Members of the U.S. Air Force will no longer be required to say "so help me God" during their enlistment oath.
A legal review of rules that required the phrase occurred after the American Humanist Association threatened to sue on behalf of an atheist airman. The unnamed airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied re-enlistment Aug. 25 after crossing the phrase out of the oath.
PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets
"We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously," said Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Air Force Times reported Wednesday. The change in policy goes into effect immediately.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/17/air-force-removes-so-help-me-god-requirement-from-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/17/air-force-removes-so-help-me-god-requirement-from-/)
Wow!! One person can change the Air Force. What next? I don't believe in taking orders from someone older them me.
Quote from: walkstall on September 18, 2014, 02:56:19 PM
Wow!! One person can change the Air Force. What next? I don't believe in taking orders from someone older them me.
Apparently PC is now the law of the land.
:cry:
It troubles me that this country continues to turn its back on God.
Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 18, 2014, 09:42:17 PM
:cry:
It troubles me that this country continues to turn its back on God.
It's not the people, it's leftist leadership aligning with evil.
Excellent news. Atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions who don the uniform should not be forced to swear allegiance unto the Christian god as a requisite for fighting and dying for their nation.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 05, 2014, 11:58:37 AM
Excellent news. Atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions who don the uniform should not be forced to swear allegiance unto the Christian god as a requisite for fighting and dying for their nation.
You can just ignore it. This is a Christian nation. Deal with it.
Not saying I agree with this, but I often thought that the Oath of Enlistment was somewhat archaic. Beyond that I figured it contained a loophole for non-believers and non-Christians.
Courts Martial: You took an oath to defend your country.
Accused: But, the Oath I took was sworn to "God". Since I am an Atheist, I don't believe in God so the oath I took really isn't valid - unless, of course you can prove God exists.
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 07, 2014, 08:16:52 PM
Not saying I agree with this, but I often thought that the Oath of Enlistment was somewhat archaic. Beyond that I figured it contained a loophole for non-believers and non-Christians.
Courts Martial: You took an oath to defend your country.
Accused: But, the Oath I took was sworn to "God". Since I am an Atheist, I don't believe in God so the oath I took really isn't valid - unless, of course you can prove God exists.
Darth
Tradition carries a lot of weight where responsibility is concerned.
Everyone shares one thing when accepting the oath, more than God, they pledge an unspoken support for the soldiers around them, as well as an allegiance to those that fell before them protecting said tradition of protecting the idea of a free Nation.
Don't believe or share those ideals? Stay the fuck out of the service, it's not a social experiment.
Quote from: Solar on November 08, 2014, 08:27:51 AM
Tradition carries a lot of weight where responsibility is concerned.
Everyone shares one thing when accepting the oath, more than God, they pledge an unspoken support for the soldiers around them, as well as an allegiance to those that fell before them protecting said tradition of protecting the idea of a free Nation.
Don't believe or share those ideals? Stay the fuck out of the service, it's not a social experiment.
Again, not saying I disagree with you, but I'm just pointing out how the other side would view and exploit it.
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 08, 2014, 02:01:40 PM
Again, not saying I disagree with you, but I'm just pointing out how the other side would view and exploit it.
Darth
Yeah, well, they can take a flying leap, we're a Christian Nation regardless.
I am not religious in the least, not Christian or otherwise, even somewhat despise religion, but I do respect what Christians did for the Nation, from a moral code of ethics to a culture that was the envy of the world.
Looking back in history and the previous resident of this Nation buried around the world in war memorial cemeteries with white crosses, it's safe to say they all shared one thing in common, they loved the culture and saw honor in protecting it, even though many were not religious by any stretch of the imagination.
So yeah, these atheists whining about an oath that generations found important in taking and creating a bond shared in protecting a culture those that went before them shared.
Yeah, the atheists or whatever, can go fuck themselves, the Military is built on proven tradition, and to make it a social experiment, is allowing Marxists the ability to destroy us from within.
Caving into the demands of the enemy, makes us no better than Muscums, where they are destroying religious antiquities around the world because they want their religion to dominate all others.
Do you really want to help the enemy destroy our culture?
We are not a Christian nation. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of any gods, and the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing any religion. The Constitution itself only mentions religion once, to state that there cannot be any religious tests for someone running for office.
Were most founding fathers traditionally Christian? Probably, although a good chunk of them were probably Deists more than anything. Has Christianity been the predominant religion? Sure, and it still is with around 78% of Americans identifying as Christians. But that does not make the Constitution any less secular than it is.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 09, 2014, 10:19:50 AM
We are not a Christian nation. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of any gods, and the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing any religion. The Constitution itself only mentions religion once, to state that there cannot be any religious tests for someone running for office.
Were most founding fathers traditionally Christian? Probably, although a good chunk of them were probably Deists more than anything. Has Christianity been the predominant religion? Sure, and it still is with around 78% of Americans identifying as Christians. But that does not make the Constitution any less secular than it is.
I don't even know where to start. You are just completely wrong with every word of every sentence, except perhaps your claim that 78% of Americans identify as Christian. But it's too late at night for me to start now, and you already know you're full of shit, so there's no rush for me to explain that in detail.
Have a good night. Say a prayer to your pillow or your dog or your car. Hope to your air conditioner that you wake up in the morning. Thank your couch, or perhaps your socks, when you do.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 09, 2014, 10:19:50 AM
We are not a Christian nation. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of any gods, and the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing any religion. The Constitution itself only mentions religion once, to state that there cannot be any religious tests for someone running for office.
Were most founding fathers traditionally Christian? Probably, although a good chunk of them were probably Deists more than anything. Has Christianity been the predominant religion? Sure, and it still is with around 78% of Americans identifying as Christians. But that does not make the Constitution any less secular than it is.
Seriously? What are you, 20 something? As to your nonsense about God not being part of our Founding documents.
Try the word Creator,which happens top mean God.
Quote from: Solar on November 10, 2014, 06:56:15 AM
Seriously? What are you, 20 something? As to your nonsense about God not being part of our Founding documents.
Try the word Creator,which happens top mean God.
Is it too much to expect people to read exactly what I said without adding things I never said? If you read my previous posts in their entirety, I never claimed there was no religious language in all relevant documents to the creation of this nation. My exact words were that the Constitution was a secular document, which it is! I know the Declaration of Independence references a generic "creator" in it's opening words, but the document responsible for creating our current government (The Constitution) is secular.
Also, although this has nothing to do with my previous post (which is 100% factual), the Declaration of Independence
is not a founding document for our current system of government. I can provide you citations to Supreme Court Cases dating back over a century which also state this.
(1) After the Declaration, the States were semi-independent, and under the governance of the Continental Congress (our first government). That system was inadequate and short lived.
(2) Our second government was formed with the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, and the election of a President of the Confederated Congress of the United States of America, and a new congress to represent the new government. However, that system also failed miserably, leading to the need for a Constitutional Convention in 1787.
(3) Finally our current government began with the ratification of the Constitution, and the election of new representatives and a President of the United States of America in 1788 (George Washington)...over 12 years after the Declaration of Independence.
Finally, yes, I am 29. So what? I have a bachelor of arts in History, and a Juris Doctor (practicing attorney for 3 years here in Florida), so I fail to see your point. Is that supposed to be an insult?
Quote from: Skeptic on November 10, 2014, 10:15:22 AM
Is it too much to expect people to read exactly what I said without adding things I never said? If you read my previous posts in their entirety, I never claimed there was no religious language in all relevant documents to the creation of this nation. My exact words were that the Constitution was a secular document, which it is! I know the Declaration of Independence references a generic "creator" in it's opening words, but the document responsible for creating our current government (The Constitution) is secular.
Also, although this has nothing to do with my previous post (which is 100% factual), the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document for our current system of government. I can provide you citations to Supreme Court Cases dating back over a century which also state this.
(1) After the Declaration, the States were semi-independent, and under the governance of the Continental Congress (our first government). That system was inadequate and short lived.
(2) Our second government was formed with the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, and the election of a President of the Confederated Congress of the United States of America, and a new congress to represent the new government. However, that system also failed miserably, leading to the need for a Constitutional Convention in 1787.
(3) Finally our current government began with the ratification of the Constitution, and the election of new representatives and a President of the United States of America in 1788 (George Washington)...over 12 years after the Declaration of Independence.
