Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on February 28, 2004, 09:19:23 am
-
I just saw a story on AOHell news which said that the same Iranian radio station which first reported the capture of Saddam is now saying that the U.S. captured Osama "a long time ago" and that Rumsfeld's recent visit to Afghanistan had to do with the "arrest".
If this is true, and the public hasn't been informed, then Bush will keep Osama as the ace up his sleeve until September, then produce him claiming that he has just been captured, and win the election. And the U.S. gets four more years of right-wing militarism. :sigh:
-
I'll put this as nicely as I can:
[size=10]DUH![/size]
-
At least you get an election...
Chretien retired and we get this new guy just like that...
-
I doubt Bush will ever be reelected.
Of course I do not know how many people support Bush's theory about the Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. And how many people find his actions ....... right.
I can hardly believe this Osama thing. So why did the news about Saddam's capture go public?
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Of course I do not know how many people support Bush's theory about the Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. And how many people find his actions ....... right.
I think in the former case that Bush sold the war more on 'justice for Saddam' than anything else (i.e. finishing his daddy's work).
-
Originally posted by Thorn
At least you get an election...
Chretien retired and we get this new guy just like that...
And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik? :D
Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking. We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.
-
I've been one of the biggest suporters for Bushish's military actions, but if there is even a sligt chance that that is true, I will be the first one calling for impeachment
-
Originally posted by IceFire
And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik? :D
Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking. We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.
Good point.
See.. this is why I dont vote, I dont like any of them....
-
Originally posted by IceFire
And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik? :D
Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking. We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.
David Orchard should go off and form his own party. Hell, I'de vote for him. Better than the CA/PC conglomerate winning. And frankly, I'm not much liking Martin. He looks like a fence-sitter extrordinaire. Too bad Chretien had to go, he was an awesome PM.
____
As for the American election, if Bush were to produce bin Laden imminently before the election, he'd probably win. As in the previous election, the media would keep any controversy hush hush until after. And even if they didn't, there would be enough sheep willing to buy it to guarantee Bush a victory. The Dems just don't have a strong candidate. I mean, they're all Republicans lite, so the left is divided.
:nervous: :nervous:
Nader for Prez!!!
-
Bah, these threads are always so formulaic.
So instead, heres some funnay.
Elftor chooses a candidate (http://www.elftor.com/elftor.php?number=184)
-
An Iranian radio station, an accurate source for news on US activities? funny
-
I'm gonna legalize crack!
This is going to end up just like Wag the Dog...
-
About as accurate as US television I'd bet.
-
Once again, I see such love for America and Bush floating around these forums :rolleyes:
For one, Corsair, do not trust those online news sources. They rarely tell the truth, and just put things up to sell and get more hits. What if AOL put up that Saddam really didn't massacre thousands of his own people? Believe it now?
TopAce, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were an intelligence error on the part of the CIA (note: most were still Clinton appointees who had the same information under Clinton), not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work". Might I note, many of the problem's we're putting up with now are Clinton problems. We're dealing with North Korea because Clinton administration officials leaked out nuclear secrets to them. We're dealing with Iraq because Clinton was more interested in bombing medicine factories than ousting Saddam.
Bush is going to get re-elected, and not only because Kerry or Edwards couldn't match him anyway or the spoiler that is Ralph Nader.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So, to summarize, everything that's gone wrong under Bush is Clinton's fault, everything that's gone right (what little there is) is all Bush?
This is not a new refrain. Nor is it fooling anybody.
I am getting so very tired of how little people seem to think before posting when it comes to politics on this forum. It's like a bunch of talking dolls with pull-strings; there are maybe five "points" made total, tossed out in random order over and over and bloody over again.
I've got a radical idea- whenever a new thread starts, don't pretend that everything you ever heard or read before that thread never happened, reverting to the same mind-numbing horse**** that got smacked around to death in a dozen other threads! Wild, huh? It's just crazy enough that it might work!
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
TopAce, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were an intelligence error on the part of the CIA (note: most were still Clinton appointees who had the same information under Clinton),
agreed
Originally posted by nuclear1
not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work".
yep
Originally posted by nuclear1
Might I note, many of the problem's we're putting up with now are Clinton problems.
so it's clinton bashing time eh?
Originally posted by nuclear1
We're dealing with North Korea because Clinton administration officials leaked out nuclear secrets to them.
Bull****, cite your source
Originally posted by nuclear1
We're dealing with Iraq because Clinton was more interested in bombing medicine factories than ousting Saddam.
Bull****, cite your source
Originally posted by nuclear1
Bush is going to get re-elected, and not only because Kerry or Edwards couldn't match him anyway or the spoiler that is Ralph Nader.
bull****
for bush to get reelected he has to go against the force of history -- no president in the history of the united states has been reelected when the first two economic quarters of the election year were negative - no matter how positive all the previous ones were -- ALL OF BUSH'S QUARTERS HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE
Second Bush has lied to the american people and is a corporate whore
Third Bush is a fundamentalist [bigot] and a fundie xian is bad as a fundie muslim. Not everyone in this country think's he's right.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work"
Psst... I'm not Aldo
-
dangit, I'm in another one. :mad:
Bull****, cite your source
Dude, it was all over the news!!!
so it's clinton bashing time eh?
well if you think bush was bad, clinton was worse.
Second Bush has lied to the american people and is a corporate whore
"Bull****, cite your source". No this guy (http://forums.dreamincode.net/index.php?act=Profile&CODE=03&MID=34) is a "corporate whore".
Third Bush is a fundamentalist [bigot] and a fundie xian is bad as a fundie muslim. Not everyone in this country think's he's right.
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?
So you support him purely because of his religious beliefs?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?
You think a christian person can't be as bad as a muslim (or any other faith you want to mention) person?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Dude, it was all over the news!!!
well if it was on TV it must be true
well if you think bush was bad, clinton was worse.
in what sence?
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?
fundementalism is fundementalism, I don't care why you'r beleifs make you more human than me all I care about is that you have declaired yourself better and can justify any action becase you are right beond reason
-
BY GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY ON THE EARTH AND IN IT AS WELL!
I want you small-minded, hateful bastards to stop and bloody well THINK about what kind of situation you'd be in if Bill and his pet witch had been in charge or, God above help us, Al "I am tree" Gore.
Bush is far from perfect, but he is the best President we've had since Ronald Reagan.
For the record, Clinton was more interested in getting his socks blown, and then lying about it while his witch, Hillary, was communicating with former first ladies ghosts. It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA and leading OBL to think he could strike against the Free World and not reap the whirlwind.
