| Author |
Message |
    
cfkolich
New member
Username: cfkolich
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2006
Posted From: 64.136.27.227
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 11:50 pm: | 
|
When CNN held a q/a segment for the democratic candidates for president there were many religions questions about faith, prayer habits, etc. What was refreshing is when Hillary Clinton stated she grew up where they looked cynically on people who wore their religion on their sleeves. This is paraphrasing and you are welcome to look at the interview comments yourselves. I like her thinking on religion. We are heading down a dangerous path if the majority of voters are the religious extremists. They do have an agenda and that is to suck every member they can get into their camps. There are very few freedoms left and I'll be damned if I let some extremists who claim to know God destroy any free thought I may have. I don't know about the rest of you but I strongly believe your faith is your business. How or who I worship is my business only. If werenot careful we will relect another Bush ... a wolf in sheeps clothing. Let's not let the religious right be the winning voting block. The democratic party needs to get united behind someone and the voters need to put their petty differences aside and get behind an individual regardless of they don't agree on a particular issue. Mixing religion and politics are like throwing gasoline on a fire. It will get oout of control. Remember the spanish inquisition... The salem witch hunts...you catch my drift..That's a bit extreme but when we get to the point when public policy is based on religion then everything the founding fathers stood for will be lost. This is a war we cannot afford to lose. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 591
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.15
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 12:05 am: |
|
Really, I invite you to post your comment on this thread:
http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=407493#POST407493
It would be interesting to have the democrat perspective on there. It could be volatile though.
"The democratic party needs to get united behind someone"
If Mrs. Clinton is that one, it speaks ill of the democrats. If that is the best they can come up with. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 255
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 7:20 am: |
|
M(r)(s). cfkolich:
Did you happen to ask why CNN only invited the democrats to speak? You speak of religious zealots eroding your freedom, could we not say the same for you eroding the freedom of religions to speak out? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 154
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 10:25 am: |
|
You are right on, Cfkolich. I am less concerned about why CNN only had democratic candidates on, or whether the candidates are demo or republican than how important of a role they think that religion needs to play in politics.
Jesus said it best, "Don't pray in public like the hypocates do, pray in private behind closed doors and your father will hear you."
Ultimately, we cannot keep candidates from bringing religion to the table if they choose to. We can only hope that one day the public, after seeing all of the havoc that the religious fundamentalists from all religions reak on this planet, that the public will demand from their candidates efforts to separate religion and government. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 256
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 4:36 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). bluewater2:
My question on participation rings quiet poignantly when viewed in context. John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein have been on the talk shows this weekend demanding equal time from Russ Limbaugh under the “Fairness Doctrine” Act. Hopefully, I spelled those names correctly. Nonetheless, if Russ Limbaugh has to provide equal time to liberalism, liberalism must also provide equal time to the truth. That is how the “Fairness Doctrine” Act works, supposedly.
As to Madam Sleazy’s comments, I would have asked, resoundingly, OH! Then as narrator, I would have cut to the millions of feet of video showing Madam Sleazy’s and God Bill’s wery publicly display of church going while he was in office. Madam Sleazy even carried a large book to make the appearance of carrying a bible. Madam Sleazy even convinced God Bill to leave the Baptist and join the Methodist Church while they were in office. Dysfunctional memory? Or selective memory? More likely, an incapacity to deal with the truth! |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 4:39 pm: |
|
I don't like Hillary any more than I like Russ, (Actually Rush), Limbaugh. I have not problem with equal time either. Any side that panders to the religious right for votes looses mine, for sure. And a large portion of American votes as well as indicated by the last turnout for a presidential election.
And it is MR Bluewater. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 257
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Now that is interesting, Mr. bluewater2.
Quoting: "Any side that panders to the religious right for votes looses mine, for sure."
End quote.
What difference does it make, if one panders to the religious left or the religious right? You are on a Christian website trying to sell your religion, but condemn anyone who speaks out for Christianity. It is not I who is on your religious website selling Christianity. Do you see the double standard you are using? |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 596
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, there are many other huge issues besides religion. It may be big, but the Dems do not get my vote on that issue alone. Sure, they may be for separation of Church and State. Hell, our constitution insures it already. They are not for limited government. They are not pro second amendment, they are not pro first possibly, given their stance on the fairness doctrine and silencing talk radio. They are not pro secure our borders, they are not pro strong national defense. I would dare say they are not pro American, if American is defined as liberty loving. Since when did liberal become equal to wanting to control people and legislate our nation into an inability to survive? Socialism is not the answer. Classic Liberalism is more akin to libertarian. Ironically, so is much of conservatsim. Big contolling government- bad, small freedom allowing government- good.
I think I will be supporting Fred Thompson. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 597
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 9:20 pm: |
|
"You are on a Christian website trying to sell your religion"
What Christian website?
This one is not Christian. Best I can tell, FACTnet is secular. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 162
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 11:23 pm: |
|
"What difference does it make, if one panders to the religious left or the religious right?" You are right about that one. My bad. Anyone candidate who panders to any religious group saying that he or she will work to make their religious views part of their platform is doing the country a disjustice. I think, again, that thinking people are beginning to see that the religious zealots, christian and muslim, exhibit poor judgment and ooze intolerance.
"You are on a Christian website trying to sell your religion, but condemn anyone who speaks out for Christianity." You are kidding, of course. This is not any more a Christian website than Arnold Murray is a Jewish Rabi.
"Do you see the double standard you are using?" No, I don't. Please enlighten me. |
hardbones
New member
Username: hardbones
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 65.93.213.170
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 12:16 am: |
|
I don't think you need to worry about the religious right taking over. There appears to be a divorce coming between the Repub's and the xian right.
I think a lot of the attention to the bush administration pandering to the rligious right was overblown media hype. Some went on to be sure but the reason the divorce is coming is because there wasn't enough.
Personally speaking as a fundie I wish xians would stay out of politics and just pray instead!! |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 164
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 12:59 am: |
|
Me too, hardbones. Well placed prayer can work wonders. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 259
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 6:49 am: |
|
Mr. bluewater2:
Quoting: "I think, again, that thinking people are beginning to see that the religious zealots, christian and muslim, exhibit poor judgment and ooze intolerance."
End quote.
Again, I noticed you narrowed the process to those you detest. Again, you are trying to sell your religion to me, not the other way. Now try again, and this time include your religion. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 165
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:57 am: |
|
Yes, I narrowed my thinking to religions that believe in a god, in the supernatural and mysticism. And only two of the many. Certainly there are many other god based religions as well that must be included. I was just saving time and energy.
I do not believe that leaving discussions about god out of government and the public school system is "removing god". If god is as you say, he is in the hearts and minds of his adherents.
Again, thinking people are beginning to see the damage that the religious zealots from all systems that contain them are having on society. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 260
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 10:24 am: |
|
Come Mr. bluewater2, does this include YOUR religion. A simple yes or no answer will do.
Quoting: "Again, thinking people are beginning to see the damage that the religious zealots from all systems that contain them are having on society."
End quote. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 168
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:09 am: |
|
I dont belong to an organized religion. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 153
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 1:05 pm: |
|
I don't think you need to worry about the religious right taking over. There appears to be a divorce coming between the Repub's and the xian right... Personally speaking as a fundie I wish xians would stay out of politics and just pray instead!!
Yes, I think it is easily seen that Falwell made a mistake getting Christians into politics with the Moral Majority group. Politics and religion just don't mix. There are many failed examples throughout the world. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 261
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Come Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting: "I dont belong to an organized religion."
End quote.
Your religion is quiet organized. Yes, I realize you are unable to admit that. But nonetheless, did you include your religion? If not, why not? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 262
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Come M(r(s). yaakov2:
Quoting: "Politics and religion just don't mix. There are many failed examples throughout the world."
End quote.
Does that include your religion? or Is it just those you disagree with? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:25 pm: |
|
What is my religion? |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 162
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Bluewater
Obviously your organized religion of people that don't believe in religion.
ATM
Yes, my religion too. We can still lobby for a political cause, but we shouldn't have a political party. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:56 pm: |
|
I think that ATM thinks that not believing in god is a religion. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 263
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2 & M(r)(s). yaakov2:
Quoting: "I think that ATM thinks that not believing in god is a religion."
End quote.
It is!
Religion: Noun
1 a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Merriam_Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary |
granite
New member
Username: granite
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 63.25.4.225
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:33 pm: |
|
Yesterday I saw this excellent article in USA TODAY: "The Faith Should Not Be Red, White & Blue"
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/faith-shouldnt-.html#uslPageReturn
It deals with the subject of patriotism & religion, and makes the point that the cross should not be draped in the national flag.
There is also a blog for those who are interested. :-)
Here are some excerpts from that blog:
George W. Bush is not Lord. The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice. Nor is the U.S. Constitution. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology.
Sometimes one needs to state the obvious - especially at times when it's less and less obvious.
Those who call for the support of Christ in the midst of a war of choice against Iraq are perverting the faith.
Many would be surpised to know how many of us are out there that feel very uncomfortable with what goes on in worship during this time of the year.
Uncomfortable, because idolatry isn't something you even flirt with. Just read the Bible. Idolatry happens when you give to something created, a thing that belongs to the creator. All praise, honor, and glory, go to God.
When I go to worship on Sunday, it is to worship Him. God doesn't like to share. In fact, in Exodus 20 it says that He is "a jealous God".
Whenever you leave a worship services saying, "isn't America great!" you should probably repent.
America is great! But it isn't a close second to God, nothing is close to God. That is the problem with some services, they put "God and Country" too close together.
Here is another article that says it well:
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/204.patriotismorpilgrimage.html
tracts@juno.com - Les R., Joplin Mo. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 192
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 12:38 am: |
|
ATM, I do not see anywhere in your definitions anything that fits my beliefs. Nice try. I just do not believe in god. That is not a religion. Sorry you think religion is a dirty word. Especially since you obviously and admittedly do belong to one. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 264
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 6:48 am: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting: "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
End quote.
Any chance you were taught to read in grade school?
