What is Digg?26 Comments
- FyreGoddess, on 10/26/2007, -1/+9QUOTE:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion." - Ron Paul
That quote doesn't say that the Declaration and Constitution are replete with references to God. The Declaration and Constitution were not the subjects of that sentence; "THE DRAFTERS (of two documents)..." were the subjects of the sentence.
*****
The statement "both replete with references to God" qualifies the subjects of the DoI and the Constitution. Therefore, "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion" is a complete statement.
If the drafters were *both* replete to references to God, it would imply that Paul was only referring to two drafters in particular. - reed311, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11You are right, and they have no defense for his claims that the Constitution is "replete" with references to God. They will just ignore it or say it was a "mistake". The "champion" of the Constitution would not make such a blatant mistake.
- Hortnon, on 10/26/2007, -1/+8"Our Lord"...as in, "Year of Our Lord"?
- KMye, on 10/26/2007, -3/+10"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
One of the several portions of the constitution Paul, and his followers, seem to be unfamiliar with.
@haha
Try expanding your research beyond conspiracy theory web videos, and you might not make an ass of yourself as much. - inactive, on 10/26/2007, -2/+9This is a joke right? You're trying to defend ron paul by claiming that he was referring to the actual DRAFTERS AND FOUNDERS of being "replete with references to god" instead of the actual documents themselves? You're trying to tell me that instead of the logical conclusion anyone would draw from this (reference to the documents) that paul was instead referring to people? Tell me why would Paul use such roundabout and misleading phrasing if he were referring to the founders, when the sentence makes much more grammatical sense if referring to the documents? This is one of the biggest stretches of intellectual honestly I've seen in a long time.
- Hortnon, on 10/26/2007, -2/+9You're using an argument that conceptkid used. You know how wrong that makes you?
So, where does the 'both' come from, if you're so much smarter than us? - FyreGoddess, on 10/26/2007, -2/+8I think it just adds grammar to the list of things that Paul's supporters can't seem to grasp correctly (as in, other than what Ron Paul tells them).
(partial list)
History
Economics
Politics
-The US electoral process (primary/general election)
- Delegates
The first Amendment
Global interdependency
Foriegn policy
GRAMMAR - KMye, on 10/29/2007, -3/+9It must have been a ghost writer!
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/29/2007, -6/+12"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion." - Ron Paul
One would think that a person who will adhere to the Constitution would know that "God" is not mentioned. But, one would think that he would understand that the amendments to the Constitution are PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. So, the income tax is part of the Constitution. People who support Ron Paul are deluding themselves. - JohnReb, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7How is a person "replete with references"?
- theblueprint, on 10/27/2007, -3/+9We drag it around because it's evidence of Paul's desire to legislate his morality on everyone else.
Ron Paul is a Fundamentalist Christian, and has attempted to legislate his morals into law. He voted against a bill supporting gay marriage, and he also supported a bill that would define life at the time of conception.
This statement is important because it's proof that (a) Ron Paul, "Mr. Constitution" doesn't know the document as well as he claims, and (b) it proves that he only preaches "Constitution" when it advances his beliefs.
I realize that the RonBots wish this would just go away, but it will continue to be dragged around until Paul is humiliated in the primaries. - inactive, on 10/27/2007, -2/+7No, it's not simple english. It's incorrect english, actually. It's a poor attempt by a ronbot to try and exonerate paul from the idiotic and incorrect statement he wrote by attacking the grammatical structure. It's ignorance at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
- Hortnon, on 10/26/2007, -4/+9And many more support the legality of income tax.
- Hortnon, on 10/29/2007, -2/+7http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/ta ...
- Hortnon, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6Even better, how are all of the Founding Fathers both replete with references?
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Yea I know...it was a stretch :p
LOL - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1You've never heard of an employer giving REFERENCES? You've never heard of an employee giving a new employer lists of REFERENCES? When an employer creates or gives references to employees, where do you think that those references come from? Do you believe, when an employer pulls out a blank piece of paper, a reference automatically appear on the piece of paper, from nowhere land? NO -- an employer must pull what he has from his mental library, and put his references [about compliments or concerns] to that blank piece of paper. References come from outside and within, and employers are not necessarily BORN with them, but, virtually, employers are what they eat, metaphorically; employers must mentally take employees into consideration; EMPLOYERS GATHER REFERENCES AND THEY FORM REFERENCES, and they then deliver those references.
With the drafters of the Declaration and the drafters of the Constitution -- there is no massive difference. The drafters were informed by their natural surroundings and informed by their mere existence; they gathered references about their surroundings, and they formed references on their own -- the drafters were replete with references. - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1If you can't track the use of one plural subject, through one sentence -- you have the problem -- not Ron Paul.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1In that specific sentence, he didn't specifically state that the 'The Founding Fathers were replete with reference,' because he was talking about the two groups of drafters of the two different documents. But, the two groups of drafters of the two different documents are generally known as Founding Fathers, had Ron Paul specifically claimed that the Founding Fathers were replete with references, he would have been just as correct.
- cattleprod, on 10/26/2007, -6/+4Ron Paul is right again. All that "separation of church and state" is not found in the US Constitution, it comes from the Soviet Constitution.
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -4/+2@Horton
Look --
There were the drafters of the the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of Constitution.
Now, together, let's count "THE DRAFTERS":
1.) The Drafters of the Declaration of Independence ... ((1!))
2.) The Drafters of the Constitution ... ((2!))