Finally, yes, I am 29. So what? I have a bachelor of arts in History, and a Juris Doctor (practicing attorney for 3 years here in Florida), so I fail to see your point. Is that supposed to be an insult?
Yes, your youth plays a huge part regarding historical reference, of which, you have very little.
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.
Therefore the documents were the building blocks of the nation.
"By Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America"
Also note the word Blessings."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, a
nd secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Refer to the Declaration for interpretation.
The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.
The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.
Anyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.
PS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 10, 2014, 01:36:25 PM
The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.
The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.
Anyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.
PS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.
Thank you clearing up exactly where you are coming from.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 10, 2014, 01:36:25 PM
The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.
The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.
So what? Didn't say they did, but like all lawyers, they all have opinions, and could very easily have taken majority opinion in SCOTUS, completely negating your argument.
QuoteAnyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.
Irrelevant. Jones was was trying to skate on a debt to the King, the courts invalidated his claim as bogus and in no way played a part in proving the Declaration of Independence was invalid.
QuotePS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.
Point being, and this is where I referred to historical reference, this nation has always been a Christian Nation, hence the First Amendment as a protection from govt.
It was a given that the majority of the people believed in God, and the fact that they included it when referencing a date using the term Lord, is proof of the fact.
I say historical reference to your youth, because in my youth, nearly everyone went to worship on Sunday, it was only in the mid to late 60s did this all change, for the worst I might add.
By no fault of your own, you wouldn't know this, but today is 180 degrees from last century, but prior to that, this has always been a Christian nation.
Take note. unalienable rights. The "unalienable rights" explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one's own property, the right to be secure in one's own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.
Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure.
Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, ".these may be reduced to three principal articles:
the right of personal security (life);
the right of personal liberty; and,
the right of private property.."
America's written Constitution was to protect and secure God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property. If we ever allow this foundation to be eroded and lose faith that these rights are a gift directly from God to each individual, then we lose the basis of the greatness of the miracle of America.
Even the ACLU makes the link of unalienable rights. So you can't claim there isn't precedent.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history (https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history)
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)Quote"We find, therefore, upon the law of positive authority, as well as upon a principle of natural justice, that even the declaration of independence was deemed to have no obligatory operation upon any inhabitant of the United States, who did not choose, voluntarily to remain in the country, or to take an oath of allegiance, to some member of the confederation."
and
Quote"In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth."
What the Supreme Court said in this case was that at this point (1776 thru 1781) under international law, were 13 separate and individual nations, each with separate and independent sovereign capacities, not one nation. So therefore, the Declaration of Independence did not establish our current government (which is what I've said, the Declaration is not a founding document of our current system of government.)
And this from
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)Quote"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
What the Supreme Court says here is that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States of America. However, it does embody the spirit of freedom of the United States of America and as such it is "always safer to read the letter of the Constitution in the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence." However, it clearly states that it is not organic law and has no basis for judicial decisions.
This is the Doctrine of Declarationism which is what the Supreme Court still seems to adhere to this day. The Declaration is not a legal document, but it's spirit of freedom and equality embodies the ideals of our Government, and therefore it is wise not to ignore the principles of freedom and equality found in it when trying to interpret the Constitution of the United States. But the fact remains that the Declaration itself is not a legal document.
Maybe it will change one day. Wouldn't be surprised to see some future Supreme Court channel the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and say the Declaration is a legal document. Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2014, 10:00:05 AM
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
and
What the Supreme Court said in this case was that at this point (1776 thru 1781) under international law, were 13 separate and individual nations, each with separate and independent sovereign capacities, not one nation. So therefore, the Declaration of Independence did not establish our current government (which is what I've said, the Declaration is not a founding document of our current system of government.)
And this from Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
What the Supreme Court says here is that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States of America. However, it does embody the spirit of freedom of the United States of America and as such it is "always safer to read the letter of the Constitution in the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence." However, it clearly states that it is not organic law and has no basis for judicial decisions.
This is the Doctrine of Declarationism which is what the Supreme Court still seems to adhere to this day. The Declaration is not a legal document, but it's spirit of freedom and equality embodies the ideals of our Government, and therefore it is wise not to ignore the principles of freedom and equality found in it when trying to interpret the Constitution of the United States. But the fact remains that the Declaration itself is not a legal document.
Maybe it will change one day. Wouldn't be surprised to see some future Supreme Court channel the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and say the Declaration is a legal document. Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball.
None of which was the point of the case of someone trying to default on a debt.
The fact that the Declaration led to war, quite plainly speaks to it's validity that we had just become a Sovereign Nation of respective states, independent or otherwise.
As with all projects, legal authority begins with inception of the first draft, and as an attorney, you should know this if you've ever done discovery.
A case always begins with first evidence proving birth of the incident, and in the case of establishing the U.S, the Declaration is evidence of this pursuit.
Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
None of which was the point of the case of someone trying to default on a debt.
The fact that the Declaration led to war, quite plainly speaks to it's validity that we had just become a Sovereign Nation of respective states, independent or otherwise.
As with all projects, legal authority begins with inception of the first draft, and as an attorney, you should know this if you've ever done discovery.
A case always begins with first evidence proving birth of the incident, and in the case of establishing the U.S, the Declaration is evidence of this pursuit.
Discovery has nothing to do with the filing of a complaint or petition, which is the beginning of a case, and the rest of what you said is well....let's just say that its clear you've never practiced law a day in your life. A better example would have been to compare the Declaration to personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, etc., (the issue of standing to bring and support a cause of action in front of a court of law.)
Look, I may only be practicing law for 3 years, but I have experience working with 100+ foreclosure cases, 8 or 9 family law cases, 6 or 7 criminal cases, dozens of traffic misdemeanor cases, and 9 bankruptcy cases, plus one appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, and I assure you none of what you described in your example makes much sense legally.
But then again, you are not a lawyer, and that's a good thing. There are too many of us lawyers as it is, and considering most politicians are lawyers, I say we do too much damage as a profession as it is, so there is no need to sink to a lawyer's level (which is lower than pond scum, or so I've been told) to prove your point. :biggrin:
Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2014, 05:30:45 PM
Discovery has nothing to do with the filing of a complaint or petition, which is the beginning of a case, and the rest of what you said is well....let's just say that its clear you've never practiced law a day in your life. A better example would have been to compare the Declaration to personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, etc., (the issue of standing to bring and support a cause of action in front of a court of law.)
Look, I may only be practicing law for 3 years, but I have experience working with 100+ foreclosure cases, 8 or 9 family law cases, 6 or 7 criminal cases, dozens of traffic misdemeanor cases, and 9 bankruptcy cases, plus one appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, and I assure you none of what you described in your example makes much sense legally.
But then again, you are not a lawyer, and that's a good thing. There are too many of us lawyers as it is, and considering most politicians are lawyers, I say we do too much damage as a profession as it is, so there is no need to sink to a lawyer's level (which is lower than pond scum, or so I've been told) to prove your point. :biggrin:
I know what you're saying, but the Declaration of Independence, was a declaration of war in how the British viewed it, which was the establishment of a new Nation.
Anyone with half a brain can see there is no disconnecting our Nation from the original Declaration of Independence.
As to discovery, every attorney/DA knows you include all evidence in a case. That includes the first encounter between plaintiff and the accused.
Of course all good attorneys will try and have said evidence removed, but none the less, it still gets introduced.
I too am no stranger to the legal system having been a professional witness on several occasions as well as a representative of the people of the state.
Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2014, 05:49:47 PM
I know what you're saying, but the Declaration of Independence, was a declaration of war in how the British viewed it, which was the establishment of a new Nation.
Anyone with half a brain can see there is no disconnecting our Nation from the original Declaration of Independence.
As to discovery, every attorney/DA knows you include all evidence in a case. That includes the first encounter between plaintiff and the accused.
Of course all good attorneys will try and have said evidence removed, but none the less, it still gets introduced.
I too am no stranger to the legal system having been a professional witness on several occasions as well as a representative of the people of the state.
