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

May 17th 05, 02:19 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:09:54 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

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.

Not all change is actually "progress". It's a matter of some
subjectivity depending on your perspective.

But those
religious influences are adorned all over our
government buildings and in our government
business.

So are other religious symbols besides Christianity.

Not many. Most are Christian. But even so, it illustrates the
influence of God, no matter what faith you choose to worship him with.

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.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was
founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed
down other people's throats" is held by those who have been
conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and
see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people
who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to.

_
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.

You still demonstrate not knowing the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Nothing in my statement is hypocritical.

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.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.

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 wrong. Just look at the Supreme court building and
observe the sculpture of Moses holding the 10 commandments. And that
is but one example of many.

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.

If what you allege was the case, the whole "PC" movement would have
been expunged from the country by now. It's not so simple to overturn
a few decades of liberal indoctrination, But at least the mainstream
is now awake and aware of what had previously been a fairly low
profile covert operation. But now all the underhanded, erroneous,
immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are put up for all to
see and to judge accordingly.

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.

How? There is still a vote. In a vote,the majority rules. That's the
way any vote works. I suppose you'd rather apply a "filibuster-ike"
rule to challenge any majority vote. Maybe we should be filibustering
the last election, so that you PEST sufferers could leverage your
minority rule to place Kerry in office.

That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by the minority to
overturn the wishes of the majority. So tell me, how is THAT any more
fair, than having a straight up or down vote? And in typical
democratic hypocrisy, the same people who are screaming to save the
filibuster now, were on record as in favor of removing it, over ten
years back, when the democrats were in the majority in congress.

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.

Where is the proof? There is NOTHING in the constitution which calls
for the complete separation of church and state. All it does is
prevent the establishment of a state sponsored or endorsed religion,
and prevents the government from denying someone the right to observe
their religion of choice. Nowhere does the constitution claim or imply
that congress persons, the president, justices, or other people shall
not be people of faith. Nor does it ban the practices of referring to
God in an oath, or during any other proceeding of the government. Did
you know that every session of congress begins with a prayer, lead by
a staff preacher who is paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Did you know that there are Bible verses etched in stone all over the
federal buildings and monuments in D.C.? There are pictures of the 10
commandments inside the supreme court?

There has NEVER been a complete separation of church and state in this
government. The whole idea of any separation in the beginning was not
to protect government from religion, it was to protect religion from
government.

Now go do some research before you buy into left wing propaganda.

The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs.
**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.

The majority didn't vote, David.

The majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. As for the rest,
who's to say who they would have favored. Any speculation on your
part, is just that. Besides, those who don't play an active part in
their government, have no right to complain about it.

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".

Yes, MADE as in FOUNDED, as in "past tense". I know you have trouble
comprehending, but I didn't think I had to drop to this level to
explain it to you.

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 have provided for each and every legal, grammatical, historical
point that I have made. In every case that you've challenged me, I
have proven you wrong, from your ridiculous comments regarding the
term "forensic", to the usage of "empirical observation", to your
erroneous claim that the Commonwealth of Pa does not give at least a 5
MPH speed tolerance for speeders. When you can't weasel out of that,
you change the subject and invent a lie that I never said, and then
try to attribute it to me. Your inept comprehension of the
constitution, and your hopelessly biased sense of politics is more
than just a little apparent. Your understanding of how government
works is not much different than that of the naive protesters who
burned their draft cards on college lawns in the 60's. They were
clueless and impressionable, and so are you. Prime candidates for
indoctrination into the communist party then, or liberal propaganda
now.

So tell me again about education, fishing boat boy. You and Frank
should go into that lawn care business together. Both of you are
severe underachievers.

_
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.

What has changed in the last 100 years, in that regard, and why is it
no longer valid? Is it "dogma" to continue to believe in God? If you
truly believe that religion and faith are stagnant "dogma", then what
you are saying is that you no longer believe. So how can you be
concerned with taking God out of schools, when you call your own
"faith", "Christian dogma"?

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.

You deny that the left are engaged in a propaganda war for the hearts
and minds of easily mislead individuals? If I thought you would
understand, I would gladly engage you in a debate comparing the
relative merits of the ideology of the left versus the right. But I
fear it would be a total waste of my time.

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.

How is any of that a failure, when both are actions still in motion?
It can only be deemed a failure when we are defeated.

_
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.

Bill Clinton, and other prominent democrats are on record as
disagreeing with you. At least before Bush was in office, and it was
their platform to make.

Perhaps you would tell the class why having direct control of your own
interest bearing retirement account is less desirable than having the
government administer it. Someone who claims to embrace less
government would be happy to have the government out of the SS
picture.

Personally I want ALL of my S.S. money to be diverted into my existing
401K. THAT is the solution that I would want. But Bush needs to move
gradually as there are a lot of people who paid into SS and are
expecting something out of it. But a gradual shift over to private
accounts over time, makes the most sense.

while offering nothing of their own to counter
it.

Lockbox.

Which means nothing. It's status quo with a fancy name attached to it.
Since SS is based on treasury bonds, it is affected by budgets and
debt, so it can never really be in a "lock box"

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.

The truth was always something which eludes you. Look it up if you
don't believe me. Clinton made SS a campaign issue.

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 have been no "failures" to accurately blame on Bush.

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.

And you are a tongue dragging, lock step liberal, the more you deny
your own party's failings. No one is more shrill than Al Gore, or
Howard Dean. No one is as clueless as Nancy Pelosi. No one twists the
facts like Barbara Boxer. No one is more hypocritical than Harry Reid.
Even Hillary Clinton realizes the hopelessness of her own party's
liberal ideology and has been engaged in the political equivalent of
"extreme makeover", by trying to re-invent herself as a much more
moderate than a liberal. Her latest stunt of teaming up with Newt
Gingrich is further evidence of that. All of this, of course, is to
make her an electable candidate in '08. But it's all a lie.

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.

Please provide a list of all "failures".

At least republicans are willing to do something. A democrat's
favorite word is "No".

And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined
and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him,

How did Bush manage to do that? I don't recall him ever standing up
and declaring that the "enemy" was not liberals (Although in some
respects, that's true)

many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into
failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have
distanced themselves.

You keep claiming that the party mission has "failed", yet there is
nothing that indicates anything of the sort. The economy is growing,
the war in Iraq is gradually going our way. There is a surge in a
desire for democracy in the middle east. While the price of oil is
high, there is not much that our government can do to affect it. We
have tried to present an energy policy, to hopefully mitigate some of
the energy concerns, but once again the democrats are trying to block
it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"