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

May 17th 05, 04:20 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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".

Sure it is. What you are trying to convey is progress isn't always a
good thing. But change is inevitable, and you are always playing
cath-up. Hell, you are years behind in the knowledge of radio law and
government law.

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.

Haha,,talk about subjective terms.

Most are Christian.

You have never been west of the Mississippi, obviously. Have you ever
been west of Pa?

But even so, it illustrates the influence of God,

no matter what faith you choose to worship

him with.

So you worship Allah.,,,the same God you worship, but with a different
name.

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.

But they were never FORCED until now.

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.

What a hypocrite you continue to be,,,you talk morebull**** than a
fertilizer farm. One simple christian thing here, DAve.."Thou shall not
judge".

Yet it is those same people who are the ones

at odds with our society, as history will testify

to.

Your beliefs are not in any way representative of society and society is
very diversified, despite your zero toerance for those expressing
different religious or lifestyles from your own.

_
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.

How was it endorsed? "Congress shall make no law........"..it was never
endorsed, you just chose to misapply another term when you found
yourself talking ahead of your brain.

It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY
that has a problem with it.

Which you continue to blame for the Bush failures.
_
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.

Wrong,,,it is not permitted to "cruise" in the right lane in Pa.

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.

Your personal dislikes and opinions of the law are irrelevant to your
hypocrisy of offering excuses why you break the law. Your words were
"There is NO excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. The
hows and whys are irrelevant. You break the law, you're a criminal. :
And my favorite "If you don;t like the law, you are bound to obey them
or lobby to have them legally changed". So go ahead David, instead of
bitching about it and doing a siren's dance around your hypocrisy and
crying about how the law is written and whining about traffic, take your
own advice and change the law you break, you criminal, you.

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.

You snipped my post and to what you replied "no it's not"....you lost
this point. Next subject.

_
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,

Allege? Are not the repubs in charge? Yet, you continue ot blame those
whoare not in charge. Classic abdication of those responsible...your
practicied behavior that is almost secod-nature to you.

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,

Liberals founded this country. Your hatred towards such founding
principles and favoring socialistic government is well documented.

But at least the mainstream is now awake and

aware of what had previously been a fairly low

profile covert operation.

Agree,..which is why the Bush approval rating in Iraq is nearing an all
time low again.

But now all the underhanded, erroneous,

immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are

put up for all to see and to judge accordingly.

Yet, the left's behavior has you so preoccupied when the repubs are in
charge. It kills you.

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.

Except ythe repubs seek to cancel the demos.

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.

(sig) Frank taught you the origins of the filibuster. You continue to
have hatred for more American designed security designed to protect us
from such fascism.

Maybe we should be filibustering the last

election, so that you PEST sufferers could

leverage your minority rule to place Kerry in

office.

See what a poor retainment value you employ.....your hatred is so rabid,
you erreoneously referred to myself and Frank as demos and Kerry
supporters. That downslide is really messing you up.

That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by

the minority to overturn the wishes of the

majority.

That is only your misinterpretation of another definition. In fact, what
makes this so shocking, is you were given the exact origination of the
fillibuster in addition to its proper definition, but you are dogged
determined to wallow in your own ignorance.

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?

Your mistake (almost everytime you post this week) is in believing their
is some type law doing just what the clause prohibits.

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,

Wait a second,,a few paragraphs above you said it WAS endorsed,,in
fact,, that's the exact
word you used,,let's see it again..

In the case of religious influences in this

country, the majority have accepted and

endorsed it since the beginning.

HAhahhaa,,what a card you have become, largely opposing yourself and
self-contradictions galore.

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.

No one said otherwise. Your deficit has you confused and focusing on
topic only you invoke and conjure.
But while you're at it, it also says nothing of your claim that such was
"endorsed".

Nor does it ban the practices of referring to

God in an oath, or during any other

proceeding of the government.

See above concerning your conjured ramblings taken from outter space.

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?

And E Pluribus Unum is on the buck.

There has NEVER been a complete

separation of church and state in this

government.

Yes, there has. Your misinterpretation has you believing that a faith or
belief is equal to an established or endorsed religion or church.

The whole idea of any separation in the

beginning was not to protect government from

religion, it was to protect religion from

government.

And you arrived at such a conclusion exactly how....?

Now go do some research before you buy into

left wing propaganda.

And that would be another erroneous claim that I am a demo or Kerry
supporter,,,hmmm,,,,,it really bugs you when the repubs are made to
answer for their incompetence, especially yours.
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.

The majority of those who voted, voted for

Bush.

That's a far, far, cry from claiming a majority or a mandate. The ony
mandate Bush had was with Jeff Gannon..

As for the rest, who's to say who they would

have favored. Any speculation on your part, is

just that.

As yours. At least I'm not going around illustrating to the world I
believe Bush had a mandate.

Besides, those who don't play an active part

in their government, have no right to complain

about it.

Such as you and your issues relating to radio of which your life has
become largely reactive as opposed to proactivity. You eally sould take
your own advice, but hypocrites rarely do.

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.

Only because you are the only one that understands yourself.
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.