(Message edited by the apostolic truth ministries on July 04, 2007) |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 265
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 7:01 am: |
|
M(r)(s). granite
Quoting: "Those who call for the support of Christ in the midst of a war of choice against Iraq are perverting the faith."
End quote.
May we say the same for the unprovoked vicious preemptive war against North Korea under the leadership of liberalism’s Roosevelt/Truman?
Quoting: "Those who call for the support of Christ in the midst of a war of choice against Iraq are perverting the faith."
End quote.
May we say the same for the unprovoked vicious preemptive all out war against Viet Nam under the astute leadership of liberalism’s John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson?
Or would you say, the statement only applies to Bush? |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 611
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 10:56 am: |
|
"preemptive war against North Korea"
You're kidding right? It really irks me when people twist history to make a point.
This is what happened:
"The Korean War began as a civil war fought from 1950–1953 on the Korean Peninsula, which had been divided by the post-World War II Soviet and American occupation zones. The civil war began on June 25, 1950, when North Korea attacked South Korea. The civil war was greatly expanded when the United States, and later China entered the conflict. The conflict ended when a cease-fire was reached on July 27, 1953."
South Korea was our ally. You understand what an ally is right? When they were attacked we came to their aid. We almost lost when China entered the conflict.
Or maybe you are referring to this:
"The United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel. The American goal of saving South Korea’s government had been achieved, but because of the success and the prospect of uniting all of Korea under the government of Syngman Rhee, the U.N. forces advanced into North Korea."
No exactly a preemptive strike though.
"May we say the same for the unprovoked vicious preemptive all out war against Viet Nam under the astute leadership of liberalism’s John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson?"
You have no concept of referring to accurate history. We did not start a preemptive war in Vietnem. South Vietnam was our ally, do you understand the concept of ally?
Nor was veitnam ever an "all out" war, which is one reason we ended up withdawing. It was fought by politicians as much as the gnereals and ground commanders.
"Before World War Two, Vietnam had been part of the French Empire. During the war, the country had been overrun by the Japanese. When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back south Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese.
In April 1954, the world's powers had met at Geneva to discuss Vietnam. In July 1954, it was decided to divide the country in two at the 17th parallel. Bao Dai was to lead the south and Ho Chi Minh the north. The meeting also decided that in 1956, there would be an election in both the north and south to decide who would rule the whole country. The election would be supervised by neutral countries. This election did not take place and the split had become permanent by 1956.
In August 1964, the Tongking Incident occurred when two American destroyers were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats while they were in international waters. In response to this, the American Senate gave Johnson the power to give armed support to assist any country requesting help in defence of its freedom. In March 1965, the first American ground troops landed in South Vietnam and by December 1965, there were 150,000 stationed in the country. The bombing of North Vietnam had already started in February 1965."
Cetainly not a preemtive invasion and we really did have good reasons to be there and be involved.
The first gulf war, was not preemptive because Kuwait is our ally, and they were attacked.
This war (the current conflict in Iraq) is called preemptive because there was no ally threatened, no other country attacked. We simply went in and invaded. I don't really have a problem with this, but I think we should have done and should do some things different.
But your comparisons to Vietnam and the Korean War are not historically or intellectaully
honest.
I am surprised you did not add something about our "preemptive" entry into world war II. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 612
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 11:06 am: |
|
Also, it should not go without noting to supporters of the left that Bill is a baptist and Hilary a methodist, there is a religious left. They are both Christians, to what extent their faith effects their political views is debatable, but the Methodists have a history of social activism. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 266
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hello, M(r)(s). still_small_voice:
Tis not I with a jaded memory. You are right on at one point. I did fail to point out our premptive unprovoked merciless attack on Germany during WWII. I, also, forgot to mention God Bill's preemptive unprovoked attack on Christianity in Bosnia. You may like to remove head from rear end, the Iraq invasion was sanctioned by most of the world. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 622
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 2:16 pm: |
|
"I did fail to point out our premptive unprovoked merciless attack on Germany during WWII."
Seriously now, Germany declared war on us.
"You may like to remove head from rear end, the Iraq invasion was sanctioned by most of the world"
What is your point?
You seem to take pleasure in challenging other people, and with much rhetoric, without ever really taking a position.
I simply can't take you seriously. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 2:37 pm: |
|
"Quoting: "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I don't see where this pertains to atheism. No cause, no system and not held with ardor or faith.
"Any chance you were taught to read in grade school?" Why the insult? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 267
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Mr. bluewater2:
Quoting: ""Quoting: "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I don't see where this pertains to atheism. No cause, no system and not held with ardor or faith."
End quote.
ardor: Noun
1 a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling *the sudden ardors of youth* b : extreme vigor or energy : INTENSITY c : ZEAL d : LOYALTY
2 : sexual excitement
Faith: Noun
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*
Again, did you include your religion in the equation? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 268
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:26 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). still_small_voice
Quoting: "You seem to take pleasure in challenging other people, and with much rhetoric, without ever really taking a position."
End quote.
My dear friend, I did take sides. I stand squarely behind liberalism in this case and against the oppression you teach. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 200
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:28 pm: |
|
I just don't see how any of your definitions pertain to my belief that there is no god. I know you would just love to make it more than it is. I know you are very disappointed as revealed by your stretching of meanings and definitions here. But for a bible believer, I know that comes easy. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 270
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Mr. bluewater2:
Quoting ". . . your stretching of meanings and definitions here."
End quote.
My good friend, I quoted Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary verbatim ac litteratim, sorry.
verbatim ac litteratim: Latin
1. word for word and letter for letter |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 120
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 64.122.1.158
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 11:51 am: |
|
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
That is not atheism. It is a lack of the above. No firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Atheists have simply not been convinced by any of the numerous world religions that their particular explanation of things is correct.
The only bit of the definition quoted that even comes close is this: "something that is believed especially with strong conviction"
By that definition, people who believe the Yankees are the best baseball team should get a tax exemption because they are a religious group.
Why is it so critical for religious people to convince themselves that atheism is a competing religion? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 203
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 11:55 am: |
|
"Main Entry: ar·dor
Pronunciation: 'är-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ardour, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin ardor burning, heat, ardor, from aridus dry -- more at ARID
1 a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the> b : extreme vigor or energy : INTENSITY c : ZEAL d : LOYALTY
2 : sexual excitement" This came from MiriamWebster as well. I do not see any of the aspects of this definition of ardor as pertaining to my belief that god does not exist. Which one would you consider pertain to me?
I can see where faith plays into your system of belief. Where do you feel it plays into mine? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:06 pm: |
|
What religion do I belong to if I don't believe in the Lochness monster?
What religion do I belong to if I do not believe in Leprichauns?
What religion do I belong to if I don't believe that Godzilla really exists?
I get a kick out of people like you who try to make people who do not believe in god part of a religious community.
You shouldn't be so embarassed by your system of beliefs that you try to include people who do not believe in the supernatural into your little community. I just do not believe in god. When I see evidence that one exists I will alter my belief. My mind is wide open to someone, as wise as you I am sure, making a case for the existance of god.
Come on, give it your best shot. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 121
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 64.122.1.158
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Come on now, who doesn't believe in leprechauns? They're totally real. I have one that advises me on my stock portfolio. Why do you hate leprechauns? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 205
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Now, now, IHS, you and I both know we cannot hate what does not exist. But hey, if you have the little fellow in your corner, give me his number so I can get in touch. |
trainedobserver
Intermediate Member
Username: trainedobserver
Post Number: 164
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 198.49.119.7
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Godzilla doesn't really exist? (gulp) I mean, (tugs at collar) that's certainly good news. |
fatherofaking
Intermediate Member
Username: fatherofaking
Post Number: 168
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 70.16.198.54
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 4:49 pm: |
|
godzilla does too exist.
i created him.
i am the god of godzilla.
he doesn't see it that way though.
he believes he came from a fish. |
trainedobserver
Intermediate Member
Username: trainedobserver
Post Number: 165
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 198.49.119.13
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 5:02 pm: |
|
bw2, IHS,
Your argument is flawless. Atheist's are no more the members of a god-hating religion by default than non-believers in Santa are members of the 'Haters-On-Santa Club '. In fact many of us are fond of things we don't believe in ... like the mighty Godzer-ra for example. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 206
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I don't understand why people like ATM are so embarassed by being labeled as in a religion that they want to include us as well. |
nabashalam
Intermediate Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 116
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.130.19.196
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Who do you think is actually running this country? God? If He is, I wish he would pass over the reigns to Snow White or Glenda the Good Witch of the North!
Here is who's really running the "Show"!!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=497251819335380093 |
rachelengland
Intermediate Member
Username: rachelengland
Post Number: 235
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 4.158.210.228
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Whoa,Whoa,Whoa...IHS you have a stock portfolio??? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 272
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 9:32 pm: |
|
Mr. bluewater2:
Quoting:
What religion do I belong to if I don't believe in the Lochness monster?
What religion do I belong to if I do not believe in Leprichauns?
What religion do I belong to if I don't believe that Godzilla really exists?
End quote.
I don't believe in those myself, so are we both in the same religion?
Quoting: "You shouldn't be so embarassed by your system of beliefs that you . . . "
End quote.
. . . can't deal with it.
Quoting: "making a case for the existance of god. "
End quote.
Adolf Hitler asked the same question. The answer given to him was the Jew.
Quoting: "Which one would you consider pertain to me?"
End quote.
b : extreme vigor or energy : INTENSITY c : ZEAL d : LOYALTY |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 207
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 72.130.156.91
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 12:10 am: |
|
I am not Adolf Hitler, or anything like him. I certainly do not have the intensity, zeal or loyalty to atheistic thinking that you seem to feel I have. My mind, unlike Hitlers is always open to evidence of the existance of god or the supernatural.
I just haven't yet seen any compelling evidence.
I just don't believe there is a god. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 275
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 7:41 am: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting: "I just haven't yet seen any compelling evidence.
I just don't believe there is a god."
End quote.
Neither did Hitler!
Quoting: "I certainly do not have the intensity, zeal or loyalty to atheistic thinking that you seem to feel I have."