Quick point at the risk of being off topic. In civil law you don't include all evidence with the complaint. Criminal law is a whole other animal, and the state has to disclose everything, But in civil law you include what you are legally required to include according to the statutes to avoid the other guy being able to file and win on a Motion to Dismiss, plus whatever evidence looks good to your case, and as to the rest of the evidence (whatever is not as good for your case) you let them figure it out through depositions, requests for admissions, requests for interrogatories, and requests for production. No need to hand the other side everything in a silver platter. Let them work for it during the discovery process. If they forgot to request something that might have mitigated their liability or didn't bother to try to uncover it, oh well, better for my client. As long as the complaint is not frivolous, and the statutes don't require I disclose something, then it's all good. Just make sure the complaint was never frivolous in the first place, and you have an actual legal basis to stand on, because that's where you and your client can get in a heap of trouble.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2014, 06:43:00 PM
Quick point at the risk of being off topic. In civil law you don't include all evidence with the complaint. Criminal law is a whole other animal, and the state has to disclose everything, But in civil law you include what you are legally required to include according to the statutes to avoid the other guy being able to file and win on a Motion to Dismiss, plus whatever evidence looks good to your case, and as to the rest of the evidence (whatever is not as good for your case) you let them figure it out through depositions, requests for admissions, requests for interrogatories, and requests for production. No need to hand the other side everything in a silver platter. Let them work for it during the discovery process. If they forgot to request something that might have mitigated their liability or didn't bother to try to uncover it, oh well, better for my client. As long as the complaint is not frivolous, and the statutes don't require I disclose something, then it's all good. Just make sure the complaint was never frivolous in the first place, and you have an actual legal basis to stand on, because that's where you and your client can get in a heap of trouble.
True and concise.
See, we can agree on somethings. :biggrin:
Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer? :lol:
The point I wanted to make is the military oath.
It is a fact that atheists can make good military people. One does not have to be Christian to be an honest, decent, military person willing to risk life and limb for their country. Now, if this isn't a fact, feel free to prove me wrong. One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God, the two do not go hand in hand. I do understand and I do realize there is a great deal of ignorance regarding atheism, but common sense has to kick in at some point.
What I am gathering from this thread is that people would prefer a soldier lie and swear to a God they have no belief exists than to mess with tradition or he's not a good soldier. It's okay to "affirm" but better to lie when swearing to a God.
Do I have that right?
Quote from: Michelle on November 13, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer? :lol:
The point I wanted to make is the military oath.
It is a fact that atheists can make good military people. One does not have to be Christian to be an honest, decent, military person willing to risk life and limb for their country. Now, if this isn't a fact, feel free to prove me wrong. One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God, the two do not go hand in hand. I do understand and I do realize there is a great deal of ignorance regarding atheism, but common sense has to kick in at some point.
What I am gathering from this thread is that people would prefer a soldier lie and swear to a God they have no belief exists than to mess with tradition or he's not a good soldier. It's okay to "affirm" but better to lie when swearing to a God.
Do I have that right?
Show me where Christ is mentioned in the oath Military inductees swear to.
Quote from: Solar on November 13, 2014, 05:11:14 PM
Show me where Christ is mentioned in the oath Military inductees swear to.
Christ doesn't have to be mentioned. Some religions have a lose concept of the idea of a God or Gods (Daoism, spiritualist religions, etc) and others simply don't believe in a God, so no need to force them to swear on something they don't believe to make you feel better.
Quote from: Michelle on November 13, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer? :lol:
Yes. It's about experience.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 09, 2014, 10:19:50 AM
We are not a Christian nation. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of any gods, and the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing any religion. The Constitution itself only mentions religion once, to state that there cannot be any religious tests for someone running for office.
Were most founding fathers traditionally Christian? Probably, although a good chunk of them were probably Deists more than anything. Has Christianity been the predominant religion? Sure, and it still is with around 78% of Americans identifying as Christians. But that does not make the Constitution any less secular than it is.
Do you celebrate Christmas?
Quote from: Skeptic on November 13, 2014, 05:20:30 PM
Christ doesn't have to be mentioned. Some religions have a lose concept of the idea of a God or Gods (Daoism, spiritualist religions, etc) and others simply don't believe in a God, so no need to force them to swear on something they don't believe to make you feel better.
Irrelevant to the question. She claimed " One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God" when referring to the oath. No where in any oath is a particular religion named.
God can mean anything to anyone, even a freakin atheist can find solace in something beyond their grasp of conscious/conscience. Claim you yourself are God to yourself for that matter.
Meaning swearing an oath of loyalty as a tradition, creating a bond that those around you serving the country and it's culture find allegiance too as well as one another, like the guys you may one day rely on to save your ass.
Of course you've probably never served, so you probably can't grasp the significance to an oath, a simple freakin oath that every soldier has sworn to down through the centuries.
One to this day I hold in the highest esteem, which is why I'm fighting Marxism to this very day, because I swore I would protect this country and it's Constitution.
The whole idea of the oath is that one is telling themselves this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, a moment one decides there's no turning back, that once you take this pledge, you, as an individual are giving your word, your entire worth as a man/woman that you promise to do as asked.
Is that too hard of a concept to grasp?
Quote from: Solar on November 13, 2014, 05:11:14 PM
Show me where Christ is mentioned in the oath Military inductees swear to.
You are right, people keep claiming this is a Christian nation (it is not, or ... feel free to show me where the founding fathers used the name "Christ") so I did indeed assume you referred to the Christian God.
Please explain to me how it serves you as a citizen, or upholds the respect of military, if an atheist lies when he swears on an oath to any God when he fully lacks belief in a God.
Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2014, 10:43:49 PM
Yes. It's about experience.
Soooo, you believe your experience as an expert witness trumps Skeptic's education AND experience as a trained lawyer?
Okay. That's interesting.
QuoteDo you celebrate Christmas?
I realize you didn't ask me this but I will respond anyway. No. I don't. I was a hospital nurse for many years and for as long as I can remember I have always offered to work on Christmas so the Christian parents could spend the day with their family. It has always seemed to be the more ethical thing to do.
Solar writes:
QuoteIrrelevant to the question. She claimed " One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God" when referring to the oath. No where in any oath is a particular religion named.
God can mean anything to anyone, even a freakin atheist can find solace in something beyond their grasp of conscious/conscience. Claim you yourself are God to yourself for that matter.
This is what I refer to when I try to explain that there is a great deal of ignorance regarding atheism.
Perhaps this will help:
Theism- With a God
Atheism- Without a God
Hello?
QuoteOne to this day I hold in the highest esteem, which is why I'm fighting Marxism to this very day, because I swore I would protect this country and it's Constitution.
Right. By asking military personnel to lie on their oath because... well, it's tradition! I get the tradition, but IMHO I believe it is a slam to the tradition to lie on an OATH. One would think that honesty from military trumps tradition. I guess I see where your priorities are.
When my Dad died he had a Catholic funeral. Before the funeral I asked the priest if there was anything I needed to do/not do to respect the faith and the church. He said that yes, I shouldn't take communion. Okay, no problem.
After the service my sister chastised me for staying seated during communion. I explained that is what the priest told me, she couldn't comprehend the honesty and respect... either.
QuoteThe whole idea of the oath is that one is telling themselves this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, a moment one decides there's no turning back, that once you take this pledge, you, as an individual are giving your word, your entire worth as a man/woman that you promise to do as asked.
Agree. And the atheist soldier is fully willing to swear to the same oath, he's just not willing to add in the dishonesty part by using the "God" part.
I can't wrap my brain around the fact that you see it superior for him to lie.
Is that too hard a concept to grasp? Really???
Christians appealing to an empty oath because its tradition.... well, slavery and discrimination were also traditions in this country, but we had the sense to get rid of that garbage. Something being a tradition doesn't always makes it right or moral.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 05:24:13 AM
Christians appealing to an empty oath because its tradition.... well, slavery and discrimination were also traditions in this country, but we had the sense to get rid of that garbage. Something being a tradition doesn't always makes it right or moral.
I understand your point and for the most part I agree with it but in this case, this thread... that isn't how I see this issue.
It boggles the mind that people #1) Insist atheists must have a higher power called God. (Or chair, couch, I forget the other examples.... seriously.. I swear to my couch I will uphold the constitution?) and #2) It is far more superior to LIE on an oath than to break tradition. That pretty well makes the oath utterly worthless if one will lie when taking the oath, right?
