Colin Kaepernick sits during national anthem to protest racial discrimination (taxes, live in)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Excellent point.

But the socks were highly disrespectful and offensive.

Yes, well, so are at least half the things people post on these forums. Yet the world - and the forum - survives and folks muddle through. Unlike those shot and killed unjustifiably.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

This guy should've been cut long ago for his pig socks.

He's disgusting.

Same can be said for at least half the contributors to these forums.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Same can be said for at least half the contributors to these forums.

Exactly *hint hint* *nudge nudge*

[Tulemutt]

If the shoe fits ...

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by livinfairfax

Last time I checked, the founders of this country left Europe to escape religious prosecution and tried to build a government that is secular.

It's religious persecution, not prosecution.

The point of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is to keep the government from establishing an official government sanctioned or sponsored religion, not to purge any influence that religious thought might have re issues that might be addressed by government entities. There is a difference between those two things.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

It's religious persecution, not prosecution.

The point of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is to keep the government from establishing an official government sanctioned or sponsored religion, not to purge any influence that religious thought might have re issues that might be addressed by government entities. There is a difference between those two things.

Oh noes! A typo?! Well, now THAT changes everything!

Change topics, everyone, like a flock of birds in flight! Someone used an off-topic comment to express an opinion and bungled a spelling! Anything goes at this point!

So, while we're here, loose and unattended, can we turn on the Jehovah's Witnesses now for refusing to salute the flag and say the Pledge? Subversives!

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh noes! A typo?! Well, now THAT changes everything!

Change topics, everyone, like a flock of birds in flight! Someone used an off-topic comment to express an opinion and bungled a spelling! Anything goes at this point!

So, while we're here, loose and unattended, can we turn on the Jehovah's Witnesses now for refusing to salute the flag and say the Pledge? Subversives!

It's not a misspelling, it's a different word. You're not inside his head to know if he understands the difference. He obviously doesn't understand the founder's intent re how it relates to religion and the government, exemplified in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I notice you completely ignore the meat of my post, which was the response to his lack of understanding. I'd guess that might be because you know I am correct, and wouldn't want to admit that I'm correct about anything.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

It's not a misspelling, it's a different word. You're not inside his head to know if he understands the difference. He obviously doesn't understand the founder's intent re how it relates to religion and the government, exemplified in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I notice you completely ignore the meat of my post, which was the response to his lack of understanding. I'd guess that might be because you know I am correct, and wouldn't want to admit that I'm correct about anything.

I was a printer for most of my adult life. I lived in a world of proofreading and typos and print communications. A "typo" is any honest mistake of misspelling or juxtaposition or errant word substitution. The technical term is: "a brain fart."

That said, I ignored the "meat of your post?" No I didn't. I addressed it as being irrelevant and insignificant to this thread and issue. Which is what it is.

[livinfairfax]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

It's religious persecution, not prosecution.

The point of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is to keep the government from establishing an official government sanctioned or sponsored religion, not to purge any influence that religious thought might have re issues that might be addressed by government entities. There is a difference between those two things.

What is the big difference? Constitution was founded on biblical thoughts like humans are imperfect.

The founders came from Europe to escape intolerance of certain religions. They wanted ALL religions to be practiced freely and not have the government interfere with it.

"Under god" was added in 1950s because of the conservative movement to quell progressive movements.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

That said, I ignored the "meat of your post?" No I didn't. I addressed it as being irrelevant and insignificant to this thread and issue. Which is what it is.

Obviously it is irrelevant in your own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that that assessment of irrelevance didn't make it into your post. You only addressed my first paragraph in your post, not including any response in your post to my second paragraph.