End quote.
It is you who is here proselytizing me, not me on an atheist site evangelizing you. Nonetheless, you are avoiding my question. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 642
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 206.138.130.2
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 10:27 am: |
|
"Neither did Hitler!"
Actually, that is not true.
Hitler believed in 'God' certainly, and Christ, leaned more toward Protestant than Catholic.
This is from wiki:
"Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents, but as a school boy he rejected Catholicism and was influenced by nationalism. Apparently, after Hitler left home, he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[66]
In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture; publicly he often spoke positively of the Christian heritage of German culture and of belief in Christ. Hitler’s private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity.[67] However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism,[67] and ridiculed such beliefs in his book Mein Kampf.[68] Rather, Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity",[69] a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race"—guided by "Providence"—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization and the Jews as enemies of all civilization. Whether his anti-semitism was influenced by older Christian ideas remains disputed.
Among Christian denominations, Hitler favored Protestantism, which was more open to such reinterpretations. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics."
Obiviously wikipedia is not the final authority but this is pretty common knowledge.
All that is necessary is to add a racist element to fundamentalist ideology.
A modern example is the identity movement.
Once again you post propaganda, rather than fact. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 643
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 206.138.130.3
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 10:32 am: |
|
"not me on an atheist site evangelizing you"
This site is neither Christian nor athiest. It is a public forum.
Because of this, I have had the opportuniy to debate with atheists, agnostics, Christians, fundamentalists, Jews, liberals, conservatives, and others.
It is pretty cool actually.
Your use of this argument of FACTnet being some kind of God believing or theological site is not logical.
In fact, FACTnet management has posted that the theological threads were not the intention of FACTnet and they would rather have it focused on controlling and abusive groups and cults only. |
nabashalam
Intermediate Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 118
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.130.19.196
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 10:47 am: |
|
Show me a religion,denomination or sect and I'll show you mind control! |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 276
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 10:58 am: |
|
M(r)(s). nabashalam:
Quoting: "Show me a religion,denomination or sect and I'll show you mind control!"
End quote.
Atheism, Secularism, Humanism, Intellectualism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Satanism, . . . would you like me to continue? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 277
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 11:02 am: |
|
M(r)(s). still_small_voice:
I love your defense!! Unfortunately, the work you cite as authorative is a write-you-own-cyclopedia. Worst yet, my dear friend, Gandhi quoted scripture in virtually every speech he made. Gandhi, by the by, was Hindu. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 644
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 206.138.130.3
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 12:14 pm: |
|
'Common knowledge' means it is easy to discover in doing your own research. "Mein Kampf" would be pretty authoritative would it not, being written by the man himself? Yeah, it pretty much establishes the point of what I posted.
You are not a historian, nor a scholar, nor conservative, nor fundamentalist, nor secular, nor atheist...
The best I can figure you are liberal Christian... and liberal political. You kind of keep back in the shadows as far as what you believe and what you think.
Ghandi and scripture is irrelevant. Are you saying Ghandi was an atheist? |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 645
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 206.138.130.3
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 12:21 pm: |
|
"Atheism, Secularism, Humanism, Intellectualism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Satanism, . . . would you like me to continue?"
No, there is a big difference, and huge differences bewteen them all. You lump all these things together. This is intellectually laughable. Please.
There is a difference between people, who in exercising freethought, come to similar conclusions, and are termed a certain label for reference...
And a group ideology which is enforced by threats, whether spiritual, fear, or the gun/sword... and demand conversion... and submission to the ideology.
TATM, what is your education background?
Or your motive for stirring things up. You would be considered a troll on most forum boards, based on your postings. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 208
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 12:36 pm: |
|
"It is you who is here proselytizing me, not me on an atheist site evangelizing you. Nonetheless, you are avoiding my question." I think that several posters have shown you the falacy of that argument. If your question is why do I not include my religion with yours, or something along that line, again, atheism is not a religion. It is simply the belief that there is no god. I didn't have to read some ancient old book to figure that one out.
At least Ghandi didn't claim to be the son of god, which would have made him insane, or dillusional, as well as your idol. At least Ghandi was that smart. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 280
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Aye! me laddy buck! a wee bit testy, are we?
ps. By the by, atheism is a religion. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 209
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 7:57 pm: |
|
If you see testiness in my post, your discernment needs fine tuning. I am enjoying the ping pong game. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 8:25 pm: |
|
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
Religious affiliation, practices, and views.
albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a > b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I think it is quite obvious what the accepted definition of religion is. Certainly, it is a stretch to call the lack of a belief in god a religion. However, I fully understand your need to include as many sane people in your club as you can. I, and others as I can see have seen the initiation process and the results of inclusion and have decided not to join. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 283
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious . . . 2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
End quote.
Did you notice that three out of four definitions say nothing about God or a supernatural power?
Quoting: "a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html"
End quote.
We can include you here too. You certainly have "a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power."
Quoting: "Religious affiliation, practices, and views.
albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html"
End quote.
We must include you here also. Even more interesting are several Supreme Court decisions defining atheism as a religion. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 126
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 1:23 am: |
|
"Did you notice that three out of four definitions say nothing about God or a supernatural power? "
Jeepers,
Then Yankee fans really are a religious group! They should go straight to the concession stand and flash their tax free card for procurement of their religious trappings - beer and giant foam fingers.
Do you see where this is going ? By your bizarre interpretation of what a religion is, anything and everything could be a religion.
Mac users are religious in their zeal for mac products. Somehow I don't think I can convince the IRS that my ipod is a holy relic that should not be taxed.
I'll ask again - why are religious folks so desperate to include atheists in their category. I worship nothing, cling tightly to nothing that I can't see, follow no guide book, etc.
The only belief I have pertaining to a supernatural power is that I am unconvinced that there is one. This notion is hardly held on to with the fierce dogmatic conviction of a true believer. I would be happy to believe in a deity - as soon as I see one. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 212
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 10:26 am: |
|
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint,(atheism certainly does not contain a belief in the supernatural and is the opposite of constraining). sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY, (I certainly do not practice atheism, and again, am less tied back and restrained than those that do practice a religion. I do not rely on a false idol or mystical entity for anything.)
1 a : the state of a religious <a > b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural, (Atheists certainly do not do these things.) (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance (Nope)
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (Atheism is not a set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs and practices. It is simply one thing: not believing in god.)
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, (Nope)
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (It is not a cause, or a system. I have no ardor for my belief that there is no god and no faith is required. My mind is open the someone giving me evidence that there might be a god or gods, unlike those who need faith to believe in something that goes against all sense of reason and logic) I can see that anything can become a religion for someone, like playing racquetball is for me, and in the court cases that I have been able to find, atheism had been taken to the extreme like Christianity is. IHAVESINNED uses a nice analogy above to highlight the results of such extreme thinking.
Back to the original point about whether religion should be in politics: NO, IT SHOULD NOT BE. I also believe that atheism should not be advocated in politics or the public school system either.
Now, if you believe that NOT mentioning god is promoting atheism, I would disagree with that. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 10:39 am: |
|
Come Mr. bluewater2, does this include YOUR religion. A simple yes or no answer will do.
Quoting: "Again, thinking people are beginning to see the damage that the religious zealots from all systems that contain them are having on society."
End quote.
I think that this is where you missed the boat, or my meaning. You notice I said "religious zealots from all systems that contain them are having on society. I am speaking of the radical elements of any belief system, be it xtian, muslim, hindu or whatever YOU feel you want to call a religion. I have later in this thread said that I do not believe that atheism should be taught in the public schools and that atheism should not be promoted in politics. I have remained consistant throughout inspite of your odd desire to label a simple lack of belief in god a religion. I can guarantee that it is not a religion for me and most atheists. I happen to live in a Jewish household where the word atheism does not even need to be used.
I also found it quite interesting how often you use disparaging terms to describe people that you do not happen to like or agree with. Why is that? |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 673
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 206.138.130.2
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 12:27 pm: |
|
"Why is that?"
Because he is a troll.
A troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory, insulting, or inflamatory
(i.e. flames) messages about sensitive or controversial topics in an online community such as a discussion forum to bait users into responding in order to primarily cause or provoke confrontation or argument.
Trolls
They are really best ingnored. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 284
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 4:27 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). ihavesinned:
Quoting: "The only belief I have pertaining to a supernatural power is that I am unconvinced that there is one. This notion is hardly held on to with the fierce dogmatic conviction of a true believer. I would be happy to believe in a deity - as soon as I see one."
End quote.
May I rephrase?
"The only belief I have pertaining to a supernatural power is that I am unconvinced that there is not one. This notion is hardly held on to with the fierce dogmatic conviction of a true unbeliever. I would be happy to disbelieve in a deity - as soon as I see one."
So does that make both of us religionists or nonreligionists? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 285
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting: "I also found it quite interesting how often you use disparaging terms to describe people that you do not happen to like or agree with. Why is that?"
End quote.
May I suggest you take something for memory lost, especially short-term memory? It was you who suggested quote, unquote "thinking people" are all atheist. It was you who described atheists as quote, unquote "sane" people. It was you who called religion a disparaging term, not I. I will be more than happy to address any comment you wish that are mine. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 131
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 7:03 pm: |
|
"Quoting: "The only belief I have pertaining to a supernatural power is that I am unconvinced that there is one. This notion is hardly held on to with the fierce dogmatic conviction of a true believer. I would be happy to believe in a deity - as soon as I see one."
End quote.
May I rephrase?
"The only belief I have pertaining to a supernatural power is that I am unconvinced that there is not one. This notion is hardly held on to with the fierce dogmatic conviction of a true unbeliever. I would be happy to disbelieve in a deity - as soon as I see one." "
Brilliant - did you learn that trick from Franklin? Dogmatic conviction of an unbeliever? That's retarded. Sorry, but where are you going with this rubbish?
Do you want atheism to be a religion for some reason? Are you suggesting that people who sing, evangelise, tithe, etc. don't have a fierce dogmatic devotion to their belief? Absurd. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 286
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 7:15 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). ihavesinned:
Quoting: "Dogmatic conviction of an unbeliever?"
