Darwin got it wrong!

[Walküre]

Palin’s Evolution into O’Donnell Proves Darwin Was Wrong

Scientists Propose ‘Theory of Devolution’



OSLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) – Two of the theory of evolution’s most vociferous doubters, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, may be living proof that Darwin was wrong, leading scientists believe.

A conference of the most prominent evolutionary scientists in the world has concluded that the apparent evolution of Ms. Palin into Ms. O’Donnell suggests, in the words of Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo, “that Darwin got it backwards.”

“We still believe that evolution is more than a theory and is, in fact, a very real thing,” said Dr. Kyosuke. “However, in the case of Palin and O’Donnell, it seems to be moving in a reverse direction.”

Dr. Kyosuke stunned the conference when he presented his scholarly paper, “Tea Party Politicians and the Theory of Devolution,” in which he studied the so-called “reverse natural selection” at play in GOP candidates for Governor of New York.

“If we chart the trend line from George Pataki to Carl Paladino, within fifty years New York might be governed by Cro-Magnon Man,” he said.

Mr. Paladino did not offer an official response to the scientist’s remarks, but said that he had one hundred aides typing on one hundred typewriters simultaneously to craft a statement.

For her part, Ms. O’Donnell today released her official campaign platform, in which she opposes the use of simple tools and the discovery of fire.

[Tropic traveler]

From what I've seen we could use a little "devolution" in our so called leaders. 

Here's to LOTS of cave-people showing up at the polls in November!

[czuch]

So obvious a caveman can see it.
GETTEMIN THERE

[fstsix]

Brilliant !!!    Cant wait to see what it has in it!! 

Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it	powered by Aeva

[big turkey]

I am a little cave man that hates the GIANT IDIOTS IN POWER.

Any body that could call Harry Ried, Pelosi, and Barack Hussein Obama good leaders

needs their Prozac increased and made to sit in a quiet place till they regain thier senses.

Al

[Sludge]

Well said Al...


BTW, im looking at a 2009 KLR...   

[Chattanooga Mark]

You are correct, Darwin was wrong.

Mark

[Bobbo]

More goofiness from the new representative of the GOP and TEA Party:  

Christine O'Donnell blanks on First Amendment	powered by Aeva

[fuzzy2bucks]

Funny, but Pelosie fits into the club also.

[Walküre]

Funny, but Pelosie fits into the club also.

not....even....close!!!

[Varmintmist]

Christine O'Donnell blanks on First Amendment

Actually she was right and Cooper was wrong.

There has not been many court cases that have affirmed the separation of church and state, that was taken from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a minority church in Conn. that the state govt. was interfering with. The original phrase was wall of separation.
77 years after he wrote the 3 paragraph note to the religious sect in Conn., the SCOTUS wrote of the one line in the letter "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

There was close to 100 years of separation from the writing of the constitution and the SCOTUS pulling a line out of a archived letter to derive a meaning that was other than  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which BTW only applied to the federal govt. until 1925 when SCOTUS expanded the powers of the Fed over the states some more.

[fstsix]

Christine O'Donnell blanks on First Amendment

Actually she was right and Cooper was wrong.

There has not been many court cases that have affirmed the separation of church and state, that was taken from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a minority church in Conn. that the state govt. was interfering with. The original phrase was wall of separation.
77 years after he wrote the 3 paragraph note to the religious sect in Conn., the SCOTUS wrote of the one line in the letter "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

There was close to 100 years of separation from the writing of the constitution and the SCOTUS pulling a line out of a archived letter to derive a meaning that was other than  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which BTW only applied to the federal govt. until 1925 when SCOTUS expanded the powers of the Fed over the states some more.

+1  you got to it before i got home from work...When i heard this this morning thought the same thing, She was questioning WTF are you talking about...Now "Polosi" well You Liberals got what you voted for Brilliant! "THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE" God forbid little ole O'Donnell had such a prestigious High ranking job!! POLOSI YOUR FIRED!!

[Trynt]

Christine O'Donnell blanks on First Amendment

Actually she was right and Cooper was wrong.

