RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

May 16th 05, 11:58 AM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
it primarily the left who are

spearheading an intensified effort to remove
all signs of religion from government
processes, even though most have been
around since this country was founded.

So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law
clearly defines?

Nothing, if that's indeed the case.

You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself.

The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since
the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and
1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005.

But those
religious influences are adorned all over our
government buildings and in our government
business. Why is it only now do certain people
find exception to it?

You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that
just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal
or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it.

In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have
accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a
small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it.

When it's not illegal, I agree with it.
The fact is that despite recent
misinterpretations of the establishment clause
in the constitution by left wing zealots, we
have had religious influences in our
government from the very beginning.

That's rich..and wrong.

No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or hopelessly biased not
to see it.

Once again I ask you to explain how anything
these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding
this issue while the republicans control the house and senate.

In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist
democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a
controlling influence.

Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank
neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly
indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and
state intact.

It was never there in the first place. At least not to the degree that
the zealots are calling for now.

Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on
many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon
others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and
admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold
them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you
believe.

I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the
ones who reelected G.W. Bush.

I would argue that it was those influences
which made this country one of strong moral
and ethical principles.

In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this
country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on
the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and
ethical principle.

No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical
principles. You should learn to read for content, before making
another of your erroneous conclusions.

You flip flop more than Bush.

No, you misinterpret and assume such as a result of your
misinterpretations.

I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do
believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a
serious mistake.

Then you and I do share some agreement in this area. But the reason
why God was taken out of public schools was a direct result of
anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an extreme interpretation of
"separation of church and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate"
feat.

There was once a day when democrats and
republicans practiced a little thing called
compromise.

There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for
themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and
blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this
country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party.

Such as?

That is the
most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you
appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You
simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the
leader you selected.

What failures can be blamed on our leader?

In other words, you seek to blame others when
responsibility for your leader's action must be taken.

Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the failure of Social
Security, but the democrats will not even allow his plan to come to a
full vote, while offering nothing of their own to counter it. They'd
rather just pretend that there's no problem (Even though prominent
leaders of their own party were running around like chicken little
about SS failing when Clinton was in office).

Blaming another
political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures
illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to
effectively discuss the political process.

Your opinion notwithstanding, there is not one thing you can
definitively pin on Bush as a "failure". On the other hand, for the
last 4 years, the democratic party has become the party of hatred and
obstruction. If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a
republican, their first instinct is to oppose it.

Like I said before, before the extreme polarization of the political
parties in Washington, you could actually get things done with a
little compromise.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj