Rather have Mccain then Hillary or Obama

[DarkCityinc]

I really dont like any of them, which is why I'm not voting this time around but if I had to choose one, I rather it be Mccain.

I hate Hillary and Obama I just dont think would be good at all.

[SymphonyX]

I dunno I would rather have Obama than Hillary or McCain. Even though I respect McCain for serving in vietnam and actually speaking about Global Warming *a Republican!). I don't agree on some of his views. Also, I definetly don't like Hillary for many reasons.

[Carsonal]

McCain will not win.
Obama will be the next U.S. President.

This decree goes beyond the average mans understanding of Earth events.

[One-Shot]

I dunno I would rather have Obama than Hillary or McCain. Even though I respect McCain for serving in vietnam and actually speaking about Global Warming *a Republican!). I don't agree on some of his views. Also, I definetly don't like Hillary for many reasons.
I really don't get the last statement? Why not like hillary if you like obama? Is it the issues you dislike or just the person?

[Cooke_E_G]

I really havnt been paying much attention to anything about politics this time around! Not sense Bush became president. Does anyone have the knowledge to write a little summary about the Hillary, Obama, and McCain? Or a site that I could go to find some info? I dont really want to read 5+ pages on each person....just a short discription!

[One-Shot]

I really havnt been paying much attention to anything about politics this time around! Not sense Bush became president. Does anyone have the knowledge to write a little summary about the Hillary, Obama, and McCain? Or a site that I could go to find some info? I dont really want to read 5+ pages on each person....just a short discription!
http://elections.foxnews.com/candidates/

Well here is something to give a little backround and stances on a few issues.

[BlindSight]

Congrats on deciding to vote for the man who you perceive to be the slightly lesser evil, and then not explaining why you hold this position.



This decree goes beyond the average mans understanding of Earth events.

Please bro, I'm fairly certain I know excatly what you are talking about, and the notion that Obama's victory some how fits into a scheme of positive Earth changes is complete rubbish. I'm not denying that certain Earth changes will happen, but that Obama is anything more then a corrupt burden weighing down on the common man. My bad if I am misinterpreting you.

[superJoel]

I personally would have Hillary in the whitehouse, so that way the Republicans won't be shunned from office for the next 12 years, and the US won't go to hell in a hand-basket, which is where Obama will lead us with his... I wish I could have "talked" to Hitler BS... puh-lease, that would have done nothing... talk is worthless... we need action... we can talk about "change" all we want, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I haven't heard one actual idea on how he will achieve "change"... just a lot of big ideas on what needs to be changed and he's good at wording things to make people believe that he has a plan. I really hope Obama doesn't win.

[Cooke_E_G]

http://elections.foxnews.com/candidates/

Well here is something to give a little backround and stances on a few issues.

Thanks Ill look into this! +rep!

[seebs]

I personally would have Hillary in the whitehouse, so that way the Republicans won't be shunned from office for the next 12 years, and the US won't go to hell in a hand-basket, which is where Obama will lead us with his... I wish I could have "talked" to Hitler BS... puh-lease, that would have done nothing... talk is worthless... we need action... we can talk about "change" all we want, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I haven't heard one actual idea on how he will achieve "change"... just a lot of big ideas on what needs to be changed and he's good at wording things to make people believe that he has a plan. I really hope Obama doesn't win.

Yeah, talking never solved anything. I mean, look how disasterous our attempts to make peace with the Germans and Japanese after WWII were, and Gandhi's complete failure to make progress against the British imperialists. :p

While there are certainly things talking doesn't solve, there are a lot of things it does, and it's almost always worth a try. Talking doesn't get thousands of people killed because no one really had a clear idea for what they were going to do.

[One-Shot]

Yeah, talking never solved anything. I mean, look how disasterous our attempts to make peace with the Germans and Japanese after WWII were, and Gandhi's complete failure to make progress against the British imperialists. :p

While there are certainly things talking doesn't solve, there are a lot of things it does, and it's almost always worth a try. Talking doesn't get thousands of people killed because no one really had a clear idea for what they were going to do.
No one is saying not talking at all is good but talking with no preconditions and pressure is foolish and pointless.

[JeffPara]

I don't know much about the election and promises made by the candidates, but theres something I don't like about Obama as a person, same with Hilary. McCain seems the only choice.

[Centurion]

One promises to pull out of Iraq, and one wants to stay. Either way I don't see it going down very well in that regard.

[superJoel]

No one is saying not talking at all is good but talking with no preconditions and pressure is foolish and pointless.
Yep, that's what I meant. I'm also under the impression that you can talk til you're blue in the face, but Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, none of them would ever change their beliefs, morals, or minds, so talk is cheap in these instances. Give talking a try... but when that fails... more talking won't fix it.