Get your heads out of the sand, and realize that President George W. Bush is a great man and a great American.
@EDIT
If you think Bush is a Fundamentalist, you are further out of you're minds than I thouhght you were. Just because he admits to praying for guidance doesn't make him a Fundie Wacko. It marks him a good Christian.
You idiots spew that word like it's a curse. Do not DARE to compare him to the likes of OBL or Saddam.
-
So you support him purely because of his religious beliefs?
I don't support everything he does, but he's FAR better IMHO then anyother man running for president.
well if it was on TV it must be true
An asprin factory was bombed. It's not something you just put on tv.
in what sence?
read what liberator wrote.
fundementalism is fundementalism, I don't care why you'r beleifs make you more human than me all I care about is that you have declaired yourself better and can justify any action becase you are right beond reason
But what is the fundementalism about? Is it true or Is it false? So hypoteticlly speaking, a liberal (which I assume you are) fundementalist is just as bad as a christian, muslim or whatever fundementalist?
Me better then you or anyone else for that matter? I'm a christian, I'm held to a different standard then everyone else, I AM A SINNER!! Infact I'm prolly worse then the lot of you since I'm a christian and I still willingly sin at/in things!
As for truth, just by responding and even having an opinion, you are saying what you think is truth. Therefor you are just as bigoted as I am.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
small-minded, hateful bastards
[/b]
:wtf:
OH! I get it now! We're hateful because we think the President is a putz, yes, that makes perfect sense! Veritable KKK members, that's us! We also eat babies!
what kind of situation you'd be in if Bill and his pet witch had been in charge or, God above help us, Al "I am tree" Gore.
[/b]
Well, for starters, we wouldn't be paying for a deadwood "Homeland Security" department that can't stop people from bringing guns onto airplane or unlicensed hazardous biologicals into the country even when the people doing it aren't actively covering their tracks, never mind whenever an actual terrorist might decide to do it, in addition to a joke of an Army that can barely hold onto a Third World nation armed with a couple dozen grenades and as many as forty bricks never mind a genuine threat. We probably wouldn't have the world polarized against us to the point where if there was a genuine war it's likely be everybody against us, the threat of terrorism from overseas would not have increased substantially since 9-11, and we wouldn't have a theocrat trying to dictate orders as absolute tyrant to the country. Oh, and I forget, we would've largely recovered from this ****ed-up depression by now, instead of it getting worse and worse.
Bush is far from perfect, but he is the best President we've had since Ronald Reagan.
[/b]
If incompetence, cynical attempts to manipulate the people, and strong neofascist tendencies are marks of quality, Bush is years ahead of Reagan. Reagan was just bumbling old man who funded terrorists and robbed the poor to feed the rich, not particularly fantastic or awful, I don't really see what the big deal about him is. In fact, I don't think anybody does, except the guys who froth a lot about how he's Jesus incarnate and never explain exactly why. Care to? Explain, that is, not froth, we've had plenty of that.
For the record, Clinton was more interested in getting his socks blown, and then lying about it while his witch, Hillary, was communicating with former first ladies ghosts. It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA and leading OBL to think he could strike against the Free World and not reap the whirlwind
What is it with this loathing of Hillary you lot seem to have. Really, I've seen nothing she particularly deserves it for, aside from being a woman in politics. It's never been explained at all, either, aside from further ranting insults, so I'm inclined to believe that the women in politics bit is precisely it. And, y'know, technically al Qaeda's been around and running against the US way before Clinton was around... though not before much of the Bush cabinet. Who funded him, and Saddam, in fact. Funny how that works. I'd tack on that so far bin Laden has not "reaped the whirlwind" (cute), unless the aforementioned spurious charge against Bush is in fact true, and al Qaeda is by all accounts about as strong as ever, albeit minus some money.
Hotsnoj: Just... don't talk. Please. Just... no. Your posts are the death of reason, in the traditional sense of not the thing Kazan appeals to when he doesn't feel like explaining what he's on about. Never mind language- words mean something, you know, and the meaning doesn't change just to suit you, despite Bush's (or, for that matter, Clinton's) best efforts to that effect. We could be here all day explaining what makes moral absolutism "different", and in the end I can guarantee you wouldn't get it. Look it up for yourself if you really want to know, there's volumes of information on it, but like I said I think it's out of your depth.
Bob: Yeah, there was a pharmaceutical factory got cruise-missiled under Clinton, it was part of the main campaign against terrorism in his administration and they thought it was a bioweapons plant or training center or something, forget what. Anyway, it's rather odd that they'd cite that, as it's an example of antiterrorist activist policy under Clinton, and so far Bush has inflicted several hundred thousand times more "collateral damage". Much of it with similar "smart" missiles, no less.
-
For one, Corsair, do not trust those online news sources. They rarely tell the truth, and just put things up to sell and get more hits. What if AOL put up that Saddam really didn't massacre thousands of his own people? Believe it now?
It's not that I trust them. It's just that if it hasn't happened yet, it most likely will. And while Iranian radio may not be the most trustworthy news source in terms of American activities, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the truth.It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA
Regardless, CIA had the information it needed to prevent 9/11 and they blew it.But what is the fundementalism about? Is it true or Is it false? So hypoteticlly speaking, a liberal (which I assume you are) fundementalist is just as bad as a christian, muslim or whatever fundementalist?
IMHO it's not political fundamentalism that is bad. It's religious fundamentalism. It's when a group takes religious ideals and twists them to become militant and justifies their violence by pointing to religion. However, one religious fundamentalist group is just as bad as another.OH! I get it now! We're hateful because we think the President is a putz, yes, that makes perfect sense! Veritable KKK members, that's us! We also eat babies!
Yes, we do. :DOh, and I forget, we would've largely recovered from this ****ed-up depression by now, instead of it getting worse and worse.
You can argue this point until you're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is that in the economic cycle, we were due for a recession, having just experienced a bull market. I'm not quite sure if Bush had much to do with the economy's downturn. He is, nevertheless, a convenient scapegoat.
The point of this all is, Bush will most likely get reelected, however unfortunate that occurance will be. He has the support of the right, and may face a divided enough Democratic party that he can sneak another victory.
If Osama IS produced in the eight weeks prior to the election, Bush will win. And Osama will be produced. Hell, they don't even need to capture him. They just need to make a video tape of "Osama" being led away by American "soldiers."