The oath is fine! For an atheist adding in the God portion makes it an absolute lie. But that is somehow the more superior and moral of the two choices.
///slowly shaking head///
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:34:06 AM
You are right, people keep claiming this is a Christian nation (it is not, or ... feel free to show me where the founding fathers used the name "Christ") so I did indeed assume you referred to the Christian God.
Please explain to me how it serves you as a citizen, or upholds the respect of military, if an atheist lies when he swears on an oath to any God when he fully lacks belief in a God.
I know you can't grasp this, and I have no interest in discussing it with a militant atheist kid, one that has the same perspective of the other 20 something in this thread, or are you simply an ignorant adult?
Historical perspective is something both of you sorely lack, and something no one can teach you, especially since the Marxist party worked so fervently over the decades to remove Christianity from the schools.
That is all the evidence one needs if they want to understand just how far we've fallen as a Nation, one where a Christian way of life, a culture that built this nation became the enemy.
Yet you ask where's my proof that this is a Christian Nation? The fact that it''s been under attack for decades should be evidence enough, but since you have absolutely no historical perspective, you can't compare it to other nations that fell before it the very same way.
Keep fighting against Christianity, you'll deserve the end product.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 05:24:13 AM
Christians appealing to an empty oath because its tradition.... well, slavery and discrimination were also traditions in this country, but we had the sense to get rid of that garbage. Something being a tradition doesn't always makes it right or moral.
I gave you an example of what God is earlier, and it can be whatever one wants it to be.
Lose the idea of Religion, it plays no part in what God is. Religion is a pigeonholing of a belief, but step away from religion, and God can be whatever you want it to be, and if you want to believe God is your dog because he loves you unconditionally and would sacrifice his life to save your's, that's fine too. And you just may be right, God may be your dog, who's to argue, if you believe it?
Point is, it is you that is labeling God as something more than he is, causing you to denounce it's existence out of a disdain for religion.
Denounce religion all you like, I have, and have no use for it, but don't let that cloud your spiritual side of accepting something bigger than one individual.
If you were to poll atheists around the world, you'd find that most are atheists because of their contempt for religion.
And that contempt stifles most peoples spiritual side and they wind up wandering through life with so many unanswered questions.
You know in your heart, I'm right.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 07:12:45 AM
I know you can't grasp this, and I have no interest in discussing it with a militant atheist kid, one that has the same perspective of the other 20 something in this thread, or are you simply an ignorant adult?
Historical perspective is something both of you sorely lack, and something no one can teach you, especially since the Marxist party worked so fervently over the decades to remove Christianity from the schools.
That is all the evidence one needs if they want to understand just how far we've fallen as a Nation, one where a Christian way of life, a culture that built this nation became the enemy.
Yet you ask where's my proof that this is a Christian Nation? The fact that it''s been under attack for decades should be evidence enough, but since you have absolutely no historical perspective, you can't compare it to other nations that fell before it the very same way.
Keep fighting against Christianity, you'll deserve the end product.
I'm not a child or an ignorant adult. I happen to be a well educated female adult. I merely dare to disagree with you and I call you on your own stuff. You are tripping yourself up here and angry with me for pointing it out. That is the real issue here.
I really don't know how to explain the concept of atheism more than I have. I will repeat it for you once again with a little more detail. Perhaps this will help you understand:
theism
[thee-iz-uh m] Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
Now, do you honestly believe Fido the dog fits this definition? Fido my dog (in reality, Fido is my cat's name) is the creator and ruler of the universe? For real? And you call ME ignorant? The only issue I have been militant about is correct definitions. I see that correct information is frustrating for you.
So you are suggesting that an atheist military person swearing the oath could quite literally end it with, "So help me Fido" and that is acceptable. This is ridiculous. It's a moot point, atheists don't believe in a God(s) and you know what? They don't have to. This leaves swearing to Fido or being HONEST (a concept that seems to escape you) and omitting "God" from the same oath as everyone else.
Forced Christianity should have been removed from the schools but Christianity in general most certainly has not been removed from schools. A child is absolutely welcome to request to reserve a room before/after school to have prayer meetings, bible studies, etc. They are welcome to pray quietly as to not disrupt the learning process. The only thing that has been removed has been forced prayer or religious issues led by public school teachers. If the only way your kid is going to pray is if he is forced to do so by a tax paid teacher, that's not the fault of the govt. That is your fault as a Christian parent.
The reality is quite simple. Years ago people started insisting Christians follow their own rules. Christians only wanted THEIR religion in schools, to hell with Jews and everyone else. When Christians had to start following the same rules as everyone else they started screaming persecution. Well... what does that mean Christians were doing to non Christians in prior times? That had to have been persecution as well. Truth is, Christians just have to follow the same rules as the rest of the country. O.M.G.! The horror!
For at least 30 years I have been saying the same thing, keep religion out of schools and govt. At the rate Christians are losing members of their faith to Paganism and atheism (about 1% annually) someday Christianity is not going to be the major religion anymore. Is it really fogging wise to set a precedent where a religion rules the country? No, it's stupid and ignorant.
What I did not see coming was Muslims becoming the #1 power and at the rate they are breeding like bunnies (intentionally, I might add) they will be the major religion in the US. So for awhile Christians ruled the roost. Then we finally got a bit of sanity and left schools to teach and churches to preach now it is leaning towards Muslims. I always thought it would be Paganism that would end up being the majority religion. I have nobody to blame but Christians. They are the ones demanding religion be in schools. Looks like you are getting just what you asked for now.
Gee, thanks for that.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:51:24 AM
Soooo, you believe your experience as an expert witness trumps Skeptic's education AND experience as a trained lawyer?
I've never claimed to be an expert witness, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I have been in business for myself since I was in my late teens (a little over 20 years now), so my experience in those sectors absolutely trumps the knowledge of a rookie attorney with 3-years of experience. Do I know more about corporate law than my corporate attorney who has decades of experience? No. Do I know more about criminal law than my criminal attorney who is a former assistant DA prosecutor? No. Do I know more about real estate law than my closing and real estate attorneys who have decades of experience? No. Do I know more about my sectors, and the legalities and technicalities within those sectors that I've learned from my expert and experienced attorneys over the years and the legal situations I've been in, than a rookie fresh-faced junior attorney? Yes.
Quote
Okay. That's interesting.
Not when you know what you're talking about.
Quote
I realize you didn't ask me this but I will respond anyway. No. I don't. I was a hospital nurse for many years and for as long as I can remember I have always offered to work on Christmas so the Christian parents could spend the day with their family. It has always seemed to be the more ethical thing to do.
Neat!
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 11:22:00 AM
I've never claimed to be an expert witness, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry, I think I am confusing your posts with that of another.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Sorry, I think I am confusing your posts with that of another.
Would my points not be interchangeable with the other author?
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 11:56:03 AM
Would my points not be interchangeable with the other author?
Not sure, I'd have to go back and reread. I think it's clear I am mixing up authors here. :unsure:
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 09:08:18 AM
I'm not a child or an ignorant adult. I happen to be a well educated female adult. I merely dare to disagree with you and I call you on your own stuff. You are tripping yourself up here and angry with me for pointing it out. That is the real issue here.
I really don't know how to explain the concept of atheism more than I have. I will repeat it for you once again with a little more detail. Perhaps this will help you understand:
theism
[thee-iz-uh m] Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
Yes, you are ignorant, and this post proves it, which is the reason I said I wan't interested in discussing the topic further.
Beyond that, I have no idea what your point is, in posting a dictionary description of atheism.
QuoteNow, do you honestly believe Fido the dog fits this definition? Fido my dog (in reality, Fido is my cat's name) is the creator and ruler of the universe? For real? And you call ME ignorant? The only issue I have been militant about is correct definitions. I see that correct information is frustrating for you.
Exactly my point, you didn't grasp my point because of your blind hatred of religion, and apparently Christiianity in particular.
Also, how do you know I adhere to the belief that God created the universe? Maybe a collective conscience of humanity played a part in it, maybe this collective thought of man is God? Point is, no one knows, but the fact that we're here is more than proof enough something created it, some unknown force, and for lack of a better description, the term God will suffice.
So again, the point is, God can represent whatever someone wants to claim it does.
