{BS} O'Donnell jeered by law students

[ah]

mail.invalid says...

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:24:15 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:36:07 +0000 (UTC), in the land of

Is EVERYONE as stupid as a box of rocks? I can undertstand this
zooming
over Aratzio's pointed little head, but LAW students?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
Fucking owned.
Really, that you are still arguing something that has been settled
constitiutional law literally for over a century is fucking
hilarious. That you claim to understand the constitution,
specifically the Bill of Rights, better than authors Monroe &
Jefferson and you know better than the Supreme Court in 27
specific different rulings.
Yes, law students and just about every citizen of the USA would
laugh at you and her is quite unsurprising.
Now, whine about me some more, bitch.

The First Amendmint makey velly clear to round eyes that gubmint
shall make no law respecting the estrabrishment of rerigion...ah
so!

Moron. The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of church and state.'

Fool.
shall make no law respecting = separation.
Deny away, FOOL.

I repeat. "The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of
church and state.' ^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe after you read it twice it might sink through your thick skull
that your reply is a non sequitur. And, if you weren't so ignorant you
would have some historical knowledge of the founders and what they
meant by the Establishment clause. (Hint: it had NOTHING whatsoever to
do with separation of church and state but it DID have everything to
do with freedom of religion.)
The establishment clause states a very simple concept which is the
Congress cannot legislate a national religion.

HE think it says "respecting". No wonder these idiots can't get it
right! They don't even know what it fucking *says*!

Freaking stupid liberals sure look foolish trying to argue on the
basis of their brainwashed ignorance.

LOL!

HOW THE FUCK DOES "RESPECTING" EQUAL "SEPARATION"?!?!?!

HOW THE FUCK DOES "RELIGION" EQUAL "NATIONAL RELIGION"?!?!?!

[ah]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:06:22 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:24:15 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:36:07 +0000 (UTC), in the land of

Is EVERYONE as stupid as a box of rocks? I can undertstand this
zooming
over Aratzio's pointed little head, but LAW students?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
Fucking owned.
Really, that you are still arguing something that has been settled
constitiutional law literally for over a century is fucking
hilarious. That you claim to understand the constitution,
specifically the Bill of Rights, better than authors Monroe &
Jefferson and you know better than the Supreme Court in 27 specific
different rulings.
Yes, law students and just about every citizen of the USA would
laugh at you and her is quite unsurprising.
Now, whine about me some more, bitch.

The First Amendmint makey velly clear to round eyes that gubmint
shall make no law respecting the estrabrishment of rerigion...ah so!

Moron. The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase 'separation
of church and state.'

Fool.
shall make no law respecting = separation.
Deny away, FOOL.

I repeat. "The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of
church and state.' ^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe after you read it twice it might sink through your thick skull that
your reply is a non sequitur. And, if you weren't so ignorant you would
have some historical knowledge of the founders and what they meant by the
Establishment clause. (Hint: it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with
separation of church and state but it DID have everything to do with
freedom of religion.)
The establishment clause states a very simple concept which is the
Congress cannot legislate a national religion.
Freaking stupid liberals sure look foolish trying to argue on the basis
of their brainwashed ignorance.

I'm afraid that the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment
Clause takes precedence over yours. Of course you could always position
yourself for an appointment to the Court and do something about that. Good
luck.

How can you 'intrerpret' something as plain as Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof ? I am truly at a loss when someone says that needs
'interpretation'. It's as plain as the nose on your face: Congress will
not declare an 'official religion' and it will not prevent others from
practicing religion. That's all it says. Anything above and beyond that is
an opinion, and opinions were left out of the Constitution for a reason.

You just 'interpreted' the 1st A, and that is your opinion.

Fear for yours if you are so willing to condemn others'.

If anything, judges who have ordered nativity scenes to be removed from
public places are in violation of the Constitution. It's quite plain.
Boiled down it says "do what you want in terms of religion". That was the
original intent.
Where were all of you Lunatics when the City Hall of New York was
exhibiting a Koran?

Oh! So, it's o.k. for /you/ to make a law respecting?

Go drink a Red Bull and finish your Halo 3 session . . . .

[Steampunk]

Post by ah

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:06:22 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:24:15 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:36:07 +0000 (UTC), in the land of

Is EVERYONE as stupid as a box of rocks? I can undertstand this
zooming
over Aratzio's pointed little head, but LAW students?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
Fucking owned.
Really, that you are still arguing something that has been settled
constitiutional law literally for over a century is fucking
hilarious. That you claim to understand the constitution,
specifically the Bill of Rights, better than authors Monroe &
Jefferson and you know better than the Supreme Court in 27
specific different rulings.
Yes, law students and just about every citizen of the USA would
laugh at you and her is quite unsurprising.
Now, whine about me some more, bitch.