End quote.
Dogmatic: Noun
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts *a dogmatic critic*
2 : of or relating to dogma
Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary
Yes!
Quoting: "Do you want atheism to be a religion for some reason?"
End quote.
Atheism is a religion by all definitions, as well as Supreme Court decisions. Sorry.
Quoting: "Are you suggesting that people who sing, evangelise, tithe, etc. don't have a fierce dogmatic devotion to their belief?"
End Quote.
No more dogmatic devotion than is displayed by Atheism, Liberalism, Humanism, Socialism, Intellectualism, Secularism, Progressivism, Sataanism, Polytheism, etc. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 287
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Mr. Bluewater2:
Quoting: "I happen to live in a Jewish household where the word atheism does not even need to be used."
End quote.
Have you ever heard the word "Holocaust?" I wery seriously doubt you are in a jewish household. Why? To the Jew, the word "Holocaust" means isolating a people/religion from politics. I suggest you find a real Jew and ask them to explain the "Holocaust" to you.
I believe you are a young person who has been thoroughly indoctrinated by an atheistic teacher seeking political gain. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 697
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 12:04 am: |
|
Don't feed the troll. |
cfkolich
New member
Username: cfkolich
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2006
Posted From: 71.182.164.148
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 2:10 am: |
|
We talk about separation of church and state but for these churches to have the leverage they do implies (in my words) politicians must be elbow deep in some of their pockets. There's no other explanation for it. You would think some of these churches would side on the side of what is right and moral..but I believe they just watch what happens on the sidelines and like vultures wait to jump on whatever is side is standing. I rarely see the modern church taking a stance on anything. "Judge lest ye be Judged" for example. What better way for an organization to avoid a tangle with some of these extreme charismatics. That's why I am leaning towards the Buddist belief system They are the least of the judgementals. The extremist Christians have driven me away. It's a shame. When organized religion finally stand up anainst the extremists and come out and say what they are doing is purely for profit not for spirituality then maybe I'll start believing them. Talk is cheap. Let them prove it. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 288
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 7:07 am: |
|
M(r)(s). still_small_voice:
Thank you for the complement. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 223
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 2:39 pm: |
|
SSV. Franklin is a troll, generally, but ATM is at least staying on topic to a degree. I don't have a problem with the ATM types. He reminds me of Watchman and his anti-evolution stance. Everytime he taps his keyboard he speaks untruths.
ATM, your powers of discernment, again, are showing thier shortcomings.
I obviously cannot prove to you that I live in a Jewish household, but 3 of the 4 are Jews.
Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a >
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
Notice how not one of these definitions mentions isolation from politics.
Or is it possible that the dictionary often does not tell the whole story? Or that the dictionary, like the bible, can be used and warped to fit an agenda. Like Hitler did or like you do trying to make the case that atheism is a religion.
I am 54 and have never been taught about atheism. Not believing in mysticism is not something that you are taught. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 63
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:05 pm: |
|
I am the troll? I am not the one making flaming remarks about Christianity or Deism or atheism or any other person's faith on this forum.
We know who that has been.
I will continue to defend my faith and steer the discussions to what they should be about.
Cults. C U L T S! |
rachelengland
Intermediate Member
Username: rachelengland
Post Number: 253
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 4.159.5.42
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:15 pm: |
|
ATM just needs to stop sterotyping people...his Calvinistic views have gotten the best of him.
Everyone with enough sense knows ..politics and religion do not mix...it's an awful combination.
God is a personal issue - not a public one... |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 224
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:24 pm: |
|
No, Franklin. You are the one who most consistantly barges into threads taking the topic off course. Like you just did. I have respect for ATM and his laser-like focus on the task at hand. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 64
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:28 pm: |
|
The topic of factnet is CULTS. Not "Why bluewater hates Christianity".
Like little schoolgirls you want to talk about me behind my back.
Of course you like atm, they are an atheist just like you.
You attack my faith, I will defend it. Simple as that. |
rachelengland
Intermediate Member
Username: rachelengland
Post Number: 255
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 4.159.5.42
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:30 pm: |
|
You both need to stop fighting and just love each other .
I often wonder who and what it is -that keeps you two at each others necks..hmmmmmm
Back on track...ATM throughout history religion that is ingrained in a politics has always caused problems! |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 225
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Bordom on my part, and likely, a false sense of importance inspired by insecurity on Frankies. I was just over here minding my own business. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 65
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Or maybe it is politics that ingrains itself into religion and always causes problems.
Think about it.
What is more important?
A belief in God or a belief in government?
I can live without government but do not want to live without God.
None of us would be here without God. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 226
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 3:50 pm: |
|
It's actually quite easy to live without god.
I would prefer to keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion. Too often people or "one issue" voters. For instance, the holy rollers too often vote for a president simply because he states that he is against abortion. Unfortunately, as is the case with our current president, he only has about 2 brain cells and was put in office by the religious right. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 67
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Yes of course. You are your God.
That's a bull crap thing to say about Bush.
According to you anybody that doesn't agree with you only has two brain cells.
Get real!
The irreligious use abortion as a one issue determining election factor just as much as the religious voters do.
I'd rather have a pro choice Republican as Guiliani than an amoraiist like Hillary. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 228
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 5:13 pm: |
|
I would rather have Guiliani than Hillary also. But I think I like Fred Thompson and Ron Paul better.
Bush is a moron. Period. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 69
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Well you have that kind of attitude that loves to belittle anyone who is not lockstep with you. My Dad likes Ron Paul but Fred Thompson has presence being in all of those movies and tv shows. He is a Senator from Tennessee I would vote for.
Not that other one. What a moron!
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/5/93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"
-- Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The future will be better tomorrow."
-- Vice President Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe." |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 132
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Deflection...always deflection.
Name one thing Bush has done right since coming into office -other than doing a bang up job of clearing brush on his ranch.
The only thing I can think of that was correct was appointing John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and he only did that because they wouldn't let him appoint his family lawyer Harriet Myers. Remember Myers, who had never even served as a judge?
He is a moron, and every bit the entitled aristocrat that John Kerry seems to be. He pretends to be a Texan and a man of the people, what a prick. This guy was born with the world's biggest silver spoon, he's like the male Paris Hilton. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 73
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 7:55 pm: |
|
That's funny. I always thought of you as a male Paris Hilton. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 133
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Well I am a sexy blonde, and drive a Bentley. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 74
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 8:00 pm: |
|
That's not quite the comparison I was making. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 134
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 8:09 pm: |
|
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp
According to this site Franklin, most of your quotes above are actually attributed to Dan Quayle. In 2004, this list was circulated falsely as Kerry quotes.
Many of the quotes you attribute to Gore are attributed to Bush, Kerry, or Quayle depending on the source.
You should probably stick to religion Franklin, but I guess they don't want you there either. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 230
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Anybody who claims to support Bush at this stage of the game is usually someone who supported him in the beginning and are just too hard headed and stubborn to admit they made a mistake. Gee, does anyone here fit that M.O.? |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 80
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 9:18 pm: |
|
It is always the lesser of two evils. Bush over Gore..... Hell yes.
Right now under the few short years of a Gore presidency children would be forced to learn arabic and the Koran in school and all atheists would be beheaded.
Bush over Kerry..... Hell yes!
Another vote buying with more government giveaway programs but sell America down the river coward.
I'm not satisfied with Bush because he does not use his veto power to cut government pork projects and did nothing toward reducing the deficit. But he gave the democrats everything they wanted. Of course that is never enough for them to buy their votes back home with.
In might be trendy in your little groups of friends to bash Bush but you don't know the way the rest of the country thinks. Evidently by your choices you are out of sync with America. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 232
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 11:00 pm: |
|
but you don't know the way the rest of the country thinks. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
There is a great chart that shows Bush's approval rating at about 30%. I think that says it all.
Bush is a complete idiot and christianity promoter who should be impeached. What better way to demonstrate democracy to the rest of the world that we are trying to shove democracy down the throats of with bombs. |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 83
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 11:19 pm: |
|
So we should do nothing while terrorists shove Islam on the world and destruction of Israel with bombs?
You got a problem with democracy being right for the world? What brand of politics do you shove? Totalitarianism?
So we should have done nothing when Russia was shoving atheistic communism down the throats of the world with bombs?
So we should do nothing while atheistic communist China is supplying the taliban and Al Queda weapons and bombs to kill innocents in the world including genocide of all non muslims in the Sudan?
You are severely out of touch with the reality of this world and any sense of compassion. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 11:35 pm: |
|
So we should do nothing while terrorists shove Islam on the world and destruction of Israel with bombs? Israel can do a fine job of protecting itself from the radical Palestinians.
You got a problem with democracy being right for the world? Not at all. I think that we tend to shove it down peoples throats only when it helps us, as in oil. We need to time it better.
So we should have done nothing when Russia was shoving atheistic communism down the throats of the world with bombs? I didn't see us dropping bombs on Russia. Did you?
So we should do nothing while atheistic communist China is supplying the taliban and Al Queda weapons and bombs to kill innocents in the world including genocide of all non muslims in the Sudan? If that is what is happening maybe you need to have this discussion with your boyfriend George Bush.
You are severely out of touch with the reality of this world and any sense of compassion. I don't doubt you think that. If you had any credibility it might ring true. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.77.171
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:41 am: |
|
I love ya Franklin - I especially liked the bit about a hypothetical Gore presidency resulting in American kids being forced to learn Arabic. That would be a miracle, since under no child left behind, they can barely learn English.
The sad reality is Bush has diminished America's credibility at a time when the world needs us to step in and do something about nuclear proliferation. Because of Bush, we are not in a position to do so. We have bribed Libya and North Korea into compliance, and will hopefully be able to buy off Iran too. But their respective human rights atrocities go unaddressed. Where is that compassionate conservatism when you need it?
The ironic part, is out of all of these so called rogue states, the only one without a legitimate nuclear program was Iraq. Implying this war was waged out of compassion is an insult to anyone's intelligence. If you are stupid enough to believe that was a reason for the Iraq war, then life must be rough for you. |
awakenone
New member
Username: awakenone
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2007
Posted From: 61.126.88.206
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:44 am: |
|
Wow that a mouth full of garbage from Franklin!?!?