Not that I'm saying the President of the United States of America would ever resort to such low-down tactics as that. But you never know. It happened in the movies, and the Clinton pulled a stunt that was rather similar to what happened on the big screen. Funny how these things work out.
-
Bush had nothing to do with the beginning of the depression. I never said he did.
And there's really zero chance of Bush faking an Osama capture to win the election. Were he to, he wouldn't be able to hold up the pretense for very long, and when the truth came out things would get incredibly ugly (though I'm sure there are some here who'd claim his actions were somehow justified). It'd just be stupid, and make the backlash when it comes that much stronger (right now it's not really promising to be a backlash so much as a mild slowdown). Next you'll be claiming the aliens are somehow involved.
And the lot of you are doing horrible things to the word "fundamentalism". Care for a dictionary?
-
sorry bout that :(
and my 'TV must be true' statement was more general than specific to that responce, I didn't like "oh come on, it wa all over the TV" beeing used as a source
and for the record I am not a 'Liberal' I am a centrist, slightly left more twards libertarianism. I think socalism is just stupid and I agree with Bush's military actions. there is nothing wrong with being a libral or a conservitive, so long as you don't use ether as a replacement for thinking.
I thought the economy was improveing finaly, wasn't there like 7.2 growth last october or something,
someone produce a graph or something
-
i like it when other people take care of ignorami for me - thanks stryke
and you did it with much more patience than i would have had right now
-
What you people on the Left seem to always forget, there is a Silent Majority in what you prats consider to be "Fly Over Country", the great, 3500 mile stretch between the East and Left Coasts. That majority is, by and large, church going, hard working people who do not subscribe to the pap that people from your political slant spew.
That is why G.W. Bush is going to be reelected, not because your candidates generally suck @$$.
-
A bit self-righteous, aren't you, Liberator?
-
I live in St.Louis,
Kazan lives in Iowa,
majority != corect
and Bush's emmenant reelection has everything to do with the democrats inaility to produce a viable option.
-
I was referring to the "That majority is, by and large, church going, hard working people who do not subscribe to the pap that people from your political slant spew." comment. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on religion or working hard.
Anyway, you realize, Bobboau, that the politicians from all parts of the political spectrum are lying hypocrites, right?
-
yes,
and I wasn't responding to you, you just got done posting before me
-
If you really believe that, I've got some beachfront proptery in the Gobi I want to sell you.
@ Grey Wolf
I never said they did, it's just that a large part of that majority support Bush.
-
realy believe what?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yes,
and I wasn't responding to you, you just got done posting before me
Sorry about that Bobboau, thought you were contradicting my post.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
If you really believe that, I've got some beachfront proptery in the Gobi I want to sell you.
@ Grey Wolf
I never said they did, it's just that a large part of that majority support Bush.
Actually, not as much as you may think. The religious right and the Bible Belt, yes, but you have hard working religious people across the country, including Democratic strongholds such as New England.
-
Liberator, you do realise that you are as much of, if not more, an extreemist as Stryke 9,
just on the opposite end of the political spectrum
-
Funny how many assumptions people make about my political views.
Fine then, what extremist opinions do I hold, Bob? I'd really rather like to see what you're imagining. No, really. A finger for each time you start talking out of your ass.
Lib: I live in the Midwest. Iowa, in fact. You know what? A huge mass of this state is quite liberal, dude. I know quite a few "hardworking country folk", the very sorts you keep going on about, and they're even more on the left than I am in some cases. I guess you're playing on some ridiculous sterotype of effete urbanites sitting around extending our little fingers and talking about the needs of the people in weepy voices, judging fom your recent babblings, which is a pity, as I had come to the conclusion that you were actually somewhat intelligent before there.
I know ****loads of leftists, hardline right wingers (both religious and secular branch), rich, poor, urban, country boys, suburbanites, and members of basically any group you can mention- there's no correlation I've ever seen, except that the arch-conservatives I know are disproportionately (though far from entirely) uneducated, and typically ignorant about what they're talking about. More often than not, said ignorance is self-imposed- the facts don't mesh with what they already believed, so they ignore them or call them lies. They're afraid of reality, and so retreat into these spiteful, screaming dogmatic positions, trying to compensate for lack of any kind of reasonable stance by sheer volume and militancy. And that is the only trend I've seen as far as the left-right split goes. 'Cept that ultra-leftist bisexual girls are invariably awesome, and they dig me.
Also, this state was hit terribly by the series of ****ups Bush made with the economy, to the point where Cedar Rapids was practically a ghost town when I visited there last, and a lot of people are kidna unhappy about that. Go figure, y'know, you give 'em prison camps and then they go and whine about how they want their jobs back.
-
I was mostly trying to pace that from his viewpoint, I was going to include Mik and Kazan and myself in there,
but I didn't.
but you'r not going to tell me you are a complete centrist in all issues, you are decidedly on the left
-
I am decidedly nothing. Closer to Libertarian than anything else, in fact.
And that's one of the least productive exaggerations I've ever heard.
-
list some republicans you like
-
Charlton Heston...............HAHAHAAHAHA!
That "Cold, dead hands" at the NRA rally a week after Columbine was so goddamn funny.
-
You mean politicians, or people I personally know?
If politicians, and presumably restricted to ones who're around today, off the top of my mind... I actually quite like McCain; Arnie has shown himself to be far more competent than previously expected; there was that very recent guy who... ****, I've forgotten his name, back in a second, I remember he had a few policies I dug...
Oh, and my old Congressman Wolf, though not for the same reasons. Guy was hilarious, gave a big speech condemning the Chinese for eating babies, it was awesome.
There are quite a few more, far fewer nowadays than a few years ago, but that's how it goes when you've got a political monopoly, things polarize and it's never in a good direction...
Oh, and Heston was alright. Bit of a moron, bit of a single-issue zealot, but at least his obsession wasn't a wholly repugnant one.
-
hey! another flame war? Ok, who pushed the red button, I see mushrooms everywhere in the forum... oh, and pink elephants, too...
kewwwwwwl...
-
Originally posted by Nico
hey! another flame war? Ok, who pushed the red button, I see mushrooms everywhere in the forum... oh, and pink elephants, too...
kewwwwwwl...
Obviously been eating the mushrooms haven't you? :)
-
well there was sooo maaneeeeee :þ
-
McCain seems to me to be one of the more realisitic politicians out there, at least from my perspective. Too bad he couldn't defeat Bush in the primaries....
-
Originally posted by Liberator
BY GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY ON THE EARTH AND IN IT AS WELL!