There has not been many court cases that have affirmed the separation of church and state, that was taken from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a minority church in Conn. that the state govt. was interfering with. The original phrase was wall of separation.
77 years after he wrote the 3 paragraph note to the religious sect in Conn., the SCOTUS wrote of the one line in the letter "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

There was close to 100 years of separation from the writing of the constitution and the SCOTUS pulling a line out of a archived letter to derive a meaning that was other than  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which BTW only applied to the federal govt. until 1925 when SCOTUS expanded the powers of the Fed over the states some more.

O'Donnell probably was correct by accident.  But is amusing to see the "progressives" joyfully point out her ignorance only to reveal their own.

[Bobbo]

Actually she was right and Cooper was wrong.

What did Cooper get wrong?  He plainly said that the literal phrase “separation of Church and state” is not in the Constitution.  The concept of separation did indeed come from Jefferson, and has been the precedence for interpreting the First Amendment.  On a similar note, the phrase “Law abiding citizens have the right to carry handguns” is nowhere in the Constitution, yet the Second Amendment has been correctly interpreted to mean just that.

If you don’t believe in this wall of separation, would you allow government intrusion into your Church?  If governments can promote religious symbols on public property, can they also post campaign posters for Obama in your Church?  I don’t think this was the idea when the Bill of Rights was written.

[fstsix]

The usual Liberal Spin

[Disco]

Most things in the universe go from order to disorder.  My garage sure does.  Darwinism does not, and that's what fuels many of its critics.  Ever see Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

At least O'Donnell will not be a rubber stamp for comrade barry, and as far as we know, has never espoused support for marxism as has her opponent.   

[Varmintmist]

Actually she was right and Cooper was wrong.

What did Cooper get wrong?  He plainly said that the literal phrase “separation of Church and state” is not in the Constitution.  The concept of separation did indeed come from Jefferson, and has been the precedence for interpreting the First Amendment. 

The concept of a wall of separation was in a note that Jefferson wrote. The concept that the state was divorced came from a SCOTUS decision 77 years after the letter was written. Cooper declared that there have been many decisions on this, there have not, there has been one.

On a similar note, the phrase “Law abiding citizens have the right to carry handguns” is nowhere in the Constitution, yet the Second Amendment has been correctly interpreted to mean just that.

Not similar. 2A says what it means, there is no gray area.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
First, you need to understand the time and the vernacular.
Then you understand the the militia was everyone (see Federalist papers for even more light reading on the subject). Knowing that the militia was everyone, and regulated meant trained, not overseen, you can see how that it is necessary for a free state. Since the militia is everyone, and they should be able to use arms, they dead white guys clarified it to the point that no one could get it wrong, unless they wanted to, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL not be infringed"
Now if you want to try to cut the arms statement up saying that handguns are not what the founders meant, the other side of the coin is that they meant arms that were equivalent to the best armed military of the day. So to extrapolate the idea that they didn't mean handguns, you would have to accept that they meant what a basic infantry squad would commonly load out. Including grenades, SAW's and man portable anti tank devices.

If you don’t believe in this wall of separation, would you allow government intrusion into your Church?  If governments can promote religious symbols on public property, can they also post campaign posters for Obama in your Church?  I don’t think this was the idea when the Bill of Rights was written.

The government already intrudes into churches. If you start discussing politics from the pulpit, your church will find itself discussing its tax exempt status with the IRS. Even if your speech is informational and simply describes the leanings of candidates over matters that would likely concern your particular congregation.
Unless it is of a particular leaning, then AlGore can speak at Sunday service and all is OK.
The 1A provides freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Having a church or synagogue use public property for a manger scene is no different than a gay pride parade. If your community has a permit system to use the facilities and the town feels that it is worthwhile, then it should happen. If you are the lone atheist in a town of Lutherans, and you get worked up about a plastic sheep on the town green, tough cookies. You do not have the right not to be offended.

[Robert]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243716805363959903	powered by Aeva

If you really want to learn what our country was founded on then watch this.

[Robert]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Thank You Mr George Washington

[Bobbo]

The concept of a wall of separation was in a note that Jefferson wrote. The concept that the state was divorced came from a SCOTUS decision 77 years after the letter was written. Cooper declared that there have been many decisions on this, there have not, there has been one.