What imaginary world are you on?
Anyway. I'm an atheist like most Buddhists. And I know as Sting sang, "nothing comes from violence and nothing every could!"
It's amazing how anyone can believe that they could spread democracy with a military, which is the most undemocratic organizations in the world.
Ahh, please let us all have some sanity for a moment.
Peace, Nam Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo!!! |
jeff_franklin
Member
Username: jeff_franklin
Post Number: 84
Registered: 6-2007
Posted From: 67.9.9.73
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 3:03 am: |
|
Atheist like most Buddhists?????
Who do you pray to?
How can an atheist be reincarnated????? |
trainedobserver
Intermediate Member
Username: trainedobserver
Post Number: 168
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 198.49.119.18
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 10:58 am: |
|
For someone who has their head straight about some of these issues you guys are ... discussing, I'd suggest taking a look at what Ron Paul has to say. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
You can't spread democracy with war and the USA has no obligation to spread democracy to begin with. The founding fathers did not mean for us to build any nation other than our own. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 178
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:04 pm: |
|
bluewater2
Anybody who claims to support Bush at this stage of the game is usually someone who supported him in the beginning and are just too hard headed and stubborn to admit they made a mistake. Gee, does anyone here fit that M.O.?
Not quite the way you phrase it. I was a loyal Democrat. After 9/11, I realized that the Democrats were wrong on every issue. I switched to the Republican party and haven’t ever looked back. Even now, other than criticizing Bush, the Democrats have nothing to offer. Though Bush has made some bad decisions in the last few months, I still strongly support him. He is the only one presenting a clear and consistent vision and goals for the war. Those goals still sound like the way to go. Whether we can achieve them is an open question. Can you tell me why being in Korea for over 30 years is OK, but being in Iraq for less than 5 years is not?
There is a great chart that shows Bush's approval rating at about 30%. I think that says it all.
Bluewater, you should know better than this. Context is more important, for a more accurate picture it needs to be compared to other Presidential approval ratings.
quote:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/281161/a_short_history_of_presidential_approval.html
What U.S. President has the all-time lowest approval rating?
President Harry S. Truman
This one has a nice, simple chart.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 72
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:49 pm: |
|
yaakov
I was a loyal card carrying Republican for many years, but my party was hi-jacked. After 911, I totally supported going into Afghanistan. I happened to be in Europe shortly after 911 and was struck at the support from the world. American flags everywhere. It seemed everyone supported going into Afghanistan. The terrorists were held up there, we knew who they were, and the Afgan government was doing nothing about it. It seemed everyone everywhere was finally ready to address terrorism. The world was looking for leadership from the USA and what did we get, a diversion from the Bin Laden and an expansion into Iraq. This is where the world started turning against us. I believe for the first time in world history, the world was ready to unite to end the terror, I think everywhere, including the Middle East. 911 shocked even the Islamic world. The biggest tragedy is the loss of opportunity.
I believe this administration made errors in just about every turn they made. I truly hope I never see one party in such complete control again. Ross Perro had it wrong when he ran for president. Gridlock was not a bad thing. The sifting and winnowing between the parties kept any one philosophy from getting out of control. Not perfectly, but the system of checks and balances is a good thing. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 236
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:50 pm: |
|
"Though Bush has made some bad decisions in the last few months, I still strongly support him. He is the only one presenting a clear and consistent vision and goals for the war." More than his poor decisions, which are many, his image as point man for the US propaganda machine takes a hit every time he opens his mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that whatever his stated goals are, (which have changed on numerous occasions), they could have been achieved in the same or less time by other more intelligent means with less wasted resources.
Please do not fall into the trap that everyone who bags on Bush is pro-Democrat. They are not presenting much at this time either. I must say, however, anyone that had the vision to oppose the war from day one is already one up on everyone else.
"Bluewater, you should know better than this. Context is more important, for a more accurate picture it needs to be compared to other Presidential approval ratings." I would rather put it in context by comparing him to other presidents during a time when they are waging war. What was the Presidential approval rating during WWI, WWII? I would also be curious as to what the presidential approval was during Vietnam, which leads to my next question to you"Can you tell me why being in Korea for over 30 years is OK, but being in Iraq for less than 5 years is not?" I don't think it is OK.
Why was it painted as a defeat to leave Viet Nam as Bush paints leaving Iraq, and yet we are now trading with Viet Nam? |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Recent international polls found that majorities in 26 countries now have a less favorable view of the United States than they did in 2002. Also, “opinions of the American people have declined over the past five years in 23 of 33 countries where trends are available.” And most telling, Bush is less trusted than Putin by our allies. And this includes Canada, Britain, Germany, and France. It seems the world is upside down! |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 187
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 7:02 pm: |
|
ba2
It seemed everyone everywhere was finally ready to address terrorism.
In hindsight, I’m sure you learned how false that assumption was.
Ross Perot had it wrong when he ran for president. Gridlock was not a bad thing. The sifting and winnowing between the parties kept any one philosophy from getting out of control. Not perfectly, but the system of checks and balances is a good thing.
I agree. I don’t think Perot would have made a good president. People throw around the word “gridlock” too easily, when it is actually a debate. The Democratic process is a process, not a dictatorship. Our system is designed to move slowly. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 7:06 pm: |
|
bluewater2
More than his poor decisions, which are many, his image as point man for the US propaganda machine takes a hit every time he opens his mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that whatever his stated goals are, (which have changed on numerous occasions), they could have been achieved in the same or less time by other more intelligent means with less wasted resources.
I’m surprised that you don’t recognize patterns here. This can (and has) been said of every president in history. IMO, people tend to seek perfection too much and then get critical when a human being doesn’t deliver. I’m looking for a person whose general goals I agree with. I don’t expect every decision to be made with perfect clarity or no wasted resources. I want a guy to move the country in a certain general direction. I would be disappointed with any person whose goals didn’t change in reaction to the events around them. But, the general course should be clear.
I’ve noticed that it is very easy to criticize, it is much more difficult to articulate a better way. In the here and now, the Democrats are doing this. Ten years ago, the Republicans did this. I once had a boss who told me “Don’t point out a problem without simultaneously also pointing out a solution.” I try to live my life this way and it has gone pretty well. We need more concrete solutions instead of simple criticisms.
Please do not fall into the trap that everyone who bags on Bush is pro-Democrat.
Of course not. I’ve been annoyed with some of Bush’s most recent decisions. I’m not in lockstep with him, but he fits my general patterns. I don’t expect that you agree 100% with any politician either.
Why was it painted as a defeat to leave Viet Nam as Bush paints leaving Iraq, and yet we are now trading with Viet Nam?
We have commerce dealings with almost every nation on the planet. What’s your point? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 8:36 pm: |
|
We have commerce dealings with almost every nation on the planet. What’s your point?
My point is that pulling out might actually stabilize the area. Also the point can be made that had we not gone in there at all we would have gotten to wherever it is that we are trying to take Iraq with a lot less death, bad US P.R.. Bush said that the last resort would be war. That has proven to be his first lie about this.
“Don’t point out a problem without simultaneously also pointing out a solution.” I agree with this 100%, but when people were giving Bush other options and solutions he did not listen. There were alot of people with other solutions, but it did not matter to him. There have been lots of democrats and republicans with other solutions, but he has not listened. So to say that there have not been other solutions offered is just not so.
What do you think about the idea of checking the approval ratings of past "war time presidents" as a way to put his miserable ratings into perspective? |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 67.170.8.220
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Bush's damage to the democratic system transcends poor poll numbers. From the "irregularities" in his first term election, to "recess appointments" to "signing statements", he has done everything but send congress on a permanent vacation. His administration has circumvented every part of the process they could get away with - and when they can't get away with it, they stonewall and claim executive privelege. At this very moment, they are defying congress on subpeonas for high level justice department aides.
Yaakov, I like what you say about offering solutions with criticisms, but much of the American public still thinks Osama and Saddam are the same guy. How can there be a solution when nobody will admit their mistakes? |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:02 am: |
|
bluewater2
My point is that pulling out might actually stabilize the area.
You’re kidding, right? Just like the Israelis withdrawing from the Gaza strip stabilized it? A look at recent history will show that pulling out in this situation will simply give the terrorists a free and open base to work from. The Iraqi police department is making great strides, but they aren’t ready yet to stand on their own. At the current rate of building their infrastructure, it looks like they need about another two years.
Also the point can be made that had we not gone in there at all we would have gotten to wherever it is that we are trying to take Iraq with a lot less death, bad US P.R.
I disagree. When I read the Iraqi newspapers and listen to what arabs post about the situation, it is obvious to me nothing would have changed in Iraq without force. At least, we can be proud of eliminating Saddam’s mass killings of his own citizens. Curiously enough, it seems to me that doing nothing militarily about Iran might be the best solution. The hard-liners there are having a difficult time keeping their citizens controlled. The US is enormously popular among the people there.
What do you think about the idea of checking the approval ratings of past "war time presidents" as a way to put his miserable ratings into perspective?
These polls are so subjective that I don’t use them. I feel no different hearing that Bush had the highest rating ever at 90% than when he has a low rating at 30%. When I disapproved of Reagan and Carter, it was because of what I thought they were doing, not because of some opinion poll. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 190
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:06 am: |
|
ihavesinned
Bush's damage to the democratic system transcends poor poll numbers. From the "irregularities" in his first term election, to "recess appointments" to "signing statements", he has done everything but send congress on a permanent vacation. His administration has circumvented every part of the process they could get away with - and when they can't get away with it, they stonewall and claim executive privelege. At this very moment, they are defying congress on subpeonas for high level justice department aides.
And this is different from Clinton, how? Anyways much of this stuff is political games trying to make people look bad. It happens in all administrations. IMO, Congress spends much of its time on non-issues, mostly because they are easier than seeking needed unpopular solutions to difficult problems. For example, we’ve known for the past 15 years that the social security system is in trouble. But, I can’t think of any politician that has stepped forward to provide an answer. It’s our (the voters) own fault really. We punish any politician that is fiscally prudent and reward the politician that “bring home the bacon”, i.e. spends a lot.
