Hannah Giles

Originally posted by duecer
the democrats that voted against it (many any way) did so because there was no public option included, which would have moved the bill further left, issue #1 debunked

"General Welfare"...hmmmm... seems to me health care promtoes just that, issue #2 debunked


Next?

ha ha ha ...promtoes...I meant promotes😳😛

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]first, you know knothig about the bill because your republican masters have not told you the truth about it.
Apparently you've been hitting the medicinal bong a tad too much. Do you have any idea what is in the bill? If so, you know more than any of the folks who voted for it--- it was passed without review.

And don't you think it odd that w ...[text shortened]... t looks as though our previous failures were merely drops in the bucket of our own demise.[/b]

Our constitution (you are American, right?) informs our citizenry of the limited powers which we have bestowed upon the governing bodies.

Going off-topic here (and the thread is already all over the place) a genuine question from a non-American.

You are justly proud of the tradition of the founding fathers and your constitution. So why do so many Americans think that 'seperation of church and state' is communistic and/or atheistic?

I still can't do the quotations properly. Only meant to quote from below the box that is shown.

Originally posted by neil67d
Our constitution (you are American, right?) informs our citizenry of the limited powers which we have bestowed upon the governing bodies.

Going off-topic here (and the thread is already all over the place) a genuine question from a non-American.

You are justly proud of the tradition of the founding fathers and your constitution. So why do so many Americans think that 'seperation of church and state' is communistic and/or atheistic?

Because the original intent of the phrase (not in the Constitution, by the way) as used even by Jefferson wasn't intended to convey anything nefarious toward religion--- certainly not in the sense that it has become in the past few decades. Think of the overall mores of the society in which both the First Amendment and Jefferson's eventually-famous phrase was introduced: these were decidedly and emphatically Christian people. Any form of government to which they were willing to submit--- for which they willing risked and sacrificed hearth and home--- would necessarily require a safe harbor for their beliefs.

The modern-day iteration of these concepts, i.e., all mention of God must be removed, is so contrary to the ideas first put forth as to be, well, laughable.

Now, to your posting dilemmas...
Cut the portion to which you wish to respond.
Paste the portion in your "Post" box.
At the beginning of the newly pasted portion, type a [ then a 'b,' and finally another ].
At the end of the newly pasted portion, type a [, then a '/,' followed by another 'b,' and then a final ].
This combo turns the bold on and then turns it off. The same works for italicizing, which utilizes the letter 'i,' and the same format.

If you want to get super fancy, you can use that same [] [/] format with the word 'quote.'

Because the original intent of the phrase (not in the Constitution, by the way) as used even by Jefferson wasn't intended to convey anything nefarious toward religion---

I can see that it wasn't meant to convey anything nefarious, but you haven't actually said what the phrase was meant to convey.

I accept that my understanding of it is limited, and the following is simplified. Many of the new American people were happy to be free of religious persecution in Europe and saw that a major problem was the control of the nation states by the church.
Therefore in America be free to follow your religion without state regulation, but equally dont allow religion to meddle with the state.

So it was a part of securing religious freedom that church and state should be totally seperated.

Thanks for idiots guide to quotations. I was about to just give up! Got it right this time.

Originally posted by neil67d
[b]Because the original intent of the phrase (not in the Constitution, by the way) as used even by Jefferson wasn't intended to convey anything nefarious toward religion---

I can see that it wasn't meant to convey anything nefarious, but you haven't actually said what the phrase was meant to convey.

I accept that my understanding of it is limited, ...[text shortened]... t was a part of securing religious freedom that church and state should be totally seperated.[/b]

The differing denominations were afraid that their brethren across the aisles would somehow gain enough power of influence and in so doing, make their own interpretations of Scripture illegal.

As a compromise, it was decided that Congress would not establish any of the denominations as the state church.