QuoteSo you are suggesting that an atheist military person swearing the oath could quite literally end it with, "So help me Fido" and that is acceptable. This is ridiculous. It's a moot point, atheists don't believe in a God(s) and you know what? They don't have to. This leaves swearing to Fido or being HONEST (a concept that seems to escape you) and omitting "God" from the same oath as everyone else.
Seriously, did I say that? Do you want to have a serious discussion, or act like a preteen emotional idiot?
QuoteForced Christianity should have been removed from the schools but Christianity in general most certainly has not been removed from schools. A child is absolutely welcome to request to reserve a room before/after school to have prayer meetings, bible studies, etc. They are welcome to pray quietly as to not disrupt the learning process. The only thing that has been removed has been forced prayer or religious issues led by public school teachers. If the only way your kid is going to pray is if he is forced to do so by a tax paid teacher, that's not the fault of the govt. That is your fault as a Christian parent.
Boy Suspended for Bringing Bible To School Files Suit | Video ...
A San Diego-area teen suspended for bringing his Bible to school and talking about his faith has filed a lawsuit against the school district, the superintendent, an assistant principal, ... Dominguez's Bible was even confiscated by that teacher, ...
Search domain www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-brin (http://www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-brin)...
QuoteThe reality is quite simple. Years ago people started insisting Christians follow their own rules. Christians only wanted THEIR religion in schools, to hell with Jews and everyone else. When Christians had to start following the same rules as everyone else they started screaming persecution. Well... what does that mean Christians were doing to non Christians in prior times? That had to have been persecution as well. Truth is, Christians just have to follow the same rules as the rest of the country. O.M.G.! The horror!
OMG! Those evil Christians and their Easter holidays, or letting kids give gifts at Christmas, and how dare they call it Christmas vacation.
QuoteFor at least 30 years I have been saying the same thing, keep religion out of schools and govt. At the rate Christians are losing members of their faith to Paganism and atheism (about 1% annually) someday Christianity is not going to be the major religion anymore. Is it really fogging wise to set a precedent where a religion rules the country? No, it's stupid and ignorant.
Show me where the church ruled this nation.
QuoteWhat I did not see coming was Muslims becoming the #1 power and at the rate they are breeding like bunnies (intentionally, I might add) they will be the major religion in the US. So for awhile Christians ruled the roost. Then we finally got a bit of sanity and left schools to teach and churches to preach now it is leaning towards Muslims. I always thought it would be Paganism that would end up being the majority religion. I have nobody to blame but Christians. They are the ones demanding religion be in schools. Looks like you are getting just what you asked for now.
Gee, thanks for that.
So your hatred of Christianity played no part in it? What freakin hypocrite!
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 12:11:30 PM
Yes, you are ignorant, and this post proves it, which is the reason I said I wan't interested in discussing the topic further.
Beyond that, I have no idea what your point is, in posting a dictionary description of atheism.
Exactly my point, you didn't grasp my point because of your blind hatred of religion, and apparently Christiianity in particular.
HAHAHAHA! OMG! You are amusing! Now I see why someone in another thread writes what they do about you, it is quite accurate.
I never wrote anything to lead anyone to believe I have a blind hatred of religion. I do have a serious dislike for being willingly ignorant, I fully admit I have a hatred for our prez, but religion? Nope. I'm not the one out there demanding Christians bake wedding cakes for gay folks, I support the Christians. I signed petitions supporting pastors not turning over their sermon to an idiot politician. I'm not the one out there demanding, "In God We Trust" be removed from money, I don't give a rats butt.
Being atheist does not mean a blind hate for religion. Sorry, you'll have to try harder. :laugh:
What is annoying me is you. You don't like reality so you merely change the definitions of words. Theist, atheist, God, any word that doesn't fit into your agenda and you just change the meaning of the word, then stomp your feeties, ball up your fisties, stick out your lower lip and go on a slam fest.
Isn't that what Libs do?
QuoteAlso, how do you know I adhere to the belief that God created the universe? Maybe a collective conscience of humanity played a part in it, maybe this collective thought of man is God? Point is, no one knows, but the fact that we're here is more than proof enough something created it, some unknown force, and for lack of a better description, the term God will suffice.
I don't know that. Of course, I never made the claim either.
Do you just have these debates in your head and you forget what is in your head vs. what people actually write?
*I* provided the accurate dictionary definition of a God. You made up your own definition so I merely provided you with the true definition. I didn't claim you believe anything. Well, other than incorrect meanings of words.
QuoteSo again, the point is, God can represent whatever someone wants to claim it does.
Seriously, did I say that? Do you want to have a serious discussion, or act like a preteen emotional idiot?
You know, Dude, I have to tell you. You really don't behave as a rational adult. You do behave as a troll.
QuoteBoy Suspended for Bringing Bible To School Files Suit | Video ...
A San Diego-area teen suspended for bringing his Bible to school and talking about his faith has filed a lawsuit against the school district, the superintendent, an assistant principal, ... Dominguez's Bible was even confiscated by that teacher, ...
Search domain www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-brin (http://www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-brin)...
I tried to go to your link, I received this message:
~~The server at www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com (http://www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com) can't be found, because the DNS lookup failed. DNS is the network service that translates a website's name to its Internet address. This error is most often caused by having no connection to the Internet or a misconfigured network. It can also be caused by an unresponsive DNS server or a firewall preventing Google Chrome from accessing the network.
Error code: DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN~~
QuoteOMG! Those evil Christians and their Easter holidays, or letting kids give gifts at Christmas, and how dare they call it Christmas vacation.
Did you take your meds today? Seriously, do you have an anxiety disorder?
QuoteShow me where the church ruled this nation.
So your hatred of Christianity played no part in it? What freakin hypocrite!
Heh... I was addressing YOUR point where YOU claim the US is a Christian nation.
I'm new here. Are you a troll? Or just a troubled person?
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 12:28:48 PM
~~The server at www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com (http://www.theblaze.comtheblaze.com) can't be found, because the DNS lookup failed. DNS is the network service that translates a website's name to its Internet address. This error is most often caused by having no connection to the Internet or a misconfigured network. It can also be caused by an unresponsive DNS server or a firewall preventing Google Chrome from accessing the network.
Error code: DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN~~
If you knew this, then you can clearly look at the URI and see where the error is. Why go through the trouble of exposing a typo, when you yourself couldn't identify it?
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
If you knew this, then you can clearly look at the URI and see where the error is. Why go through the trouble of exposing a typo, when you yourself couldn't identify it?
Because I didn't think it was a typo but a bad link instead or my internet.
Please understand, Mexico just HAS to have the WORST internet service in the world. I was merely pointing out that I couldn't go to the link. I never inferred or claimed it was a typo or the error of another poster.
Regardless, it was a silly point anyway and not worth the time to google the story. Some schools do indeed misinterpret the law. That doesn't change the law, that means the school screwed up. If every school does the same, yep... he would have had a point. But they don't.
It's a bit like claiming Dr. Jones did something incredibly stupid thus the law is that what he did was legal and not med mal. Show me the law that says kids cannot pray to themselves in school or reserve a room before/after school to have bible study or some other non-teacher led religious practice and we can discuss that.
The greater majority of this conversation is ridiculous.
Atheists believe in God, Fido can be God, a couch can be God, atheists should lie in an oath to protect tradition, one school may have screwed up thus kids can't pray to themselves before a test, I have a hatred for religion, I am an idiot, I am stupid, I don't know what I am talking about, the US is based on Christianity, the US is a Christian nation but the church has nothing to do with govt ....
It's childish and irrational.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 01:41:45 PM
Because I didn't think it was a typo but a bad link instead or my internet.
You didn't think theblaze.comtheblaze.com was a typo?
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 01:52:57 PM
You didn't think theblaze.comtheblaze.com was a typo?
Nope. Not at all because I didn't read the link. I get error messages all day long.
I have already made it clear I do not blame the other poster for the error. I'll take full responsibility for the error. My fault, totally my fault. I just assumed it was a bad link or my internet again. I work and play on line at the same time. I have already told you I don't blame the poster for the problem.
Got anything else to discuss? Maybe something regarding the topic? :laugh:
///Edit to add: My original point still stands about the link anyway. Show me the law that says kids can't pray before a test or reserve a room for their own bible study groups if that is what they choose, please.///
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 02:15:01 PM
Nope. Not at all because I didn't read the link. I get error messages all day long.