I want you small-minded, hateful bastards to stop and bloody well THINK about what kind of situation you'd be in if Bill and his pet witch had been in charge or, God above help us, Al "I am tree" Gore.
Are you stating that because people dislike Bush's policies they are "hateful bastards?"
For the record, Clinton was more interested in getting his socks blown, and then lying about it while his witch, Hillary, was communicating with former first ladies ghosts. It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA and leading OBL to think he could strike against the Free World and not reap the whirlwind.
Please cite your sources for your borderline slanderous statement about Senator Clinton. Also please state the acts Clinton passed that weakened the CIA. For extra credit, please look up on the acts President Bush past at the beginning of his term that dealt with the CIA. From your statements, you may will be surprised at the results.
@EDIT
If you think Bush is a Fundamentalist, you are further out of you're minds than I thouhght you were. Just because he admits to praying for guidance doesn't make him a Fundie Wacko. It marks him a good Christian.
You idiots spew that word like it's a curse. Do not DARE to compare him to the likes of OBL or Saddam.
He is a fundamentalist Christian, whose policies are theocratic in basis, the marriage act he wishes to pass reflects this let alone the faith based initiatives he has attempted to pass before. Theocratic policies in a nation that states in its constitution to not have a state religion is an act against the intent of the law.
Also, please refrain from calling people here idiots. No one here in this thread has called you an idiot, there have been some sarcastic comments, but no reason to insult anyone.
One final statement, who do you wish Bush to be compared to? Jesus? Ghandi? Caesar? Or perhaps King John of England would be a better man to compare him to...
-
Theocratic policies in a nation that states in its constitution to not have a state religion is an act against the intent of the law.
Show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Hell I'll get the First admendment for you.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It seems to me that, ppl seem so eager to cry First Admendment when they want to say whatever they want, but when I want to worship God somehow, it's Seperation of church and state.
Anyway back to topic. It says that they connot make one religion "king" but they can't restrict one either. IIRC the faith based stuff bush was pushing included muslims, not sure though.
But still the government shouldn't be messing with charity, that's the job of the ppl.
You know, no one seems to be responding to this:As for truth, just by responding and even having an opinion, you are saying what you think is truth. Therefor you are just as bigoted as I am.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
BY GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY ON THE EARTH AND IN IT AS WELL!
Dude, by this time, we all know that you're Christian. No need to remind us.
I want you small-minded, hateful bastards to stop and bloody well THINK about what kind of situation you'd be in if Bill and his pet witch had been in charge or, God above help us, Al "I am tree" Gore.
See above. And lay down on the religious insult (the witch thing). Wicca,for example, is as much of a religion than christianism. Liberty of cult. You know, this little thing that say that you can pray like you want as far as it doesn't disturb other people ?
Bush is far from perfect, but he is the best President we've had since Ronald Reagan.
For the record, Clinton was more interested in getting his socks blown, and then lying about it while his witch, Hillary, was communicating with former first ladies ghosts. It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA and leading OBL to think he could strike against the Free World and not reap the whirlwind.
It sure can't be the connection between the Bush and Bin Laden family. See "Dude, where's my country". I'm too lazy to copy/paste all the refernce given by Moore in his book that prove this fact.
Get your heads out of the sand, and realize that President George W. Bush is a great man and a great American.
Sure. He only created the biggest deficit ever seen, managed to get your country into two different war without managing to at least make theses countries more stable - say what you want, they lived in terror, but it was more stable under Saddam -, cut your freedom at large - Patriot Act,and then he says that he wants to free other country :eek2: -, and so much more.
@EDIT
If you think Bush is a Fundamentalist, you are further out of you're minds than I thouhght you were. Just because he admits to praying for guidance doesn't make him a Fundie Wacko. It marks him a good Christian.
But him admitting being a Born Again Christian is. Especially when one of the goals of these christian is to annihilate Islam at large ( monthly "Mother Jones" magazine as source for that).
Religious war = Fundamentalism.
You idiots spew that word like it's a curse. Do not DARE to compare him to the likes of OBL or Saddam. [/B]
Only similarity between those two is that they were both backrolled by America at their beginning. Saddam was a non-religious tyran, and Bin let it said many times that he would gladly get ride of his presence in Middle-Orient.
And for many of us, fundamentalism IS a curse word. it curses you to spout non-logical, non researched argument :D .
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Yes the first ammendment - "Congrees shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - this is known as the seperation between church and state. Yes bush has viiolated it in essence and in fact
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Anyway back to topic. It says that they connot make one religion "king" but they can't restrict one either. IIRC the faith based stuff bush was pushing included muslims, not sure though.
it absolutely did not, nor did it include buddhists, hindus, taoist, pagans, wiccans, ad nauseum
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But still the government shouldn't be messing with charity, that's the job of the ppl.
I agree
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I want you small-minded, hateful bastards to stop and bloody well THINK about what kind of situation you'd be in if Bill and his pet witch had been in charge or, God above help us, Al "I am tree" Gore.
You know, every day that Bush is in the White House, I think about the kind of sitatuion my nation would be in if it were Gore or even Clinton in the White House. We'd still be in Afghanistan, that's for certain. We would not have lost 581 American soldiers lives in Iraq though. We'd still have the world's good will and friendship. We wouldn't be in the largest, fastest growing deficit in the history of the country.
Bush is far from perfect, but he is the best President we've had since Ronald Reagan.
Absolutely! You know, corporations haven't had it this good since the good old Reaganomics days! Supply side and trickle down economics absolutely rock for putting more and more priveleges and rights into the hands of corporate barons, whilst putting the peasants in their place. I mean, what if Clinton were in power? That man actually had the economy growing for eight straight years!
It is Clinton policies that led to 9/11 by weakening the CIA and leading OBL to think he could strike against the Free World and not reap the whirlwind.
You know your religion says that lying is a sin, right? First of all, Clinton set up the most effective antiterrorism operation this nation has ever seen in the wake of the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center. He went after Bin-Laden during his presidency, unlike Bush I and Reagan, both of whom FUNDED Bin-Laden. Bush II gutted the Clinton era antiterrorism program as one of his first acts in the White House after he was appointed. This is all verifiable fact in the public record.
Get your heads out of the sand, and realize that President George W. Bush is a great man and a great American.