LOL, you are still hanging on to the closeness of his first election as something against Bush? Fact: Bush is the 5th American president to be elected President without getting a majority of the popular vote. Fact: There is no system that we humans can create that is perfect and free from all error. Fact: The margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. Fact: There were 9 people (IIRC) on the ballot for President in Florida. Every one of them got more votes than Bush’s margin of victory.
Yaakov, I like what you say about offering solutions with criticisms, but much of the American public still thinks Osama and Saddam are the same guy.
I’ve never heard anybody say that. Can you give me a link to something showing this?
How can there be a solution when nobody will admit their mistakes?
What is the link between admissions of guilt with brainstorming for solutions? |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 64.122.1.158
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:19 am: |
|
Yaakov,
I used to work with a woman that was rabidly pro Bush and it became clear talking to her that she didn't know the difference between Saddam and Osama. She knew she like Bush though. It was frightening - citizenship comes with some responsibility, and at least paying attention doesn't seem so much to ask.
"And this is different from Clinton, how?"
Clinton has not been president for some time now, but invoking his name seems to be a go to tactic for Bush supporters - I usually see more thought in your answers.
However, you are right about there being more important issues to be dealt with. Terrorists will never bring down this country, but diabetes might. One of my main problems with George is his use/abuse of science for political purpose.
This is just another example from the news today:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's most recent surgeon general accused the administration Tuesday of muzzling him for political reasons on hot-button health issues such as emergency contraception and abstinence-only education.... Another report, on global health challenges, was never released after the administration demanded changes that he refused to make, Carmona said.
"I was told this would be a political document or you're not going to release it." Carmona said. "I said it can't be a political document because the surgeon general never releases political documents. I release scientific documents that will help our elected officials and the citizens understand the complex world we live in and what their responsibilities are."
The American people deserve better than this. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 252
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.91.232.230
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:20 am: |
|
You’re kidding, right? Just like the Israelis withdrawing from the Gaza strip stabilized it? No, I'm not. I am also saying that the Gaza situation is actually going to work to the benefit of the Palestinians who want peace with Israel and is making it easier for Israel to work with those who do. The terrorists are isolating themselves.
A look at recent history will show that pulling out in this situation will simply give the terrorists a free and open base to work from. First off, obiously Iraq was not an open base to work from before we got there. Secondly, I have more confidence in the Iraqi's to work it out. There will be some violence I'm sure in the process, but there is plenty now as well.
Curiously enough, it seems to me that doing nothing militarily about Iran might be the best solution. The hard-liners there are having a difficult time keeping their citizens controlled. I believe that the same thing would have occurred in Iraq as well. Unfortunately, patience was trumped by arrogance and stubborness.
These polls are so subjective that I don’t use them. Then why were you so quick to use them before?
Thank you.
P.S. If I might: What is the link between admissions of guilt with brainstorming for solutions? An admission of guilt goes along way towards creating an atmosphere of working together. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 191
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 12:48 pm: |
|
ihavesinned
I used to work with a woman that was rabidly pro Bush and it became clear talking to her that she didn't know the difference between Saddam and Osama.
Your first statement was but much of the American public still thinks Osama and Saddam are the same guy. I think you exaggerated a bit.
Clinton has not been president for some time now…
True. However, people that are critical of one party usually ignore that their own party has done similar things.
One of my main problems with George is his use/abuse of science for political purpose.
Yeah, he could be better here. Convictions are good, but convictions that ignore current evidence or experience aren’t. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 192
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 12:51 pm: |
|
bluewater2
No, I'm not. I am also saying that the Gaza situation is actually going to work to the benefit of the Palestinians who want peace with Israel and is making it easier for Israel to work with those who do. The terrorists are isolating themselves.
First, the Palestinian efforts at incitement for the past 20 years is working. I haven’t read anything recently about any Palestinian that actually wants peace with Israel. Second, I read an article recently that theorizes that the Palestinians did this on purpose. Now the US and Europe will attempt to help Abbas fend off Hamas by sending them new weapons. At a later time, Abbas will send those weapons to Hamas and they will combine to attack Israel again. IMO, that theory isn’t any more wild than your theory.
I believe that the same thing would have occurred in Iraq as well. Unfortunately, patience was trumped by arrogance and stubborness.
The political systems were different. Iraq was ruled by a single dictator who had already attacked his neighbors and his own people several times in the past. Iran is ruled by a group of hard-line clerics. Ahmadinejad doesn’t have dictatorial powers, he is controlled by the clerics. IMO, different tactics are needed for each country. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions.
These polls are so subjective that I don’t use them.
Then why were you so quick to use them before?
Huh?? You used them first in post #232. I only used them to respond to your statement about “the approval rating says it all”.
P.S. If I might: What is the link between admissions of guilt with brainstorming for solutions? An admission of guilt goes along way towards creating an atmosphere of working together.
In politics, an admission of guilt only seems to bring about regime changes. Can you provide some examples to back up your theory? |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 254
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Can you provide some examples to back up your theory? The closest example is my own sense that I am much more willing to discuss things with someone who shows a little humility and admit mistakes over one who stubbornly continues down a path that is only justified by the constant repackaging of intended goals.
Bluewater, you should know better than this. Context is more important, for a more accurate picture it needs to be compared to other Presidential approval ratings. Rather than stating that, perhaps you could have saved some time by stating that you don't use them instead.
One only needs to Google "Olmert and Abbas", or "Israel and Abbas" and find many articles that seem to reflect a newfound desire for the Israeli administration to talk with Abbas, and for Abbas to do the same. Only time will tell where this really leads. There is no doubt, however, that both sides need to publicly state a common peaceful goal of a two state solution, with concessions from both sides.
Abbas has made several statements calling Hamas terrorists. This was unheard of when Arafat was in office, I believe. |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Osama vs Saddam? I think the majority of Americans know the difference. But I took the statement to reflect on the general misinformation out there. Many Americans still think there was a connection between Saddam and 911, which the current administration seems to feed on. No, I don’t think they ever actually stated that there was a connection, but the subtlety of carefully placed words caused many Americans to believe it.
Don’t get me wrong, I was no fan of Saddam and I always felt the people would be better off without him. But there was no rush. The facts before we went into Iraq is that the country was contained – there was no imminent threat and Saddam was not about to attack any neighbor. It was well known that Osama strongly disliked Saddam and wanted him out. It is one of the few Islamic countries where women could be seen in important positions. And they didn’t have to wear those silly dresses with their faces covered. Saddam did not support the Taliban and they did not have a foothold in Iraq. Now we have civil war and Iran is more powerful than ever.
Yaakov, you are correct that all presidents have had their problems and all have made mistakes. I just have a difficult time trying to see what has gone right with this administration. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 4:37 pm: |
|
bluewater2
Can you provide some examples to back up your theory [that an admission of guilt goes along way towards creating an atmosphere of working together.]?
The closest example is my own sense that I am much more willing to discuss things with someone who shows a little humility and admit mistakes over one who stubbornly continues down a path that is only justified by the constant repackaging of intended goals.
I’ll agree that your theory is probably correct for personal relationship or for business. But, thinking about political admissions of guilt from both International and Domestic, it seems to me that the administration that apologizes is the administration that loses their office. I am unable to recall any examples of political bodies that apologized for errors of policy AND kept their positions. What is it about politics that abhors admitting mistakes? Recall the saying that “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” Somehow people that dislike each other can continue the political process.
Bluewater, you should know better than this. Context is more important, for a more accurate picture it needs to be compared to other Presidential approval ratings.
Rather than stating that, perhaps you could have saved some time by stating that you don't use them instead.
You are still missing my point. My response was to point out the silliness of approval polls. One of our best presidents in history, Harry Truman, received the lowest ever approval rating. Also, I was comparing Bush’s current low percentage to other famous president’s low approval ratings. Quoting the 30% out of this context didn’t say all that needed to be said.
There is no doubt, however, that both sides need to publicly state a common peaceful goal of a two state solution, with concessions from both sides.
Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza and in the past, given weapons and money to the Palestinians. When will the Palestinians make some concessions? They were supposed to stop inciting their people and prepare them for a 2-state solution. They never did.
When Israel withdrew, the idea was that the Palestinians would build their economy, build schools, and stop inciting against Israel. Instead all they did was build bomb factories, terrorist training camps, and barrage Israel with missiles. This doesn’t inspire much confidence in Israel to give more land to them. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 64.122.1.158
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Yaakov,
"Your first statement was but much of the American public still thinks Osama and Saddam are the same guy. I think you exaggerated a bit. "
In the Seattle times today, Bush again implied in a quoted speech that Iraq was somehow associated with 9/11. I don't know the hard numbers, but I seem to recall exit polls after the last election showing something like 35 percent believing that Iraq was involved in 9/11. While this is not the same as thinking Osama and Saddam are the same person, it is not that big of a stretch.
The point was that change is not possible in an environment where people are being led to believe we are doing the right thing. Telling mothers that their sons are dying fighting the terrorists who attacked us is simply false. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 257
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 4:48 pm: |
|
I hate to resort to such primitive statements but I just have to say that BUSH IS AN IDIOT. I blame the voters for the mess we are in. Or should I say the non voters. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 198
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 5:07 pm: |
|
ihavesinned
In the Seattle times today, Bush again implied in a quoted speech that Iraq was somehow associated with 9/11. I don't know the hard numbers, but I seem to recall exit polls after the last election showing something like 35 percent believing that Iraq was involved in 9/11. While this is not the same as thinking Osama and Saddam are the same person, it is not that big of a stretch.
You’re still defending your exaggeration?? Whatever, dude.
The point was that change is not possible in an environment where people are being led to believe we are doing the right thing.
I would agree with that.
I don’t see any reason to change. We are doing the right thing in Iraq. It’s a pity that we American are such an impatient people. We could do so much good in the world, but we seem to only bear exerting effort if it is quick and easy.
quote:Unquantified successes? How Iraq has been won!!