I have already made it clear I do not blame the other poster for the error. I'll take full responsibility for the error. My fault, totally my fault. I just assumed it was a bad link or my internet again. I work and play on line at the same time. I have already told you I don't blame the poster for the problem.
Got anything else to discuss? Maybe something regarding the topic? :laugh:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... OK.
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 02:17:42 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... OK.
I added an edit at the same time you were posting. Whoops.
However, if that is the best rebuttal you have... Ok.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 02:18:57 PM
I added an edit at the same time you were posting. Whoops.
However, if that is the best rebuttal you have... Ok.
I'm still waiting on your reply from my reply #40. Is ignoring it the best rebuttal you have?
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
I'm still waiting on your reply from my reply #40. Is ignoring it the best rebuttal you have?
I did respond, post #41.
Does it matter if I think your opinions are the same as Solar? Do I really need to go back and reread the thread so I can tell you if your opinions are the same? Would that help you out?
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 03:01:23 PM
I did respond, post #41.
That's not a reply to the points in my post. It's a reply to say you need to go back and read, still not relevant to my post itself that asks if my points are interchangeable to the author in the first place.
Quote
Does it matter if I think your opinions are the same as Solar?
That was my question to you. You got confused about the author, specifically regarding me saying I was an expert witness, which I'm not. That has no relevance to the points I made in general, again, regardless of the author. You know this, and are attempting to obfuscate by clinging onto your original confusion about other, even though that's not relevant to my points.
Quote
Do I really need to go back and reread the thread so I can tell you if your opinions are the same?
I made my own points to you, however, you can reply to them, regardless of author.
Quote
Would that help you out?
It would help me very much, thank you.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 12:28:48 PM
HAHAHAHA! OMG! You are amusing! Now I see why someone in another thread writes what they do about you, it is quite accurate.
Then you're of like minds with a lib. Shock!
QuoteI never wrote anything to lead anyone to believe I have a blind hatred of religion. I do have a serious dislike for being willingly ignorant, I fully admit I have a hatred for our prez, but religion? Nope. I'm not the one out there demanding Christians bake wedding cakes for gay folks, I support the Christians. I signed petitions supporting pastors not turning over their sermon to an idiot politician. I'm not the one out there demanding, "In God We Trust" be removed from money, I don't give a rats butt.
Yet your every post exudes disdain for religion, subtle or otherwise.
You come to a TEA forum, and all you've done is argue against the existence of God in the religion forum, and you expect us to buy that BS? Laughable, at best.
QuoteBeing atheist does not mean a blind hate for religion. Sorry, you'll have to try harder. :laugh:
Yet here you are chastising religion.
QuoteWhat is annoying me is you. You don't like reality so you merely change the definitions of words.
Theist, atheist, God, any word that doesn't fit into your agenda and you just change the meaning of the word,
The dictionary is merely giving examples from various religions, God is not a religion, so your definition does not apply!
Quotethen stomp your feeties, ball up your fisties, stick out your lower lip and go on a slam fest.
Isn't that what Libs do?
You just clarified that point yourself. Thanks for playing.
QuoteI don't know that. Of course, I never made the claim either.
Do you just have these debates in your head and you forget what is in your head vs. what people actually write?
I'll repeat, so read and absorb if you can.
Also, how do you know I adhere to the belief that God created the universe? Maybe a collective conscience of humanity played a part in it, maybe this collective thought of man is God? Point is, no one knows, but the fact that we're here is more than proof enough something created it, some unknown force, and for lack of a better description, the term God will suffice.
Quote*I* provided the accurate dictionary definition of a God. You made up your own definition so I merely provided you with the true definition. I didn't claim you believe anything. Well, other than incorrect meanings of words.
So now you're dictating my beliefs for me?
QuoteYou know, Dude, I have to tell you. You really don't behave as a rational adult. You do behave as a troll.
What you fail to grasp, is that not everyone that believes in a higher power, adheres to a particular religion, and I'm one of those.
QuoteI tried to go to your link, I received this message:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to-school-files-suit/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to-school-files-suit/)
Did you take your meds today? Seriously, do you have an anxiety disorder?
So pointing out how schools dealt with Christianity in the past is, in your mind insane?
And you wonder why I see ignorance in your posts?
QuoteHeh... I was addressing YOUR point where YOU claim the US is a Christian nation.
"Was" a Christian nation, up until recently, but our culture and our laws are still based in Judeo Christian beliefs.
QuoteI'm new here. Are you a troll? Or just a troubled person?
Yes you are new, and for a noob, not a very bright troll, either.
Michelle, I honestly think a handful of the believers here (a very tiny minority though) think that forcing Christianity and Christian morality on others against their will, is good! However, an atheist merely saying "No thanks, not interested" is blind hatred of religion and proof of Christian persecution. Never underestimate the Christian persecution complex. Unfortunately I used to buy heavily into it when I was a believer.
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 03:12:13 PM
That's not a reply to the points in my post. It's a reply to say you need to go back and read, still not relevant to my post itself that asks if my points are interchangeable to the author in the first place.
I understand and that is why I replied as I did. In that post you wrote:
~~Would my points not be interchangeable with the other author?~~
I did not go back and read because I assumed you would know if your points were the same as Solar. BTW, I am glad you are here to help him, he wasn't doing so well by himself.
QuoteI didn't refer to your points, the error you pointed out had to do with being an expert witness.
True. When I went back to read the thread for you so I could let you know if your points are the same as Solar I see that it was Solar that claims to be the expert witness.
QuoteThat was my question to you. You got confused about the author, specifically regarding me saying I was an expert witness, which I'm not. That has no relevance to the points I made in general, again, regardless of the author. You know this, and are attempting to obfuscate by clinging onto your original confusion about other, even though that's not relevant to my points.
Okay, here you go. Here are the points you made through post #40:
1) You gave permission for Skeptic to ignore the military oath. (I'm sure he's much relieved now.)
2) You believe you'll win a debate with a lawyer on a discussion of law because you own a business and know a lot.
3) You wanted to know if Skeptic celebrates Christmas.
4) You outlined to me what you do not know but you still know a lot because you own a business.
Yep, I would say that you and Solar are on an even playing ground.
QuoteIt would help me very much, thank you.
You are most welcome.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 03:57:02 PM
Michelle, I honestly think a handful of the believers here (a very tiny minority though) think that forcing Christianity and Christian morality on others against their will, is good! However, an atheist merely saying "No thanks, not interested" is blind hatred of religion and proof of Christian persecution. Never underestimate the Christian persecution complex. Unfortunately I used to buy heavily into it when I was a believer.
Who said that?
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 03:43:44 PM
Then you're of like minds with a lib. Shock!
Yet your every post exudes disdain for religion, subtle or otherwise.
You come to a TEA forum, and all you've done is argue against the existence of God in the religion forum, and you expect us to buy that BS? Laughable, at best.
Yet here you are chastising religion.
The dictionary is merely giving examples from various religions, God is not a religion, so your definition does not apply!
You just clarified that point yourself. Thanks for playing.
I'll repeat, so read and absorb if you can.
Also, how do you know I adhere to the belief that God created the universe? Maybe a collective conscience of humanity played a part in it, maybe this collective thought of man is God? Point is, no one knows, but the fact that we're here is more than proof enough something created it, some unknown force, and for lack of a better description, the term God will suffice.
So now you're dictating my beliefs for me?What you fail to grasp, is that not everyone that believes in a higher power, adheres to a particular religion, and I'm one of those.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to-school-files-suit/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/31/boy-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to-school-files-suit/)
Did you take your meds today? Seriously, do you have an anxiety disorder?
So pointing out how schools dealt with Christianity in the past is, in your mind insane?
And you wonder why I see ignorance in your posts?"Was" a Christian nation, up until recently, but our culture and our laws are still based in Judeo Christian beliefs.
Yes you are new, and for a noob, not a very bright troll, either.
Did you actually have a point for anyone to address? Or just more feetie stomping, slams, and baseless accusations?
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 03:58:38 PM
I understand and that is why I replied as I did. In that post you wrote:
~~Would my points not be interchangeable with the other author?~~
I did not go back and read because I assumed you would know if your points were the same as Solar.
