed you to just be acting intentionally obtuse. Then you quoted wikipedia. Now, I believe you are perhpas both.
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-24 02:06:04
Oh, really? It's THAT obviously unambiguous, eh? That's funny, because if you read the Wiki about the 1st amendment (not that it's at all an exhaustive study, but it's a good summary), you'd know that...
"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose."
Hmm...
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-23 17:06:57
You are clearly using the wrong defn of "respect" here. In this case it would be synonomous with "regarding", not "respect" as you are reading it.
Did they teach you about context in your high school?
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-21 23:06:20
Um..."Congress shall make no law RESPECTing an establishMENT of religion..."
Didn't they teach you to read English in whatever high school you went to?
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-21 06:28:29
The ammendment READS "establish".
YOU seem to read "respect".
Wonder how that can be? I mean, the words aren't even spelled similarly.
Question: Just how far are you willing to twist words and spin things to try and make your point?
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 13:38:04
So, the first amendment not only says you can't suppress religion, it clearly says you can't "respect" it. Congress very much stated their respect for Christmas AND Christianity.
You see, the point of the amendment is that Congress won't say that they like any one religion or the other, nor will they demonstrate their dislike for any particular one.
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 08:03:33
How do you see what the bill says as violating the first ammendment? Did they establish an official US religion? Hell, we can't even get Congress to pass a law making English the official language of the country! Who (specifically) was denied their free exercise of religion with this bill?
As fond of definitions as you are, I'd think you'd know what MSM really is. FNC is not it.
__________________________________________________ |
InvestigatorDave ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 08:00:53
Gyrin,
They said they'd respect the traditions, hardly a rousing endorsement in any definition. The fact that 12/25 is Christmas, and has been a Federal Holiday for decades (you probably noticed you don't get mail?) means that this country and its gov't respect Christmas and Christianity. Nothing really new here.
__________________________________________________ |
jlnowicki ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 00:53:33
Laura Ingraham has honest, truthful points! Seriously, she's a breath of fresh air in the sea of corrupt crap on tv.
__________________________________________________ |
smitty888888 ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 00:11:09
ARE YOU F***IN KIDDING ME!!!!!
O'Reilly is talking about standards?
What a JOKE!!!
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-17 21:09:21
Furthermore, ever actually read the Constitution (or any of the amendments, in this case)?
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Hmmm...
And, no, O'Reilly said "the Democrats" and "the media" are against "the Republicans". And even if he did say "mainstream media", Fox is absolutely part of the mainstream media.
__________________________________________________ |
GyrinidaeRex ::: Favorites 2007-12-17 21:02:30
Endorse: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction.
Have you read HR847? I have. It's not that long, and it's your right as a citizen to be able to read it. So please, go read it and enlighten yourself. It's high praise, and easily fits into the definition of giving US gov't approval of Christianity, not just Christmas. Christmas is just an excuse. The resolution explicitly includes Christianity AND Christmas.
__________________________________________________ |