A decision only has to be made once, and then it is upheld or rescinded in subsequent cases.  The separation concept has been upheld in every case since the decision.

Not similar. 2A says what it means, there is no gray area.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
First, you need to understand the time and the vernacular.
Then you understand the the militia was everyone (see Federalist papers for even more light reading on the subject). Knowing that the militia was everyone, and regulated meant trained, not overseen, you can see how that it is necessary for a free state. Since the militia is everyone, and they should be able to use arms, they dead white guys clarified it to the point that no one could get it wrong, unless they wanted to, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL not be infringed"
Now if you want to try to cut the arms statement up saying that handguns are not what the founders meant, the other side of the coin is that they meant arms that were equivalent to the best armed military of the day. So to extrapolate the idea that they didn't mean handguns, you would have to accept that they meant what a basic infantry squad would commonly load out. Including grenades, SAW's and man portable anti tank devices.

Those are a lot of words only to circle back around and agree with me!

The government already intrudes into churches. If you start discussing politics from the pulpit, your church will find itself discussing its tax exempt status with the IRS. Even if your speech is informational and simply describes the leanings of candidates over matters that would likely concern your particular congregation.
Unless it is of a particular leaning, then AlGore can speak at Sunday service and all is OK.
The 1A provides freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Having a church or synagogue use public property for a manger scene is no different than a gay pride parade. If your community has a permit system to use the facilities and the town feels that it is worthwhile, then it should happen. If you are the lone atheist in a town of Lutherans, and you get worked up about a plastic sheep on the town green, tough cookies. You do not have the right not to be offended.

The government provides tax benefits to religious institutions that meet an established definition.  If a tax exempt organization strays from that definition, the tax exempt status can be withdrawn.  That isn’t government intrusion.

The First Amendment specifically states that government is to have freedom FROM religion.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for government establishment of sexual preferences, so you Gay Pride Parade comparison doesn’t hold water. 

[Varmintmist]

The government provides tax benefits to religious institutions that meet an established definition.  If a tax exempt organization strays from that definition, the tax exempt status can be withdrawn.  That isn’t government intrusion.

Except that its OK for AlGore can speak at SOME chruches and its OK.
Personally I think churches should NOT be tax exempt.

No, I dont agree with you. You point was that SCOTUS decided more than what the 1A says and your comparison was that 2A said less.

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for government establishment of sexual preferences, so you Gay Pride Parade comparison doesn’t hold water.

The constitution also doesnt provide for a venue for a minority group to be sexually explicit on main street. It does provide that the govt. doesnt interfere as long as they are breaking no law which is the same as a Christmas scene on public property.
You need the whole thing,

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

They can't ,make laws against, nor can they treat them any differently than any other group. If it is constitutional to let a gay pride parade through town, which even if you don't care, are pretty disgusting and offensive, then how is it that a church group cant do anything on public property>

A decision only has to be made once, and then it is upheld or rescinded in subsequent cases.  The separation concept has been upheld in every case since the decision.

When was it ever revisited? It is refered to, not revisited.

.................................

It is interesting that Odonnells correct statement is being taken apart and no one at CNN is calling Kuhns on the fact that she called him on the fact that his family stands to make money due to Cap and Trade which he would be in position to vote for. He tried to duck but she hammered him, hard and fast even though Wolf the Blitzed tried to save him. Or that he came up with a theory that Australia and China are in cahoots against us. Buuuuuuuuut, she's the nut because she dated a guy who was into witchcraft 20 years ago...................

[Charlie]

I have to admit you folks seem to be far more versed on this topic than me.  But I have to wonder, if the language is there, doesn't that mean it was discussed amongst all the signers, both pros and cons addressed, and then, the language decided on that was acceptable to all who signed?

My point is what Jefferson originally wanted may not be what the majority wanted, and Jefferson acquiesced.  If he hadn't, why would he sign onto the document?  Isn't that supposed to be how a democracy works?  Isn't that the basic tenet we all are supposed to accept and follow?

One of the problems of today, IMHO, is that individual people can not accept what the majority decides anymore.  They use all kinds of information, in segments, to make their point.