No you didn't.
Quote
BTW, I am glad you are here to help him, he wasn't doing so well by himself.
I read through the thread. He was educating you just fine.
Quote
True. When I went back to read the thread for you so I could let you know if your points are the same as Solar I see that it was Solar that claims to be the expert witness.
You didn't even know what you were reading. Try again.
Quote
Okay, here you go. Here are the points you made through post #40:
1) You gave permission for Skeptic to ignore the military oath. (I'm sure he's much relieved now.)
Wrong.
Quote
2) You believe you'll win a debate with a lawyer on a discussion of law because you own a business and know a lot.
Wrong.
Quote
3) You wanted to know if Skeptic celebrates Christmas.
Correct.
Quote
4) You outlined to me what you do not know but you still know a lot because you own a business.
Wrong.
Quote
Yep, I would say that you and Solar are on an even playing ground.
You are most welcome.
1 out of 4. You get an F.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 03:57:02 PM
Michelle, I honestly think a handful of the believers here (a very tiny minority though) think that forcing Christianity and Christian morality on others against their will, is good! However, an atheist merely saying "No thanks, not interested" is blind hatred of religion and proof of Christian persecution. Never underestimate the Christian persecution complex. Unfortunately I used to buy heavily into it when I was a believer.
I can say I never did buy into that nonsense when I was a believer. But, I can't say I ever seriously bought into the whole Christian belief either. I was raised to fear if I didn't. One day I decided to start reading the bible to increase my faith. After a few months what it did was make me realize I do not believe in it for good reason.
But yes, there are a small number of people that do believe if you don't trip over yourself telling everyone how great you are because you are Christian that means nothing short of blind hatred for a religion. Bleh.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:03:35 PM
Did you actually have a point for anyone to address? Or just more feetie stomping, slams, and baseless accusations?
Soooo, when you can't debate, call names and ridicule. You do realize, that's the definition of leftist troll. Right?
If you're unwilling to debate like an adult, then take a hike, we get libs like you on a weekly basis.
Oh, but please, don't throw a tantrum and stomp your feet and tattle on me to a mod, I couldn't handle another time out. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 04:32:02 PM
Soooo, when you can't debate, call names and ridicule. You do realize, that's the definition of leftist troll. Right?
If you're unwilling to debate like an adult, then take a hike, we get libs like you on a weekly basis.
Oh, but please, don't throw a tantrum and stomp your feet and tattle on me to a mod, I couldn't handle another time out. :lol:
So I take it your answer is a big ... No.
Fair enough.
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 04:00:36 PM
Who said that?
Shhh! If speak too loud, or breathe hard, you'll knock over his strawman.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 04:36:02 PM
Shhh! If speak too loud, or breathe hard, you'll knock over his strawman.
She's adorable.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
So I take it your answer is a big ... No.
Fair enough.
Seriously, if you are unwilling to debate, then take a hike and quit wasting our time.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 04:53:33 PM
Seriously, if you are unwilling to debate, then take a hike and quit wasting our time.
When you come up with a point worthy of debate, let us know. Until then, I'm having fun on other threads.
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
When you come up with a point worthy of debate, let us know. Until then, I'm having fun on other threads.
Cut the crap, I responded to you point by point, but it's obvious you got in over your head and decided to run away.
Do it in other threads and you won't last long here.
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 04:43:42 PM
She's adorable.
Did this chew toy have a squeaker inside? Because I think I broke it.
Can we have another? :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 05:02:42 PM
Did this chew toy have a squeaker inside? Because I think I broke it.
Can we have another? :biggrin:
I have a feeling this is one of your past groupies...
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
I have a feeling this is one of your past groupies...
OOOOH, what was that hippie chicks name at the other forum? The one that got her as thrown in jail for public drunkenness?
They do see a lot alike, don't they?
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 05:10:45 PM
OOOOH, what was that hippie chicks name at the other forum? The one that got her as thrown in jail for public drunkenness?
They do see a lot alike, don't they?
It's like the time I was hanging out with a friend, and some hot chick walked up out of nowhere behind him and poured a beer over his head and called him an asshole. I think the same thing is going on here.
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 05:12:05 PM
It's like the time I was hanging out with a friend, and some hot chick walked up out of nowhere behind him and poured a beer over his head and called him an asshole. I think the same thing is going on here.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Excellent analogy!
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 05:13:11 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Excellent analogy!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You must have really abused this one in the past....
Quote from: Michelle on November 14, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
When you come up with a point worthy of debate, let us know. Until then, I'm having fun on other threads.
Hmm... Just who in the hell is us? This inquiring mind would like to know. Before I give Solar a time out. :smile:
Quote from: walkstall on November 14, 2014, 05:33:01 PM
Hmm... Just who in the hell is us? This inquiring mind would like to know. Before I give Solar a time out. :smile:
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Pounds desk, stomps feet, throws tantrum, holds breath. Now see what you've done dad? :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2014, 06:17:01 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Pounds desk, stomps feet, throws tantrum, holds breath. Now see what you've done dad? :biggrin:
Hmm... I could always put you in the same room with Nancy Pelosi. :tounge:
Michelle, I think this discussion is well past it's expiration date. Sometimes we just have to walk away from an argument. Hopefully something we said will get people thinking, and eventually a few might change their views on this topic. But you can't expect people to change overnight.
The hardest skill to master in public speaking, negotiating, debating, etc., is knowing when to walk away after you've planted an idea in someone's mind, and let them work it out. People like to think they arrived at a conclusion all by themselves, so you have to let them critically think and work out the math for themselves. I guarantee that eventually some here will come around to realize that a secular society, where no one is discriminated because of the religious beliefs they have/don't have, is the best protection they have that their religious beliefs will never be infringed by the beliefs of other religious groups.
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 07:33:49 PM
Michelle, I think this discussion is well past it's expiration date. Sometimes we just have to walk away from an argument. Hopefully something we said will get people thinking, and eventually a few might change their views on this topic. But you can't expect people to change overnight.
The hardest skill to master in public speaking, negotiating, debating, etc., is knowing when to walk away after you've planted an idea in someone's mind, and let them work it out. People like to think they arrived at a conclusion all by themselves, so you have to let them critically think and work out the math for themselves. I guarantee that eventually some here will come around to realize that a secular society, where no one is discriminated because of the religious beliefs they have/don't have, is the best protection they have that their religious beliefs will never be infringed by the beliefs of other religious groups.
I'm closed minded because I'm open to the mysteries of the universe, open to other dimensions, life on other planets, the supernatural, and the unexplained?
Quote from: taxed on November 14, 2014, 08:06:22 PM
I'm closed minded because I'm open to the mysteries of the universe, open to other dimensions, life on other planets, the supernatural, and the unexplained?
You closed minded bigot. How dare you not comply with the demands of the religious zealots faith that believes nothing exists beyond the tangible.
Comply, or we'll take you to court and kill your God!
Yeah, and we're closed minded? :lol:
Quote from: Skeptic on November 14, 2014, 07:33:49 PM
Michelle, I think this discussion is well past it's expiration date. Sometimes we just have to walk away from an argument. Hopefully something we said will get people thinking, and eventually a few might change their views on this topic. But you can't expect people to change overnight.
The hardest skill to master in public speaking, negotiating, debating, etc., is knowing when to walk away after you've planted an idea in someone's mind, and let them work it out. People like to think they arrived at a conclusion all by themselves, so you have to let them critically think and work out the math for themselves. I guarantee that eventually some here will come around to realize that a secular society, where no one is discriminated because of the religious beliefs they have/don't have, is the best protection they have that their religious beliefs will never be infringed by the beliefs of other religious groups.
I actually did. I clicked on the nifty icon to stop getting notifications of this thread last night and it still shows up in unread posts to me. I'm not yet familiar with this software.
When the hillbilly types were dancing around the moonshine fire beating their chests I kinda giggled and realized... not everyone learns at the same rate and left the thread. So I thought. :biggrin:
I do disagree with you that they will eventually come around. Facts don't really play a role in religious beliefs. That is NOT to say that I think people should change their thinking about their spirituality. That is an extremely personal issue and people have the right to believe in anything they wish! I'm referring to their claims that this nation is based on Christianity, founded on Christianity, (just goes to show how little some know about our founding fathers and their actions) and the rest of their information.