As veteran, I've seen sand. When were YOU in the desert serving your country? Speak up, I can't hear you? Soldiers and sailors can't afford to have their heads in the sand, because its OUR lives that get put in on the line when deserters like Bush decide they need to play soldier. Any man that can't manage to serve his country honestly and faithfully, like I did, doesn't get to be called a 'great man'. Any man who lies to take the country into war cannot be called a 'great man'. Sorry to break it to you.
@EDIT
If you think Bush is a Fundamentalist, you are further out of you're minds than I thouhght you were. Just because he admits to praying for guidance doesn't make him a Fundie Wacko. It marks him a good Christian.
Funny, he claims to be a fundamentalist christian. Maybe you should take it up with him.
You idiots spew that word like it's a curse. Do not DARE to compare him to the likes of OBL or Saddam.
First, the name calling is getting tired. Lay off.
Second, Hussein is not a religious fundamentalist. He was secular nationalist.
I could draw parallels between Bush and Hussein on the basis of them both lying to their people, sending men to their deaths for personal aggrandizement or robbing their respective nations blind, for example.
The only link I can find between Bin Laden and Bush is that they both send their country men to get themselves killed, whilst sitting back and watching other men do things they themselves have never had the courage or convictions to do. Bin-Laden and Bush send men out to kill themselves or get killed. Neither Bush or Bin-Laden ever bothered putting their lives on the line for the things they profess to believe in.
-
FYI Liberator: NAme calling is not an effective debating tactic - it's an effective way you get yourself banned on boards that specialize in debate though
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Hell I'll get the First admendment for you.
It seems to me that, ppl seem so eager to cry First Admendment when they want to say whatever they want, but when I want to worship God somehow, it's Seperation of church and state.
Anyway back to topic. It says that they connot make one religion "king" but they can't restrict one either. IIRC the faith based stuff bush was pushing included muslims, not sure though.
But still the government shouldn't be messing with charity, that's the job of the ppl.
You know, no one seems to be responding to this:
Actually, his faith based initiatives were declared "non-demoninational" but were still Christian, IIRC.
You also just validated my statement about seperation of church and state, through policies such as the marriage act Bush is holding his religious values over others in the US culture.
You would clearly disagree with Bush and declare him a theocrat if he was an American Muslim and was trying to push through polygamy as an ammendment to the constitution. (Of course, in defense of American Muslims, most don't have multiple marriages)
As for truth, just by responding and even having an opinion, you are saying what you think is truth. Therefor you are just as bigoted as I am.
There is a difference between opinions and truths. I am stating my opinion, I am not declaring it the truth.
-
Originally posted by Ace
You also just validated my statement about seperation of church and state, through policies such as the marriage act Bush is holding his religious values over others in the US culture.
Well then what set of ideal are we going to use as the basis for our laws?
Where do ppl get the idea that marriage is totally a Biblical thing? Is it because it's in the bible that you are against an admendment defining marriage? If so the bible also talks about murder, stealing, and other criminal activity. Should we declare the laws concerning them unconstitutional?
You would clearly disagree with Bush and declare him a theocrat if he was an American Muslim and was trying to push through polygamy as an ammendment to the constitution. (Of course, in defense of American Muslims, most don't have multiple marriages)
First off I doubt a muslim would be elected to to the presidency anytime soon. And yes I would if he was. And yes, I am supporting him and it because of my beliefs.
There is a difference between opinions and truths. I am stating my opinion, I am not declaring it the truth.
No, there is no difference! By stating opinions you are declaring what you believe to be truth.
-
no you are stateing what you beleve, you are not stating that you could not posably be wrong
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no you are stateing what you beleve, you are not stating that you could not posably be wrong
Then are you saying that you could be wrong about anything?
So lets bring that into the gay marriage debate. Are you saying that you could be wrong about gay marriages being ok?
-
Hotsnoj: Look up the differences between moral absolutism, relativism, subjectivist morality, and utilitarianism. Do it now. Until then, do not talk. This is a direct order.
If anybody has enough free time to sit here and walk you through the basics of philosophy while you try and fumble around to "prove" that you are right and everyone else is wrong and it's just that nobody else has ever thought of that in the history of man because you're a frickin' genius or something, they need to get a ****ing life and I'm not going to encourage that sort of timewasting. Do some bloody research on your own. The arguments you're trying to pose here were settled hundreds of years ago, basically nothing new has been offered to them since.
-
it's posable,
but I don't think I am,
if I thought I was wrong I wouldn't be thinking the thing I thought was wrong but rather something diferent that was corect, or at least what I thought was corect
-
Opinion:
- a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty;
- a message expressing a belief about something;
- etc...
Truth:
- a fact that has been verified;
- conformity to reality or actuality;
- the quality of nearness to the truth or the true value;
- a true statement
- etc...
As for the marriage things... imagine most of our society was mostly composed of gay people... couldn't they make it wrong to have a non-gay marriage for the same reasons you might display here? :hopping:
-
My hero, Ambrose Bierce, defines "truth" and "truthful" thusly:
TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.
TRUTHFUL, adj. Dumb and illiterate.
For the humor impaired, Bierce was being cynical and sarcastic. These were not his, nor are they my, beliefs.
From HotSnoj:
Well then what set of ideal are we going to use as the basis for our laws?
How about on something as simple as the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have done to you." Before you claim this as a judeo-christian principle, I should point out that this sentiment pops up in cultures across the globe from the dawn of time. Aztecs and Mayans expressed it. North American Indians expressed it. Confuscius espouses it in the Analects. Buddha suggested it. So did Jesus. South African Bushmen use the Golden rule in their oral traditions about justice, as do the aboriginal peoples of Australia.
So, since I don't want to be murdered, and neither do you, how about as a group we decide that murder is pretty much a bad thing? I don't want anyone stealing my stuff and neither do you, so lets just not allow murder. I don't want anyone telling me how to live my private life, and I'm sure neither do you, so lets keep our noses out of other people's bedrooms.
That's the real basis of human morals and legal systems, Hot. Not some crusty book that only 1/3rd of the population of the world adheres to.
-
/me cheers on mik
oh i would like to add http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
-
Not some crusty book that only 1/3rd of the population of the world adheres to.
Believe it or not it's actually 1/5th!! :D
-
Kazan, you're my hero! :)
From Kazan's article:
Bush has cast the union between male and female as the only proper form of marriage, or what he called in his State of the Union address "one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."
American anthropologists say he's wrong.
"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies," the association's statement said, adding that the executive board "strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
And:
The statement was proposed by Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College in Claremont (Los Angeles County), who called Bush's conception of the history of marriage "patently false."
"If he were to take even the first semester of anthropology, he would know that's not true," said Segal, a member of the anthropological association's Executive Committee.
And:
Segal pointed to "sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males.
-
I am not going to try to explain it myself, instead I provide a quote and link for your pleasure
The Supreme Court has taken Jefferson's "separation" clause (divorced from Jefferson's own explanation of the phrase) and used it to create a new, and completely arbitrary, interpretation of the First Amendment.
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/ch_state.html
-
Liberator: your site is biased, completely and totally irrevleant, and your irrational assault upon common sense and the opinion of the SCOTUS
who taught you how to debate? really you should be embarassed!
-
I never claimed to be a trained Debater.
The SCOTUS is the problem. Read the site again.
-
I know you're accusing the SCOTUS of being the problem - you're accusing of them of "blah blah blah left wing activist blah blah bull**** horse**** dog**** liberator's site is a dumb****"
You are so deadset on denying people their human rights - you are deadset upon bigotry - you are deadset upon forcing your FAITH on other people.
JUSTIFY yourself - PERSONALLY you May not link to a site, you may not refer to the statements of others. You MUST justify your actions or you must be silent and stop interfering with other people's lives and rights.
The "Seperation of Church and State" statement is an applied statement - ie it is the applied usage of the first ammendment ot the US constitution - it establishes said seperation by stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
-
I will go into it, Liberator, and in detail.
Nice dramatic article. "Christians are the enemy!", it says. "Oh, we poor persecuted followers of Jesus! The rest of the world is out to get us!" is the tone. Please. Christians aren't the enemy. They never were. Theocratic rulership is the enemy.
I notice that the article draws a dilineation between "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". This is a false dichotomy. Freedom of religion includes, intrinsically, freedom from religion.
Further, the article says, "The Leftist social liberals continue to harangue on the 'separation of church and state' as justification for eliminating religious issues from public view." This is incorrect. No one wants to eliminate religious views from public view. That would be tyrrany. However, they do want to keep religion out of government. You can have your views, but the GOVERNMENT may not endorse any religious views. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution's Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That means that A) you can't use government to shove your religious views down the nation's throat, and B) neither of us can stop the other from endorsing our religious views as individuals. Its very simple, really.
The article goes on to, almost verbatim, quote one of the logical fallacies, false dillema. "If you're not for us, you're against us", or in the case of the article, "If a biblical moral system is not being legislated, then an immoral system is being legislated". The falsehood lies in the idea that the Bible is the only source of morals, or moral systems. The only way you can argue that the Bible is the sole source of morality is by arguing from a position of faith. You cannot legislate faith, and thus you cannot use the Bible as a sole foundation for a legal system under the Constitution. The article needs to stay away from Jefferson. As a deist, his views are certainly not in line with the articles author. Jefferson believed that men had natural moral instincts and therefore all religions had something in common; only the traditions and dogmas were different.
The article goes on to complain of Supreme Court Justice Black's interpretation of the First Amendment. In this, the article fails to recognize the purpose, as laid out in the very same Constitution, of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Someone must interpret the Constitution, and it cannot be anyone who actually makes the laws. That would be a conflict of interest. To whit, Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." The SCOTUS exists to uphold and interpret the Constitution. Black's interpretation of the first Amendment whilst not agreeable to some, was well within both his authority and power. This decision does not restrict the rights of the people in any way.
You and I are unfettered: we can express our religious views any time we want, any way we want. However, a government office may endorse NO religous views. Whilst serving as President, you may be a Christian, but the Presidency remains a secular post and must always remain so.
The next section of the article discusses the Jefferson and his beliefs. Here, the article and its author are on very shaky ground. Jefferson has a lot to say on religion:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
And:
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
And:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
And:
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
Most particularly, the article speaks to a very specific quote, in which Jefferson "assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another." It goes on to interpret Jeffersons words as being one way: that government could never control religion, but religion could control government. This interpretation goes solidly against Jefferson's own words. The full quote from the Danbury letter is:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Jefferson's statement saying "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God..." puts the "wall" firmly in the two-way role. Neither can the government establish religion, but neither can the Church use government to intervene in what "lies solely between man and his God". If any religion is allowed to manipulate government, then the government can manipulate religion. To protect your beliefs from mine and mine from yours, the government and state must be entirely seperate. THAT is the true nature of Jefferson's wall. Your article is, in fact and in spirit, entirely wrong on this point.
As this point is absolutely central to the entire article, the article is in fact, flawed in conception and execution.
-
-
Originally posted by Corsair
I just saw a story on AOHell news which said that the same Iranian radio station which first reported the capture of Saddam is now saying that the U.S. captured Osama "a long time ago" and that Rumsfeld's recent visit to Afghanistan had to do with the "arrest".
If this is true, and the public hasn't been informed, then Bush will keep Osama as the ace up his sleeve until September, then produce him claiming that he has just been captured, and win the election. And the U.S. gets four more years of right-wing militarism. :sigh:
I have never heard such a thing. Didn't we catch Iran trying to buy nuclear weapons or something along those lines. If so, that's why this station is putting out such lies. We have not caputred Osama, but we have him on the ropes.
Capturing Osama will still be extremely difficult. He could be anywhere in this vast semi-wilderness on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, hidden away in a village or
But him admitting being a Born Again Christian is. Especially when one of the goals of these christian is to annihilate Islam at large ( monthly "Mother Jones" magazine as source for that).
Religious war = Fundamentalism.
Bush has nothing to do with these radical organizations. Even many fundies aren't trying to wipe out Islam as a religion. Besides, what kind of idiot would use Mother Jones as your main source of political information? They're about as far left as the Ku Klux Klan is far right (before you start talking about Mother Jones not burning crosses in people's yards in stuff, remember that most Klan chapters are all talk and no action nowadays as well).
Also, religious war is not fundamentalism. The Catholics launched Crusades against Islam in the Middle Ages, but with their bloated bureaucracy and piles of organized doctrines and rituals, they were the antithesis of fundamentalist Christians. Read a ****ing dictionary.
-
It separates the Government from the Church. At the time(late 18th, early 19th) people were afraid of one denomination(Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers,ect.) becoming dominant and requiring, through Government decree, that all others become subject to the dominant denomination, like what had happened in England with the Anglican Church.
Jefferson, mentioned something about it in one of the Federalist Papers, which can and should be used to understand the motivations of the Founders.
But, as stated on the linked site, it wasn't until 1947 that your preciious SCOTUS overstretched it boundaries.
The Purpose of your precious SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to the case they are hearing, not changing the meaning of the document they are sworn to uphold.
-
Liberator, to further address your article's misapporpriation of Thomas Jefferson (the man must be spinning in his grave), I offer the following from a biography of the man as well as some quotes. People like the author of that article need to be very careful about what spirits they conjure up. The dead sometimes have voices of their own, and can be far more eloquent then you know:
As an amateur scientist, Jefferson believed in the freedom of inquiry about God, and thought that it was a blasphemy to believe that religion could not stand the test of reason. He feared that when political power and the Church allied, freedom of free inquiry suffered.
Jefferson argued, "…. history I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
Jefferson's idea about the unity of God and what the real truth about religion was based upon led him to embrace Unitarian beliefs. Unitarianism is a religious movement that imposes no specific creed on its members. Each person is helped and encouraged to discover his or her own truth and meaning in life, and to practice tolerance towards the views of others. Unitarians stress that Jesus was a man whose teaching is to be followed, but he was not necessarily a God to be worshipped.
And some more quotes:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
I'm sorry. I wax worshipful when it comes to Jefferson. He, more than anyone else in the history of this country, represents the embodiment of 'America' and what it means to be an 'American'. His words still echo through history and find resonance today. His legacy of ideas are as powerful today as when he first wrote them at the dawn of our nation.
-
Let's see. You're advocating against the Judicial branch, one of the three primary branches of government. That would destroy the checks and balances established in the Consitution. Would you prefer a dictatorship instead?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
But, as stated on the linked site, it wasn't until 1947 that your preciious SCOTUS overstretched it boundaries.
The Purpose of your precious SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to the case they are hearing, not changing the meaning of the document they are sworn to uphold.
My "precious SCOTUS" is created by that Constitution. Without it, there would be no final arbitration of law seperate from the makers of the law. The SCOTUS exists to keep us from that form of tyranny.
You are correct. The SCOTUS is inteded to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to the case they are hearing. And indeed, Justice Black interpretted the Constitution with respect to the case he was hearing at that time: Everson v. Board of Education. His interpretation was that Jefferson's wall "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
You have already stated you agree with the purpose of the SCOTUS. How can you then disagree with the SCOTUS doing exactly what the Constitution charges them to do? Whilst you can disagree with their decision, you cannot argue that they were certainly well within their boundries. To do so would be to contradict yourself.
-
I don't have a problem with the institution of the Supreme Court.
My problem with the SCOTUS are the members who make their rulings based on their own moral code or some political agenda instead of the Law.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't have a problem with the institution of the Supreme Court.
My problem with the SCOTUS are the members who make their rulings based on their own moral code or some political agenda instead of the Law.
So you'd prefer them to make decisions based on their religious beliefs?
I suppose you'll be wanting Torquemada as chief justice, next?
-
No, I want them to rule based on the literal meaning of the law with a little common sense. No shades of gray meaning or "They actually meant...".
The Founders were among the most intelligent men of their time, I trust them to write exactly what they meant.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, I want them to rule based on the literal meaning of the law with a little common sense. No shades of gray meaning or "They actually meant...".
The Founders were among the most intelligent men of their time, I trust them to write exactly what they meant.
Doesn't interpreting with 'a little common sense' include 'shades of gray'?
-
A little common sense at the Sentencing phase of the trial.
-
what would you define as common sense, then?
-
sentancing phase... you don't know your courts
"the sentancing phase" of judicial review is "we found this law unconstitutional therefore it is void" or "we found this law in accordance with the constitution and therefore we uphold it"
you are practicing doublespeak now.
the court has not "Stepped outside their bounds" -- they are protecting both mik and myself, and you and deepspace9er -- they are preventing you from injecting your religion into the government and oppressing others with it, and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it (And yes, there are athiests out there who would do this).
They are saying
A) Religion may not be legislated, be the sole source of legislation, et cetera
B) The government may not prevent you from practicing religion
it is indded a "Wall of speration between church and state" as jefferson put it and black reaffirmed it. So that to two do not interfere with each other because the results thereof are NEVER positive.
-
The thing about "common sense" is that when applied in politics it's basically a synonym for "agrees with me". Nothing more. Perhaps you'd care to find something less tautological to accuse them of.
The meaning of the establishment clause may be perfectly clear to you, but it's at least as clear to me. The two of us are in disagreement about something we both can agree is blindingly simple and obvious. The same applies to most of the rest of the country in varying quantities. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the interpretation is clearly not so simple as it is made out to be, has decided to err on the side of caution. As well they should.
-
they are preventing you from injecting your religion into the government and oppressing others with it, and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it
No, The Constitution does that without their "help".
-
Gha! I give up.
*leaves*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, The Constitution does that without their "help".
you don't seem to understand what you're talking about
judicial review comes _AFTER_ a law is passed.
So if both houses of congress passed a law saying "Jesus is the god and savior of the united states and no other religion shall be practiced" and the president signed it (Which for such a blatant violation of the constitution should be an impeachable offense) then that law has to be challenged and go in front of the court for judicial review - it is their JOB to "help" it as you say, to ENFORCE the constitution
-
What is this argument even about, anyway? What specific liberties are being deprived everyone by the Supreme Court in their unwillingness to break down the establishment clause? Maybe I missed something here, but the dialogue's gotten terribly abstract, and it might possibly help to clarify what exactly this is all over. Or is it just the generalized feeling that God's not on our side anymore?
-
stryke 9: interesting :D
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The Founders were among the most intelligent men of their time, I trust them to write exactly what they meant.
You're absolutely correct:
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
I think Thomas Jefferson said exactly what he meant. Thank you for back me, and Mr. Jefferson up.
I would also like to point out that the article you posted very specifically tried to reinterpret Jefferson's words to the Danbury Baptist Association. In fact, the article specifically did its best to not let Jefferson speak for himself. Instead the article offered its reinterpretation, without even providing the quote. I provided the quote above. I'll provide it again.:
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Jefferson is quite clear in what he says here. He's also quite clear in what he says here:
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Now, will you please stop ignoring the facts you find inconvenient, and stop trying to use the Thomas Jefferson to back up your morally repugnant stance? It is antithetical to what the man stood for, believed in, espoused, wrote and stated in his public and private life.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it (And yes, there are athiests out there who would do this).
Damn, I've been discovered!!
:nervous::shaking::nervous:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
What is this argument even about, anyway?