By Iqbal Latif
’Kerry’s and Kennedy’s and democrats’ shortsightedness on Iraq is a classic example of instant gratification in politics. The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq’s freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The other day in the hinterland of Gulf, a very senior Arab leader pointed to me, "Ike, when Saddam was hanged, this was the first time in last five decades that an Iraqi leader was brought to justice instead of being pulled on a road through street justice, a civilized court and by a constitutionally elected tribunal disposed him." Ironically, he was under American security until the last five minutes before his hanging; the moment he was delivered to the Iraqis all civility had vanished. It looked like another elimination of an Iraqi leader through a kangaroo court but it was actually the mob taking over once the Americans were out of the picture in the last few minutes before his hanging. Iraq stands at a crossroads ready for a big change, ready for a renaissance; thoughtlessness of the political left is about to kill the waft of freedom and new thinking in the region. Alteration of course and shifting entrenched attitude takes time.
http://www.middleeasttransparent.com/article.php3?id_article=839
|
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 258
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 5:16 pm: |
|
It’s a pity that we American are such an impatient people. I would certainly agree with that one. So impatient that we think we can just march into some other country and turn it into a democracy by force. Why should the American people be any more patient than our own government? I have no doubt that we have the same goals, peace, democracy, etc. etc., but the methods you and I might use to achieve those ends are definately different.
I would say that the method that is being employed, which is the method I take it you agree with, will play out and when the dust settles we will have gained nothing and lost much.
We could do so much good in the world, but we seem to only bear exerting effort if it is quick and easy. I agree with that statement also, but believe that leading by example does more good than leading by force. The amount of resources that have been wasted on this little foray is uncomprehendable. So sad. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 199
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:08 pm: |
|
bluewater2
We are going to have to disagree here. When I think back to the Clinton years [A quick aside here: I liked Clinton and voted for him twice, however I disagreed with his foreign policies], we have already tried doing nothing. All it did was earn us the contempt of the arab world. They attacked us multiple times and our responses were either weak or nonexistent. From what Osama said, he fully expected that his attack in New York would bring America to its knees and cause us to submit to all his demands. He attacked us BECAUSE we were displaying weakness, not because we had attacked him. Arabs respect strength. They view conciliatory moves as weakness. From what I read from Arab writings, force is the only thing they understand or respect.
I agree with you that we “might” gain nothing. Nothing is certain in life but I highly respect Bush for trying. I think we have a decent chance of gaining a lot. If we can shift their attitudes, promote modernism, equalize their females, get them to understand democracy, then we have a chance of civilizing them. The biggest question mark is how long can we commit to staying there and implementing a permanent cultural change. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 146
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.231.151.252
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
|
"You’re still defending your exaggeration?? Whatever, dude. "
You say exaggeration, I say I went with the best intelligence I had at the time  .
Cultural change? Not likely. Look what the palestinians did with their free elections - they elected Hamas. Surely as soon as America is gone, Iraq will elect an Islamic party that will promptly declare elections un-Islamic.
If Arabs respect strength, what is going to encourage them to compromise, which is a key component to any democratic process? Compromise is seen as capitulation by many groups in the area, the Israelis, the Arabs, the Iranians, etc. |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Yaakov, I did not vote for Clinton the first time, but I did for his second term. In the end, I think he did a really good job, under circumstances that no president has ever had to deal with before– personal life being the top story and constantly being pushed by the opposition. They couldn’t get him for his public policies, so they attacked his personal life.
You don’t remember the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan ordered by Clinton. He was ridiculed to no end by the opposing party. We heard a lot of supposition that the attacks were timed to distract public attention from the grand jury's questioning of Lewinsky. I think Clinton tried to address terrorism but had his hands tied and was otherwise pre occupied with public disclosure of his personal life. After the election, it seems everyone in the know suggested that the current administration had no interest in getting advice about the concerns with bin Laden and the Taliban.
Clinton didn’t just sit back and do nothing and he did have a peace plan which was gaining momentum by both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat. When the new administration arrived, everything was thrown out and the whole conflict was back to square one. Again, this current administration wanted nothing to do with any plan started by Clinton.
Current policy – keep the course no matter how wrong you are. Don’t listen to your advisors unless they are lock-step in agreement in what you want to do.
As I said before, no president has been without his faults, none have been perfect. But until now, I could always point out something they did right, no matter what the party. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 3:52 pm: |
|
They view conciliatory moves as weakness. From what I read from Arab writings, force is the only thing they understand or respect. There are smarter ways of providing force. Other ways of demonstrating strength. Demonstrating our strength by attacking a handcuffed enemy was not, in my opinion, a wise move at all.
If we can shift their attitudes, promote modernism, equalize their females, get them to understand democracy, then we have a chance of civilizing them. Certainly that is a worthy goal and had that goal been stated at the time the nation was talking about invading Iraq, we would not have invaded and would have found a smarter way, in my opinion. |
inkorrekt
Member
Username: inkorrekt
Post Number: 69
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 208.54.15.129
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:38 pm: |
|
"Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public? These men and women practised "Authentic Chritianity" and not the one which is sold on Christian TV.Those in office never stopped anyone from practising another faith. In what way did Hillary impress those who are neutral on anything?
She was in a church for her campaign.She tried to imitate the EBONIC expression to impress the black voters. She will do anyting to get elected.
Well, Clinton, Kerry, "Rev" Jesse Jackson can use the pulpit for political propaganda.If a Republican did this, then the entire country will be up in arms over separation of church and state. This does not apply to any democrat.Why is this double standard and hypocrisy? We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power. That is when they will force you to accept their faith. If a muslim gets the power, watch out!!!!!.It will be sword on your throat if you reject Islam and allah.All the Christian bashing will only lead to a Theocratic form of Government like that in Iran. During the past 5 years, Muslims have built more than 5000 mosques alkl over USA,They are slowly infiltrating into the power structure of the Government. Oneday, you will be asked to become muslim. If you refused, your head will be cut off.So, your faith is going to be tested with your life.Get ready. |
inkorrekt
Member
Username: inkorrekt
Post Number: 70
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 208.54.15.129
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:44 pm: |
|
"Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public? These men and women practised "Authentic Chritianity" and not the one which is sold on Christian TV.Those in office never stopped anyone from practising another faith. In what way did Hillary impress those who are neutral on anything?
She was in a church for her campaign.She tried to imitate the EBONIC expression to impress the black voters. She will do anyting to get elected.
Well, Clinton, Kerry, "Rev" Jesse Jackson can use the pulpit for political propaganda.If a Republican did this, then the entire country will be up in arms over separation of church and state. This does not apply to any democrat.Why is this double standard and hypocrisy? We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power. That is when they will force you to accept their faith. If a muslim gets the power, watch out!!!!!.It will be sword on your throat if you reject Islam and allah.All the Christian bashing will only lead to a Theocratic form of Government like that in Iran. During the past 5 years, Muslims have built more than 5000 mosques alkl over USA,They are slowly infiltrating into the power structure of the Government. Oneday, you will be asked to become muslim. If you refused, your head will be cut off.So, your faith is going to be tested with your life.Get ready. |
inkorrekt
Member
Username: inkorrekt
Post Number: 71
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 208.54.15.129
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:48 pm: |
|
"Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public? These men and women practised "Authentic Chritianity" and not the one which is sold on Christian TV.Those in office never stopped anyone from practising another faith. In what way did Hillary impress those who are neutral on anything?
She was in a church for her campaign.She tried to imitate the EBONIC expression to impress the black voters. She will do anyting to get elected.
Well, Clinton, Kerry, "Rev" Jesse Jackson can use the pulpit for political propaganda.If a Republican did this, then the entire country will be up in arms over separation of church and state. This does not apply to any democrat.Why is this double standard and hypocrisy? We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power. That is when they will force you to accept their faith. If a muslim gets the power, watch out!!!!!.It will be sword on your throat if you reject Islam and allah.All the Christian bashing will only lead to a Theocratic form of Government like that in Iran. During the past 5 years, Muslims have built more than 5000 mosques alkl over USA,They are slowly infiltrating into the power structure of the Government. Oneday, you will be asked to become muslim. If you refused, your head will be cut off.So, your faith is going to be tested with your life.Get ready. |
inkorrekt
Member
Username: inkorrekt
Post Number: 72
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 208.54.15.129
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:52 pm: |
|
"Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public? These men and women practised "Authentic Chritianity" and not the one which is sold on Christian TV.Those in office never stopped anyone from practising another faith. In what way did Hillary impress those who are neutral on anything?
She was in a church for her campaign.She tried to imitate the EBONIC expression to impress the black voters. She will do anyting to get elected.
Well, Clinton, Kerry, "Rev" Jesse Jackson can use the pulpit for political propaganda.If a Republican did this, then the entire country will be up in arms over separation of church and state. This does not apply to any democrat.Why is this double standard and hypocrisy? We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power. That is when they will force you to accept their faith. If a muslim gets the power, watch out!!!!!.It will be sword on your throat if you reject Islam and allah.All the Christian bashing will only lead to a Theocratic form of Government like that in Iran. During the past 5 years, Muslims have built more than 5000 mosques alkl over USA,They are slowly infiltrating into the power structure of the Government. Oneday, you will be asked to become muslim. If you refused, your head will be cut off.So, your faith is going to be tested with your life.Get ready. |
inkorrekt
Member
Username: inkorrekt
Post Number: 73
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 208.54.15.129
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:57 pm: |
|
"Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public? These men and women practised "Authentic Chritianity" and not the one which is sold on Christian TV.Those in office never stopped anyone from practising another faith. In what way did Hillary impress those who are neutral on anything?
She was in a church for her campaign.She tried to imitate the EBONIC expression to impress the black voters. She will do anyting to get elected.
