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

May 16th 05, 03:09 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.

Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and
reject change and progress.

But those

religious influences are adorned all over our

government buildings and in our government

business.

So are other religious symbols besides Christianity.

Why is it only now do certain people find

exception to it?

You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying
to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats.
_
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.

You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for
justifying it, valid to only yourself.

When it's not illegal, I agree with it.

Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions.
You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim
you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane,
paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law.
Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed
(regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite.

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.
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.

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

hopelessly biased not to see it.

Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger
misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the
only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the
country.

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.

That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore
is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the
republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one
party rule...theirs.
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.

Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned
ignorance.

At least not to the degree that the zealots are

calling for now.

The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs.
=A0=A0Because 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.

The majority didn't vote, David. Someone with your caliber of education
should know better, but then again, youare also of the rabid pack who
continue to erroneously claim Bush had a mandate....if he did, it was
with Jeff Gannon.

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.

No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber".

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.

The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you
and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point,
until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments
regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics
and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge.
_
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.

I disagree. One doesn't need be anti-religious in order to disagree with
Christian dogma being displayed in public areas. This is your own short
sightedness.

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?

Your entire religious argument regarding the left.
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?

Lately? Dharfur. N Korea. Providing adequate armor to the troops that
would save lives. Balancing the budget...just for an immediate start.
_
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,

There is no failure of SS, unless Bush is permitted to monkey with it.

while offering nothing of their own to counter

it.

Lockbox.

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,

My "opinion" that blaming the left for Bush failures illustrates you
really have a great deal to learn is no opinion, but fact.

there is not one thing you can definitively pin

on Bush as a "failure".

See above.

On the other hand, for the last 4 years, the

democratic party has become the party of

hatred and obstruction.

Demos have nothing to do with it. An attempt to cloud the topic that you
keep failing with by invoking the left when faced with Bush failures is
useless.

-
If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a

republican, their first instinct is to oppose it.

You continue to invoke demos for all the republican failures. Classic.

Like I said before, before the extreme

polarization of the political parties in

Washington, you could actually get things

done with a little compromise.

And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined
and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him,
many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into
failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have
distanced themselves.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj