THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

[luns101]

While I know how hard sarcasm is to detect on teh intarwebs, I feel you completely missed the point. I responded sarcastically to Skittles asking why Christians couldn't be democrats, with the notion that all christians are alike and don't tolerate other religions or views.

Ahhhh, ok. I'll have to take your word for it. Usually though when I send the sarcasm back at the original poster to make a point they say, "I was was just joking" or "I wasn't really serious". When I'm silent about it they continue to build upon their original post to show that Christians are terrible people who go around oppressing everyone.

But point taken.

[Napoleon Ier]

As the republican party progressively become more modern and allow social progresses such as abortion, the democrats and th republicans will become equal in th eyes of many Christians. The democrats will sap elecrotate from the Republicans, maybe the Christian right will found its own party (any Americans up to speed and knowleagable about that recently announced possibilty please inform me), and the ineluctable collapse of the Republicans will ensue.

Well, thats the most probable outcome as far as I see, though, by no means is this inevitable. Really though the Republicans made their own grave for the next two decades when they put up W. for a second term. Unless the democrats are stupid enough to put up Hillary.

[unriggable]

I'm still unsure how anybody can think of this country as being religious.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm still unsure how anybody can think of this country as being religious.

Its the country in its depths. The foundation may not be Christian, but look at deep America (I apologise as I a not American and cannot understand the country fully, hence I dont wish to be smug or seeming all-knowing) and I sincerely believe it is Christian. Its documents and many of its greats may not be, but the country's essence is Christian. I forget who said this, but I lik it "Clinton went on a campaign against gun-toting religious fundamentalists. Just what did he think landed at Plymouth Rock?"

[unriggable]

But this isn't about the country's roots, it's about the faith of the founding fathers. Most of them were christian only to avoid persecution.

[Guiscard]

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

And you though Bush was right because he was FOR promoting a strong America and teaching those terrorists in Iraq a lesson. Come on. Don't give me this 'waking up' shit, you've just jumped ship. I've argued many many many times about the WMDs thing. It was an obvious case. You only believe the WMDs exist if you support the Bush view, and even that isn't exactly tenable when we take into account the various government reports and comissions which find no evidence. Same with the causes for war. Countless countless times those who think the invasion was unjustified have rolled out the arguments.

I just quickly googled 'Ron Paul + Iraq'. I got this speech http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html.

In it, Ron Paul makes the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as we have been making all along. Almost to the letter. The exact reasons and arguments we've trotted out every time in response to the Bush propaganda you so readily accepted. He could just as easily be a militant liberal if we just take the issue of Iraq into account rather than his other political opinions.

So yes, the above poster was dead on the mark. You jump ship to the anti-war camp because your new savior tells you to, not because he's come up with some miraculous new evidence.

Maybe I'm ignoring the constitutional argument. So I tried 'Ron Paul + Iraq + Constitution' and I got: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

I know for a fact that I have, in an argument with you previously, made the point that the US has not formally declared war on anyone since WWII and that this was unconstitutional. Sorry... let me just make that point again. I myself have previously made exactly the same arguments that Ron Paul is making, almost down to the letter. This, more than anything, has convinced me that you are entirely dead to the world. You won't listen to anything other than the ramblings of whichever right-wing polemicist you support at the time.

Pull the other one.

I'll take it that you agree with me here Jay...

[Napoleon Ier]

America's founding fathers were Christian in great part. I dont think you can say thy tried to avoid persecution. Again, if I err, tell me, you probably know more about you're own country's histroy than I do, but those who didnt believe just came out with it (Jefferson et al. deists).
Christianity is so imbued in America (as I imagine it anyway), (the quaint Virginia plantation with the paterfamilias and the nice pinewood church, if you want the general lines I think of the USA along, certainly in C18-19 nyway) that you cant dissociate America from it. It is its heritage. The founding fathers, however, I concede, did want, I believe (please, jay et al., argue back, I claim no great knowledge of the matter), a laic republic.

[unriggable]

Actually, there's enough proof in this thread to void your statement.

[Napoleon Ier]

Actually, there's enough proof in this thread to void your statement.

yes but its midnight. also im trying to watch a film. please expound. (im being lazy, sorry, but I dont want to trudge hrough 12 pages of stuff.)