Well, Clinton, Kerry, "Rev" Jesse Jackson can use the pulpit for political propaganda.If a Republican did this, then the entire country will be up in arms over separation of church and state. This does not apply to any democrat.Why is this double standard and hypocrisy? We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power. That is when they will force you to accept their faith. If a muslim gets the power, watch out!!!!!.It will be sword on your throat if you reject Islam and allah.All the Christian bashing will only lead to a Theocratic form of Government like that in Iran. During the past 5 years, Muslims have built more than 5000 mosques alkl over USA,They are slowly infiltrating into the power structure of the Government. Oneday, you will be asked to become muslim. If you refused, your head will be cut off.So, your faith is going to be tested with your life.Get ready. |
rachelengland
Intermediate Member
Username: rachelengland
Post Number: 279
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 206.148.112.145
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Can you delete like 4 of those posts or ask the Mod to do it?? geesh... |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 746
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:33 pm: |
|
""Original Intent" is a collection of historic facts since the founding of this country. Did you know that anyone who ran for public office had to declare his/ her faith in Jesus Christ in public?"
References please and specific case history. This can't possibly be true, given history, and some of the presidents we have had. Two examples Thomas Jefferson- have you ever heard of teh famous Jefferson bible? Check it out.
And John Adams- here is a little clipping from an article- please feel free to investigate,
"America's second and sixth presidents were thus made to look as though they would support the Religious Right if they were alive today. Both of them, however, would have little regard for the Religious Right, and the Religious Right would have little use for them.
John Adams's biographer and the editor of his Works, his grandson Charles Francis Adams, wrote that "with the independent spirit which in early life had driven him from the ministry, [Adams rejected] the prominent doctrines of Calvinism, the trinity, the atonement and election. . . ."
Moreover, church-state scholar Greg Hamilton says John Adams criticized the notion of Christ's divinity as an "awful blasphemy." So much for the claim that he accepted the Bible as the word of God.
Those views alone would have earned Adams harsh denunciations from the Religious Right. In their eyes, he would have been anathema.
In his book 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught describes John Adams as "another non-Christian president of the United States." He explains that Adams was a "Deist who rejected the divinity of Christ."
These are quotes from John Adams president,
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoly, article 11
"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed."
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."
Jefferson is unnessary to elaborate upon. It is nearly common knowledge, his views on religion were unorthodox. |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 747
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:34 pm: |
|
http://www.religionrealitycheck.org/pdf/deism.pdf |
still_small_voice
Advanced Member
Username: still_small_voice
Post Number: 748
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.135
| | Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:37 pm: |
|
"We all enjoy our freedoms when we have Christians in power.Watch when a non christian is given the power."
So you are saying this is the lesser of two evils? Only two possible choices? |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 201
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 9:33 am: |
|
ba2
In the end, I think he [Clinton] did a really good job, under circumstances that no president has ever had to deal with before– personal life being the top story and constantly being pushed by the opposition. They couldn’t get him for his public policies, so they attacked his personal life.
ROFLMAO
Thomas Jefferson was incessantly vilified by the press. He said to Samuel Smith, 1798:
quote:Were I to undertake to answer the calumnies of the newspapers, it would be more than all my own time, & that of 20. aids could effect. For while I should be answering one, twenty new ones would be invented.
And to Dr. Walter Jones, 1814:
quote:I deplore, with you, the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them; and I enclose you a recent sample, the production of a New England judge, as a proof of the abyss of degradation into which we are fallen.
I’d say, almost every single president was attacked on their personal lives. It’s really a glass bowl position.
You don’t remember the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan ordered by Clinton.
I remember them. It was a feeble response. He allowed comments about his personal life to distract him from pursuing definitive national goals. This is what elevates GW Bush above Clinton.
Clinton didn’t just sit back and do nothing and he did have a peace plan which was gaining momentum by both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat.
Oy. It is sad that you seem to be ignoring history in pursuit of your hatred of Bush.
Current policy – keep the course no matter how wrong you are.
First, the goals aren’t wrong. Second, he has adjusted in response to changes on the ground. Obviously we committed too few troops, he corrected that.
As I said before, no president has been without his faults, none have been perfect. But until now, I could always point out something they did right, no matter what the party.
OK. For the last 5 Presidents before GW Bush (i.e. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush One, and Clinton), list one thing that they each did right. |
ihavesinned
Intermediate Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 148
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 64.122.1.158
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 11:30 am: |
|
"First, the goals aren’t wrong."
What exactly were those? It seems all of the original justifications for the Iraq war have turned out to be false. Is the goal now to spread Democracy?
"Second, he has adjusted in response to changes on the ground. Obviously we committed too few troops, he corrected that. "
Not before purging high level military commanders, all the way up to a four star general who suggested the original troop/money allocation was insufficient.
"He allowed comments about his personal life to distract him from pursuing definitive national goals. This is what elevates GW Bush above Clinton."
Are you sure a Republican congress stonewalling his policies didn't have something to do with it? Clinton recognized the threat of Al Quaeda years before his Republican colleagues did. When he tried to get rid of Osama, he was accused of deflecting attention from the important Monica Lewinsky investigation. |
bluewater2
Intermediate Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 265
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 75.42.171.14
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 12:26 pm: |
|
"Second, he has adjusted in response to changes on the ground. Obviously we committed too few troops, he corrected that." A perfect example of Bush's arrogance and lack of humility is his adding troop strength, this "surge", without ever acknowledging the original insufficient troop strengths.
Certainly all of the presidents that you mention have their share of failures and successes. What the current president lacks that the others had was the ability to communicate. Bush cannot even communicate a GOOD policy. He has virtually no credibility. The ability to communicate policy effectively is one of the most valuable tools that the leader of a country can possess. Bush does not have this ability.
His latest ignorant comment, just yesterday: 'The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,' he said, 'were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.'" |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 83
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Yaakov, to answer your question:
Ford: President Ford was only in office for a few years, but I remember it well. He assumed office at a terrible time in our nation's history. America was divided by political turmoil (Watergate) and wracked by inflation and run away debt. Gerald Ford assumed the presidency when the nation needed a leader of character – this is one thing just about everyone has always agreed on, Ford was a man with solid character. Proposed defense budgets were unreasonably low before President Ford took office, this was with the war going on. President Ford persuaded Congress to vote a major increase in defense spending. The budget was beginning to resemble one with control and the economy was improving dramatically. Still, the war caused a terrible debt which seemed impossible to overcome. But mostly, I remember Ford as being one who could be trusted. After our experience with Nixon, this was tremendous. My gut feeling is that he might have been one of the great ones.
Carter: He had a brilliant mind but foreign affairs is his legacy. The outstanding achievement of the Carter presidency was the peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. He also negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) with the Soviet Union, but before the Senate could vote to ratify the treaty, they invaded Afghanistan and Carter withdrew the treaty from consideration. However, both agreed informally to abide by the terms of the treaty, even though neither side ever ratified it officially. Carter placed human relations and a government’s treatment towards its citizens as a very high priority. In fact, it probably is what got him in trouble with some foreign countries (Iran). Economically, the oil shortage and rapid increase in oil prices (crude oil increased about 10X’s) kept his economic policies from getting a fair chance. Even with that, our nations debt did not rise so dramatically. On a side note, since leaving the presidency, Jimmy Carter's personal diplomacy has helped to defuse international crises in hot spots from North Korea to Haiti. In 2002, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Clearly, a very good man with high moral values.
Reagan: Reagan presided over eight years of relative peace, the first to reach an arms reduction accord with the Soviets, and the American president who helped make it possible for Mikhail Gorbachev to begin the process of restructuring the Soviet Union. I don’t think any democrat could have produced a better arms treaty with the Soviets. It took someone with his conservative credentials for this to happen. Although I don’t agree with Reagan’s “trickle down” economic theory (our nation’s debt raised by unprecedented levels when oil prices actually dropped), under Carter, inflation was out of control, and Reagan reversed that trend. However, the greatest thing about Reagan is that mostly I saw him as an outstanding national cheerleader. For the first time since Kennedy, we as a nation felt pretty good about ourselves. We once again felt proud to say we were American. This was a great accomplishment. |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 84
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Yaakov – cont’
Bush “the elder”: The two proudest accomplishments of Bush's presidency were the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (the ADA) and the successful war against Iraq. Here the U.S. lead a world coalition, including Arab countries which had long distrusted the United States. This experience of cooperation led to a renewal of the stalled Middle East peace process. Bush the elder understood the need for the world cooperation and did not move without that support. Additionally, probably due to his own experiences and understanding as to the difficulties of invading and occupying a foreign land, he stopped short of invasion. The mission was accomplished and we simply contained Sadam. Economically, Bush had boxed himself into a corner with his campaign promise, "Read my lips: No new taxes." However, he had the moral fortitude to sign a bill into law to raise taxes to try to reduce the deficit. He was not stuck on a failed idea.
Clinton: I know, the conservatives, and I was once one of them, will say he got the credit for his predecessors. I say “hogwash”. Under Clinton, we had the longest economic expansion in American history. We had fiscal discipline and numerous foreign markets were opened along with investments in American which helped create the conditions for this economic growth. His budget paid down considerable debt (largest pay down in American history) and we finally had budget surpluses. I personally never thought I would see that again in my lifetime. All those economic gains have been lost in the last few years. The Republicans liked to call the Democrats the tax and spend party, but Clinton’s budget actually saw federal government spending as a share of the economy decrease. His economic policies where as good as anyone’s. It seems that on foreign affairs he did a more than adequate job, although it is obvious you didn’t like his direction. Do you think any president could have started an all out attack into Afghanistan? Until 911, no way. So sending in cruise missiles was no small thing. It was a major move! And he was accused of doing it just to take the heat off the Lewinski hearings. Congress fought him every step of the way. But, perhaps you are right, he did let his personal life get in the way. If he could have kept his head above his waist, he might have gone down as one of the great ones. Instead, he will be remembered mostly for the sleaze.
I can't come up with anything positive about the current administration. |
ba2
Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 86
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.206
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Yaakov, What are GW’s strengths? Seriously, I am trying to think of some.
He campaigned as a uniter – but we are more divided than ever.
He spoke against weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of more countries – North Korea is now a nuclear power and Iran may be soon.
Fuel prices are at record highs.
Interest rates are rising
Home starts are down – very |