Do you remember when the whole Pepsi Can saga started? Christians were in an uproar because of info they *thought* was omitted from the words on a can. People didn't verify this. They didn't go look in their own frig and read it for themselves, they went to like minded sites and allowed like minded people to do their thinking for them. They wanted to boycott Pepsi, slander Pepsi, refuse to ever buy the stuff again. FINALLY, someone actually read the can and realized... it was nonsense. None of it was true.
But it goes to prove, when you will only go to those who want to believe as you do ... you tend to get biased info. That is what many will never learn.
During a time in our govt when people need to come together regardless of religious beliefs and fight that f'er Obola with everything we have (as well as most of our entire govt) some are still living in the Dark Ages and they believe religion will fix it for them.
Not so.
Many claim it is all the lefties and while the lefties are responsible for the greater majority of our problems today, the extreme righties are at fault as well. They sat on their collective, largish, back sides waiting for their religion to fix everything. "Put religion back in schools and that will fix the world!" Bleh.
These issues should have been taken care of many years ago. The extreme lefties didn't get any smarter and the extreme righties... their God didn't magically fix it either.
So no, I would have to disagree. I don't think most will come around. While Obola continues to destroy our nation they will insist that this is a Christian nation and putting religion back in schools will fix everything. Obola is banking on dividing the people. When that little twat is smarter than the Cons... that's one very sad day.
Quote from: Michelle on November 15, 2014, 06:42:19 AM
I actually did. I clicked on the nifty icon to stop getting notifications of this thread last night and it still shows up in unread posts to me. I'm not yet familiar with this software.
When the hillbilly types were dancing around the moonshine fire beating their chests I kinda giggled and realized... not everyone learns at the same rate and left the thread. So I thought. :biggrin:
I do disagree with you that they will eventually come around. Facts don't really play a role in religious beliefs. That is NOT to say that I think people should change their thinking about their spirituality. That is an extremely personal issue and people have the right to believe in anything they wish! I'm referring to their claims that this nation is based on Christianity, founded on Christianity, (just goes to show how little some know about our founding fathers and their actions) and the rest of their information.
Do you remember when the whole Pepsi Can saga started? Christians were in an uproar because of info they *thought* was omitted from the words on a can. People didn't verify this. They didn't go look in their own frig and read it for themselves, they went to like minded sites and allowed like minded people to do their thinking for them. They wanted to boycott Pepsi, slander Pepsi, refuse to ever buy the stuff again. FINALLY, someone actually read the can and realized... it was nonsense. None of it was true.
But it goes to prove, when you will only go to those who want to believe as you do ... you tend to get biased info. That is what many will never learn.
During a time in our govt when people need to come together regardless of religious beliefs and fight that f'er Obola with everything we have (as well as most of our entire govt) some are still living in the Dark Ages and they believe religion will fix it for them.
Not so.
Many claim it is all the lefties and while the lefties are responsible for the greater majority of our problems today, the extreme righties are at fault as well. They sat on their collective, largish, back sides waiting for their religion to fix everything. "Put religion back in schools and that will fix the world!" Bleh.
These issues should have been taken care of many years ago. The extreme lefties didn't get any smarter and the extreme righties... their God didn't magically fix it either.
So no, I would have to disagree. I don't think most will come around. While Obola continues to destroy our nation they will insist that this is a Christian nation and putting religion back in schools will fix everything. Obola is banking on dividing the people. When that little twat is smarter than the Cons... that's one very sad day.
Our country is different than your country. You're not an American, so it would be tough for you to understand.
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2014, 08:08:42 AM
Our country is different than your country. You're not an American, so it would be tough for you to understand.
Sorry to disappoint, the US is my country. Like it or not, I was born there and still financially do my part to support the country.
Please don't prove that sack of crap Obola correct. Stop dividing people. Get rid of illegals and LEGAL US citizens need to stand together.
Quote from: Michelle on November 15, 2014, 08:58:17 AM
Sorry to disappoint, the US is my country. Like it or not, I was born there and still financially do my part to support the country.
Please don't prove that sack of crap Obola correct. Stop dividing people. Get rid of illegals and LEGAL US citizens need to stand together.
You're in Mexico. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But we're a different culture.
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2014, 09:01:42 AM
You're in Mexico. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But we're a different culture.
Com'on... seriously, you aren't that stupid, right?
backspace backspace backspace... never mind. You are that stupid.
Just keep proving Obama right but don't you dare whine anymore. You are doing everything he wants. Just sit there and blame the rest of the world. Do nothing, just sit your butt in your chair and whine. That is what you do best. The problems of this country are the fault of people like you. Extreme lefties and extreme righties. Do nothing, just bitch. That's what you do.
Quote from: Michelle on November 15, 2014, 09:39:48 AM
Com'on... seriously, you aren't that stupid, right?
backspace backspace backspace... never mind. You are that stupid.
Just keep proving Obama right but don't you dare whine anymore. You are doing everything he wants. Just sit there and blame the rest of the world. Do nothing, just sit your butt in your chair and whine. That is what you do best. The problems of this country are the fault of people like you. Extreme lefties and extreme righties. Do nothing, just bitch. That's what you do.
I don't think Hussein is keeping you in Mexico. In fact, he's pretty encouraging for you to come here.
Nobody cares if you're in Mexico. It has some really, really beautiful parts, but the fact is, you're just probably out of touch. We celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, are into Easter, and all that stuff, because that's how many of us grew up, atheist or not. You're not into our American traditions, and don't even live here. The important thing is you support and promote liberty and keep preaching that message. Other than that, it would be difficult for you to understand our culture. I couldn't understand your culture, because I don't live there. The world is a large place!
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2014, 09:46:31 AM
I don't think Hussein is keeping you in Mexico. In fact, he's pretty encouraging for you to come here.
Nobody cares if you're in Mexico. It has some really, really beautiful parts, but the fact is, you're just probably out of touch. We celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, are into Easter, and all that stuff, because that's how many of us grew up, atheist or not. You're not into our American traditions, and don't even live here. The important thing is you support and promote liberty and keep preaching that message. Other than that, it would be difficult for you to understand our culture. I couldn't understand your culture, because I don't live there. The world is a large place!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.geocaching.com%2Fcache%2Ff91cd693-5fcd-4089-a6ce-7d468c1c68f7.jpg&hash=ea4fe319d1506508746534190434af1d8690e6b3)
Quote from: Michelle on November 15, 2014, 08:58:17 AM
Sorry to disappoint, the US is my country. Like it or not, I was born there and still financially do my part to support the country.
Please don't prove that sack of crap Obola correct. Stop dividing people. Get rid of illegals and LEGAL US citizens need to stand together.
Uh prove it.
Show me your photo ID in color first.
J/K thought I'd act like Facelessbook for a while.
That said, yes we do! And it has zero to do with race. It has to do with the welfare, security, and surivival of our Representative Constitutional Republic.
We need to stand together to oppose a great many things that pose a threat to very survival of these States United. Too bad some liberals and their RINO allies in the GOP don't get that.
We should quite literally.
Number one DEMAND a citizen be given priority treatment over that of someone who shouldn't be here to start with, by the U.S. government in their dealings with that government as is their RIGHT as a citizen.
Number two, stems from number one, stop the foreign aid, and the illegal aid.
UNLESS and UNTIL every last Natural born citizen first recieved that same aid.
The taxpayers work and pay for everything the Federal Government does, and everything the United States does.
It's time that the citizen's of these States United be given priority treatment by the government they pay for.
Past time if you ask me, that the United States government be forced by the people and the states to do this.
Since the Federal government can't recognize the simple truth that those who pay for something, should come first in their dealings with that government.
And those who are citizen's should also be the first to receive any aid being given by the government.
And lastly number three. Stop playing with the terrorists, recognize they are islamic extremist's, and take steps to combat them.
Which actually protect American citizen's, not strip them of God given rights, such as the right not to be searched by the government unless the government first obtains a warrant, and the right not to have government attempt to use it's resources to harass or otherwise abuse American citizen's who are guilty of nothing other than having an opinion and voicing it.
But some don't get the concept of free speech, or freedom from government abuse. Some think that's just A ok...