[heavycola]

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

And you though Bush was right because he was FOR promoting a strong America and teaching those terrorists in Iraq a lesson. Come on. Don't give me this 'waking up' shit, you've just jumped ship. I've argued many many many times about the WMDs thing. It was an obvious case. You only believe the WMDs exist if you support the Bush view, and even that isn't exactly tenable when we take into account the various government reports and comissions which find no evidence. Same with the causes for war. Countless countless times those who think the invasion was unjustified have rolled out the arguments.

I just quickly googled 'Ron Paul + Iraq'. I got this speech http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html.

In it, Ron Paul makes the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as we have been making all along. Almost to the letter. The exact reasons and arguments we've trotted out every time in response to the Bush propaganda you so readily accepted. He could just as easily be a militant liberal if we just take the issue of Iraq into account rather than his other political opinions.

So yes, the above poster was dead on the mark. You jump ship to the anti-war camp because your new savior tells you to, not because he's come up with some miraculous new evidence.

Maybe I'm ignoring the constitutional argument. So I tried 'Ron Paul + Iraq + Constitution' and I got: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

I know for a fact that I have, in an argument with you previously, made the point that the US has not formally declared war on anyone since WWII and that this was unconstitutional. Sorry... let me just make that point again. I myself have previously made exactly the same arguments that Ron Paul is making, almost down to the letter. This, more than anything, has convinced me that you are entirely dead to the world. You won't listen to anything other than the ramblings of whichever right-wing polemicist you support at the time.

Pull the other one.

I'll take it that you agree with me here Jay...

GUISCARD IN '08

[Guiscard]

GUISCARD IN '08

No... I'm flattered but no... I couldn't....... could I?

[beezer]

I'm still unsure how anybody can think of this country as being religious.

Because we read founding documents and quotes in context. I already provided the links to prove what you did was dishonest.

[jay_a2j]

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

And you though Bush was right because he was FOR promoting a strong America and teaching those terrorists in Iraq a lesson. Come on. Don't give me this 'waking up' shit, you've just jumped ship. I've argued many many many times about the WMDs thing. It was an obvious case. You only believe the WMDs exist if you support the Bush view, and even that isn't exactly tenable when we take into account the various government reports and comissions which find no evidence. Same with the causes for war. Countless countless times those who think the invasion was unjustified have rolled out the arguments.

I just quickly googled 'Ron Paul + Iraq'. I got this speech http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html.

In it, Ron Paul makes the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as we have been making all along. Almost to the letter. The exact reasons and arguments we've trotted out every time in response to the Bush propaganda you so readily accepted. He could just as easily be a militant liberal if we just take the issue of Iraq into account rather than his other political opinions.

So yes, the above poster was dead on the mark. You jump ship to the anti-war camp because your new savior tells you to, not because he's come up with some miraculous new evidence.

Maybe I'm ignoring the constitutional argument. So I tried 'Ron Paul + Iraq + Constitution' and I got: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

I know for a fact that I have, in an argument with you previously, made the point that the US has not formally declared war on anyone since WWII and that this was unconstitutional. Sorry... let me just make that point again. I myself have previously made exactly the same arguments that Ron Paul is making, almost down to the letter. This, more than anything, has convinced me that you are entirely dead to the world. You won't listen to anything other than the ramblings of whichever right-wing polemicist you support at the time.

Pull the other one.

I'll take it that you agree with me here Jay...

No, not at all. But I decided that to rebut it would be useless as you will just find an alternate excuse of how you think I come up with what I believe.

You can tell me anything you want, I do not know you, do not know if you posses credibility or not. I will not believe because YOU say. Now Ron Paul on the other hand has established credibility over the many years he has been in office.

Get over yourself Guiscard. Stop trying to analyze my beliefs. Can you not be content with the fact that I now agree with you? Or do you just like to argue?

[Guiscard]

No, not at all. But I decided that to rebut it would be useless as you will just find an alternate excuse of how you think I come up with what I believe.

You can tell me anything you want, I do not know you, do not know if you posses credibility or not. I will not believe because YOU say. Now Ron Paul on the other hand has established credibility over the many years he has been in office.

Get over yourself Guiscard. Stop trying to analyze my beliefs. Can you not be content with the fact that I now agree with you? Or do you just like to argue?