Liberator decided to change the direction of the topic (I presume, but do not know for certain, that this because he couldn't defend Bush in the face fo the facts) to the question of the seperation of Church and State.
His position (or rather that of the article he linked, but has failed to defend), is that the seperation is intended to be one way. IE: The church is to be protected from the state, but the state has no such protections from the church. Thus, the liberties being deprived pretty much fall into the category of "freedom to make everyone else subject to laws inspired by a faith they may or may not hold".
I hope that sums it up clearly.
-
I see. And trying to use the words of a famously outspoken Deist to claim that the Protestant religious right should be running the country, too.
Hm.
Yeah, you deal with this one, I don't wanna touch it. :D
-
*puts in two cents, for what it's worth*
If I recall correctly, Thomas Jefferson was in France for diplomatic reasons during the Constitutional Convention, so he had no hand in writing it (he may have written letters or something, but I don't know). James Madison was the main figure if I'm still recalling correctly, so I'm not sure exactly what Thomas Jefferson has to do with the seperation of church and state in the consititution if he wasn't there...
I'm not sure exactly what this arguement is about..or why it's occuring..so don't flame me...
-
Solatar: you remember completely and utterly incorrect to the point that it is utterly sad
JEFFERSON WROTE THE BLOODY THING
-
http://www.constitutionfacts.com/ff.shtml
What is meant by the term "founding father"? Does it apply to any person or group in American history who had some type of influence on the writing of the Constitution? What about those individuals like George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry who helped tremendously in the writing of the Constitution, but then refused to sign it because of philosophical differences? There were seventy individuals chosen to go to Philadelphia to attend the Constitutional Convention, fifty-five who attended most of the meetings, and thirty-nine who actually signed the Constitution. Of the thirty-nine who actually signed the finished document, only fifteen to twenty actually played an instrumental role in either the founding philosophy or fight for ratification!
The Constitution came about as a consequence of several documents and by the work of several men either directly or indirectly. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are considered to be the "founding fathers" of our country.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are considered to be two of our founding fathers even though they were not at the Constitutional Convention. They were serving the country in diplomatic positions at the time. Jefferson kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia while ambassador to France by carrying on correspondence with James Madison, and John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America." He became the new country's first Vice President. Other founding fathers include Thomas Paine who was in England at the time of the meeting in Philadelphia, but the impact of "Common Sense" on the philosophy behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence is immeasurable. Patrick Henry was opposed to the idea of changing the Articles of Confederation, but once the agreement was made to add a bill of rights to the Constitution he fought hard for ratification in Virginia.
The term "framers" could be used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution, and "founding fathers" could be used in a broader sense to characterize those individuals who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a "framer" or a "founding father" is not something to be narrowly defined in a technical or legal sense but may be a large mythic and philosophical notion. It sustains our vision of ourselves, inspiring our ongoing inquiries into our national self-identity. The following section of the book is a list of those individuals who had an impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. The list is by no means complete, but is an attempt to identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history.
Might help clarify things.
-
oh.. i was thinking Dec of Independance wasn't I... mesa stupid
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Well then what set of ideal are we going to use as the basis for our laws?
Where do ppl get the idea that marriage is totally a Biblical thing? Is it because it's in the bible that you are against an admendment defining marriage? If so the bible also talks about murder, stealing, and other criminal activity. Should we declare the laws concerning them unconstitutional?
First off I doubt a muslim would be elected to to the presidency anytime soon. And yes I would if he was. And yes, I am supporting him and it because of my beliefs.
No, there is no difference! By stating opinions you are declaring what you believe to be truth.
HotSnoj, please read about enlightenment figures. Concepts such as the social contract and enlightened self-interest are some of the primary influences on the founding fathers of the US.
On the subject of theocracy, your opinion HotSnoj is that the majority may dictate their religious beliefs on the rest of a multicultural society? This is making the assumption that George W. Bush is acting in the interest of the majority and has their support.
Also, I repeat: I am stating my opinions. I do not claim that they are the one and only truth or approach to the world.
-
you know i just noticed liberator's signature starts with
Die Stimmen erklären mir, daß ich nicht verrückt bin.
The voices explain to me, that I am not insane
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Yes the first ammendment - "Congrees shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - this is known as the seperation between church and state. Yes bush has viiolated it in essence and in fact
Bull****. Cite your source.[/b]
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Bush has nothing to do with these radical organizations. Even many fundies aren't trying to wipe out Islam as a religion. Besides, what kind of idiot would use Mother Jones as your main source of political information? They're about as far left as the Ku Klux Klan is far right (before you start talking about Mother Jones not burning crosses in people's yards in stuff, remember that most Klan chapters are all talk and no action nowadays as well).
Two things : I'm french, and i used french newspaper to came upon this source, so I wouldn't know the political orientation of this newspaper. But what's wrong with using paper from the left ? People from Bush side would be way less likely to criticize him after all. by the way, for the french-reading people, this (http://www.nouvelobs.com/dossiers/p2051/a233849.html) is the source I used for saying that Bush was a Born Again.
Also, religious war is not fundamentalism. The Catholics launched Crusades against Islam in the Middle Ages, but with their bloated bureaucracy and piles of organized doctrines and rituals, they were the antithesis of fundamentalist Christians. Read a ****ing dictionary.
You're right on this one. I tend to confuse fanatism and fundamentalism when seaking of religion. But they're so similar nowadays.... I think I can be excused, no ?
-
nuclear1:
ROTFLMAOPMP
My source: TEXT OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT OT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
-
Idiot. I meant where you claim that Bush violated the First Amendment. I know the Constitution just fine.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Show me where in the Constitution it says that?
Hell I'll get the First admendment for you.
It seems to me that, ppl seem so eager to cry First Admendment when they want to say whatever they want, but when I want to worship God somehow, it's Seperation of church and state.
No-one stops you worshipping - just forcing that belief on others.
EDIt - oops....was on the wrong page :o
-
nuclear1: Faith Based iniatives, allowing government charity money to be doled out to charities (no way in hell these are going to be doled out equally to all religions - not only is it logicistically impossible but ashcroft is overseeing this), et cetera
-
More specifically, only Christian charities in many cases (government support of faith-based initiatives is arguably constitutional provided all are funded, and absolutely equally), and his recent calls for a marraige amendment. There are a couple other occasions, but they're largely irrelevant. Someone else could probably find a particularly unpleasant one if they wanted to, the latter for me is plenty enough.
-
stryke 9 is correct with what he has in () -- althought that condition is logistically impossible to satisfy