BOTH -- the drafters of the Declaration and of the Constitution -- were counted for you and with you.
Get it???
................................................................
Here are other examples:
1.) "Certainly the batters of the Yankees and of the Red Sox, both naturally intent on keeping their limbs attached, would be aghast at their teams' pitchers' secret plans to throw live hand grenades."
2.) "Certainly the supporters of Giuliani and of Clinton, both consumed in dreams about living free, would be aghast at their candidates' secret war against every American's individual sovereignty."
3.) "Certainly Guiliani and Clinton, both dreaming about ruling a world empire, would be aghast at their supporters sudden turn against them."
4.) "Certainly the people of America and of Britain, both replete with references to the evils of tyranny, would be aghast at their governments surrender to the NWO."
5.) "Certainly the penguins of the North Pole and of the South Pole, both replete with ages of mythical fears of abomidable snowmen, would be aghast at the sight of Michael J. Fox as Teen Wolf."
6.) "Certainly the models of the magazine Playboy and of the videos of Vivid, both now replete with numerous warnings about radioactive silicone implants, would be aghast at their glowing headlights."
7.) "Certainly the consumers of the magazine Playboy and of the videos of Vivid, both replete with references to metaphorical names for boobies, would be aghast at any church's hostility to the use of metaphors."
8.) "Certainly the football teams of the University of Southern California and of the University of Texas, both replete with countless abusers of gamma-radiation exposure, would be aghast at the NFL's hostility against flax seed oil."
9.) "Certainly the children of the Lollipop Land and of the Cotton Candy Land, both replete with references to flying through the sky on sugar highs, would be aghast to find that they've been eating broccoli disguised as candy."
10.) "Certainly the detainees of Guantanamo and the viewers of Chris Rocker's YouTube channel, both replete with firsthand experiences of torture, would be aghast at SaintDogbert's silly reference about Ron Paul's tortured English."
11.) "Certainly the readers of the above statements and the readers of the Ron Paul statement, both [now] replete with references to the realm of sentence structure and reading comprehension, would be aghast to find that THE DRAFTERS were indeed the subject of Ron Paul's statement." - inactive, on 10/26/2007, -5/+2@satanatnmtedu
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion." - Ron Paul
That quote doesn't say that the Declaration and Constitution are replete with references to God. The Declaration and Constitution were not the subjects of that sentence; "THE DRAFTERS (of two documents)..." were the subjects of the sentence.
The Founders were informed; they were full of knowledge about their personal beliefs and they left hints everywhere. Both, the drafters of the Declaration and the drafters of Constitution were replete with references to God, because they were indeed full of references, the Creator of their natural surroundings and their scholarly minds equipped them with such references.
The drafters [Founding Fathers] were replete with references to God, like a student's mental library is replete with countless books or notes, from years of classes; like a student's life is replete with countless moments of study, from the will to improve; like a happy child's life is replete with moments of laughter and happiness, from a very good upbringing; like a Creator's creation is replete with clues about creativity, from somewhere or something uncanny; like a book is replete with words or chapters and verses, from an author's experiences; like an old man's legacy is replete with countless stories upon stories upon stories upon stories, from a long life; like a tried warrior is replete with scars from wars, physically and/or mentally; like the moronic anti-Paul people are replete with layers upon layers of ignorance, from their poor digestion of incredibly bad intelligence.
As for the Constitution mentioning God... The Constitution came after the Declaration of Independence, for numerous reasons; however -- generally -- the Constitution wasn't drafted to elaborate on God, but it was drafted to elaborate on the DECLARED RIGHTS that had been previously ___DECLARED___ within the Declaration of Independence. And, those DECLARED RIGHTS were not elaborated on or defined for only "We the People...", but they were mostly defined for the privileged persons of our elected governments -- to understand, to know, to remember, and to protect -- for their own good. Those DECLARED RIGHTS were scribed in ink, via the Constitution, so our forgetful/faliable elected members wouldn't accidentally trounce on our inalienable rights [OUR DECLARED AND ORDAINED RIGHTS], so THEY wouldn't stupidly ignite another bloody revolution and end up dead.
The Founding Fathers understood what it meant to be Creative, what it meant to have Creativity, what it meant to be a Creation, what it meant to create, what it meant to question all existing/created things and still not fully understand a Creator [God] or a Creation's foundation. They didn't want to force any single definition of a Creator [God], for they understood that this could lead to tyranny, resistance, battles, and wars -- everything that they had just fought to escape. They understood that individuals had to be INDEPENDENT from tyranny, to find their own way, that the government couldn't establish walls between a person and his/her growth/beliefs.
The Declaration and Constitution were ultimately images of their growth and beliefs; the Founders would not have fought for, drafted and signed the documents had they not absolutely believed in them. - hahajohnnyb, on 10/26/2007, -7/+4Please Google "America: Freedom to Fascism"
Several Supreme Court cases determined that individual income tax was not constitutional, and those cases have never been overturned, yet we are still expected to pay an income tax. The income tax was meant to convey the right to tax corporate income not individual income. - inactive, on 10/26/2007, -6/+2It's called simple English; when YOU can't grasp it, you shouldn't blame Ron Paul for your personal shortcomings.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -6/+1The words "Our Lord" is in the Constitution.
But like I told you already. This was an obvious oversight to say the Constitution is replete with references to God, during editing the text. Anyone can over look something like this. But fools like you like to drag it around like it's some big deal.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is