I just see it as ridiculously hypocritical that you pretend to be open to the opinions of others, to take in what people are saying in debates, yet you obviously and blatantly ignored every reasoning given by myself and others at the time. You obviously don't take the time to investigate what others have to say, you just go with whoever your personal Saviour is for the week. When people first brought up the issue of WMDs being transported into Syria, for example, I wasn't aware of the evidence for or against until I went away and did some research, did some reading and decided for myself. I didn't formulate my opinion around a presidential candidate's rhetoric. There were plenty of chances for you to change your mind, we gave sources, evidence, links, facts and figures... but no. All liberal communist propaganda aimed at attacking America and all that's right and free in the world. I made the exact same argument about Iraq being unconstitutional in nature, but that didn't get through. In fact, you don't even remember, such is the strength of your blinkers. It has nothing to do with who I am. I don't have any idea whatsoever about the identity of Luns or Stopper or whoever, but I take what they say into account (perhaps not Stopper so much), do a little thinking of my own and then formulate an opinion. I just find a supreme irony in the whole affair.

[jay_a2j]

No, not at all. But I decided that to rebut it would be useless as you will just find an alternate excuse of how you think I come up with what I believe.

You can tell me anything you want, I do not know you, do not know if you posses credibility or not. I will not believe because YOU say. Now Ron Paul on the other hand has established credibility over the many years he has been in office.

Get over yourself Guiscard. Stop trying to analyze my beliefs. Can you not be content with the fact that I now agree with you? Or do you just like to argue?

I just see it as ridiculously hypocritical that you pretend to be open to the opinions of others, to take in what people are saying in debates, yet you obviously and blatantly ignored every reasoning given by myself and others at the time. You obviously don't take the time to investigate what others have to say, you just go with whoever your personal Saviour is for the week. When people first brought up the issue of WMDs being transported into Syria, for example, I wasn't aware of the evidence for or against until I went away and did some research, did some reading and decided for myself. I didn't formulate my opinion around a presidential candidate's rhetoric. There were plenty of chances for you to change your mind, we gave sources, evidence, links, facts and figures... but no. All liberal communist propaganda aimed at attacking America and all that's right and free in the world. I made the exact same argument about Iraq being unconstitutional in nature, but that didn't get through. In fact, you don't even remember, such is the strength of your blinkers. It has nothing to do with who I am. I don't have any idea whatsoever about the identity of Luns or Stopper or whoever, but I take what they say into account (perhaps not Stopper so much), do a little thinking of my own and then formulate an opinion. I just find a supreme irony in the whole affair.

You don't know me, you don't know that I truly ponder my stances. With all the contradicting information circulating out there, its hard to be sure of anything. I have gone back and forth on the 911 conspiracy for example. Who to believe? One side says the fire was not hot enough to melt steel. The other says Bush couldn't pull off spelling "conspiracy" much less be involved in one. For every website you post that the Iraq war is unjust I can find one that says it's justified. For every website that says Bin laden was behind 911 I can find one that says Bush was. It's mass information and misinformation and all anyone can do is listen to both sides and make a judgement for themselves.

As I said before, I was initially against going into Iraq. Tried to "stay the course" with Bush as long as I could. Then the talk about invading Iran starts. Enough is enough. Before Ron Paul came along.... I was already re-thinking my position. It just so happens that Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican running that shares many of the same beliefs as me AND is against the war.

[beezer]

You don't know me, you don't know that I truly ponder my stances. With all the contradicting information circulating out there, its hard to be sure of anything. I have gone back and forth on the 911 conspiracy for example. Who to believe? One side says the fire was not hot enough to melt steel. The other says Bush couldn't pull off spelling "conspiracy" much less be involved in one. For every website you post that the Iraq war is unjust I can find one that says it's justified. For every website that says Bin laden was behind 911 I can find one that says Bush was. It's mass information and misinformation and all anyone can do is listen to both sides and make a judgement for themselves.

As I said before, I was initially against going into Iraq. Tried to "stay the course" with Bush as long as I could. Then the talk about invading Iran starts. Enough is enough. Before Ron Paul came along.... I was already re-thinking my position. It just so happens that Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican running that shares many of the same beliefs as me AND is against the war.

I can't say I believe in your positions jay but it's nice to see you fire back every once in awhile.