The First Amendmint makey velly clear to round eyes that gubmint
shall make no law respecting the estrabrishment of rerigion...ah so!

Moron. The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of church and state.'

Fool.
shall make no law respecting = separation.
Deny away, FOOL.

I repeat. "The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of
church and state.' ^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe after you read it twice it might sink through your thick skull
that your reply is a non sequitur. And, if you weren't so ignorant you
would have some historical knowledge of the founders and what they
meant by the Establishment clause. (Hint: it had NOTHING whatsoever to
do with separation of church and state but it DID have everything to do
with freedom of religion.)
The establishment clause states a very simple concept which is the
Congress cannot legislate a national religion.
Freaking stupid liberals sure look foolish trying to argue on the basis
of their brainwashed ignorance.

I'm afraid that the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the
Establishment Clause takes precedence over yours. Of course you could
always position yourself for an appointment to the Court and do
something about that. Good luck.

How can you 'intrerpret' something as plain as Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof ? I am truly at a loss when someone says that needs
'interpretation'. It's as plain as the nose on your face: Congress will
not declare an 'official religion' and it will not prevent others from
practicing religion. That's all it says. Anything above and beyond that
is an opinion, and opinions were left out of the Constitution for a
reason.

You just 'interpreted' the 1st A, and that is your opinion.
Fear for yours if you are so willing to condemn others'.

If anything, judges who have ordered nativity scenes to be removed from
public places are in violation of the Constitution. It's quite plain.
Boiled down it says "do what you want in terms of religion". That was
the original intent.
Where were all of you Lunatics when the City Hall of New York was
exhibiting a Koran?

Oh! So, it's o.k. for /you/ to make a law respecting?
Go drink a Red Bull and finish your Halo 3 session . . . .

Why did I make the statement above. Here's your chance to show you
actually have a thought or two. Have at.

[ah]

Post by Steampunk

Post by ah

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:06:22 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:24:15 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:36:07 +0000 (UTC), in the land of

Is EVERYONE as stupid as a box of rocks? I can undertstand this
zooming
over Aratzio's pointed little head, but LAW students?

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
Fucking owned.
Really, that you are still arguing something that has been settled
constitiutional law literally for over a century is fucking
hilarious. That you claim to understand the constitution,
specifically the Bill of Rights, better than authors Monroe &
Jefferson and you know better than the Supreme Court in 27
specific different rulings.
Yes, law students and just about every citizen of the USA would
laugh at you and her is quite unsurprising.
Now, whine about me some more, bitch.

The First Amendmint makey velly clear to round eyes that gubmint
shall make no law respecting the estrabrishment of rerigion...ah so!

Moron. The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of church and state.'

Fool.
shall make no law respecting = separation.
Deny away, FOOL.

I repeat. "The First Amendment does not incorporate the phrase
'separation of
church and state.' ^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe after you read it twice it might sink through your thick skull
that your reply is a non sequitur. And, if you weren't so ignorant you
would have some historical knowledge of the founders and what they
meant by the Establishment clause. (Hint: it had NOTHING whatsoever to
do with separation of church and state but it DID have everything to do
with freedom of religion.)
The establishment clause states a very simple concept which is the
Congress cannot legislate a national religion.
Freaking stupid liberals sure look foolish trying to argue on the basis
of their brainwashed ignorance.

I'm afraid that the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the
Establishment Clause takes precedence over yours. Of course you could
always position yourself for an appointment to the Court and do
something about that. Good luck.

How can you 'intrerpret' something as plain as Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof ? I am truly at a loss when someone says that needs
'interpretation'. It's as plain as the nose on your face: Congress will
not declare an 'official religion' and it will not prevent others from
practicing religion. That's all it says. Anything above and beyond that
is an opinion, and opinions were left out of the Constitution for a
reason.

You just 'interpreted' the 1st A, and that is your opinion.
Fear for yours if you are so willing to condemn others'.

If anything, judges who have ordered nativity scenes to be removed from
public places are in violation of the Constitution. It's quite plain.
Boiled down it says "do what you want in terms of religion". That was
the original intent.
Where were all of you Lunatics when the City Hall of New York was
exhibiting a Koran?

Oh! So, it's o.k. for /you/ to make a law respecting?
Go drink a Red Bull and finish your Halo 3 session . . . .

Why did I make the statement above. Here's your chance to show you
actually have a thought or two. Have at.

That monkey is on /your/ back, dude.