[Carsonal]

Please bro, I'm fairly certain I know excatly what you are talking about, and the notion that Obama's victory some how fits into a scheme of positive Earth changes is complete rubbish. I'm not denying that certain Earth changes will happen, but that Obama is anything more then a corrupt burden weighing down on the common man. My bad if I am misinterpreting you.

His profession is a politician.
Another profession is plumber.
Even the most holy of plumbers can't go without getting some **** on them.

Like many other in his line of work, he's made plenty of decisions to attack him on.
But, on a level beyond politics, he is changing into someone who will be an important part of the world in the next 3.5 years.
He doesn't know this yet.
I guess you could say he's 'walking into it'.

[se7enthsign]

No one is saying not talking at all is good but talking with no preconditions and pressure is foolish and pointless.

I believe those are known as "threats".


One promises to pull out of Iraq, and one wants to stay. Either way I don't see it going down very well in that regard.

I don't get it. Saddam has been dead and rotting for almost a year and a half now, the oh so scary nuclear and chemical weapons were never found, and the "new" Iraqi government has been in place for 2 years.

To everyone who says we need to "finish the fight", exactly what is left to do there? Do you really think they can eliminate EVERY insurgent? As long as there are guns laying around and boys who are tired of seeing US flags in their country, there will be people taking shots at the troops. (we would do the same if the US was invaded and our "liberators" outstayed their welcome.)


Yep, that's what I meant. I'm also under the impression that you can talk til you're blue in the face, but Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, none of them would ever change their beliefs, morals, or minds, so talk is cheap in these instances. Give talking a try... but when that fails... more talking won't fix it.

But you should still allow talking the opportunity to fail. Had Bush done that, he wouldn't have taken so much crap about the war. If nothing else, Bush could have demonstrated to the world that Saddam was indeed a threat that had to be stopped.

[weskurtz81]

I believe those are known as "threats".


I don't get it. Saddam has been dead and rotting for almost a year and a half now, the oh so scary nuclear and chemical weapons were never found, and the "new" Iraqi government has been in place for 2 years.

To everyone who says we need to "finish the fight", exactly what is left to do there? Do you really think they can eliminate EVERY insurgent? As long as there are guns laying around and boys who are tired of seeing US flags in their country, there will be people taking shots at the troops. (we would do the same if the US was invaded and our "liberators" outstayed their welcome.)


But you should still allow talking the opportunity to fail. Had Bush done that, he wouldn't have taken so much crap about the war. If nothing else, Bush could have demonstrated to the world that Saddam was indeed a threat that had to be stopped.

Just wanted to say that it's not the average Iraqi which is causing problems and shooting at the troops. People from other countries have flocked to Iraq to try and disrupt the attempts at creating a working democracy in the middle east..... and those people that are actually Iraqi natives which are involved are in the minority....

[se7enthsign]

Just wanted to say that it's not the average Iraqi which is causing problems and shooting at the troops. People from other countries have flocked to Iraq to try and disrupt the attempts at creating a working democracy in the middle east..... and those people that are actually Iraqi natives which are involved are in the minority....


Is it a "working democracy" that they are trying to disrupt or is it a perception that Iraq is currently being "ruled" by the US? Obviously, the US is merely trying to get the country stable before they leave, but like I said, the perception may be that the Americans are there to stay.

In any case, the problem is that this opposition is endless. You can't kill off an entire Ideology. If you are planning on staying until the insurgency ends, then you might as well establish permanent bases like the ones in Germany and Japan.

Personally, I think that, at the very least, Iraq's central government should be functional at this point. If they are ever going to rebuild themselves as an independent country, they are going to have to learn to fight their own battles sooner or later. The US presence does nothing but give them a reason to continue fighting.

Like I said, Saddam and his sons are dead, the country has a new government, and the WMDs were never found. Iraq is no longer a direct threat to the west...at all. Every reason for going to war has been accomplished, so exactly what fight are they trying to finish? Do they think they can end Muslim fundamentalists? Fifty years after Hitler's death, nazi/neo-nazis still walk the earth. You can't just get rid of something like that.

[Dorfdad]

Im a republician and Im voting for Obama for a few reasons explained throughly in other threads, but John MccAin is going to have a HORRIBLE time running against Obama everyone knows it, this is why Hillary is fighting SOOOOOOOO hard to steal this win as she knows the Democrats will win in a landslide this Nov.

What is John Mccain going to Run on? The Economy that the Republicans have left him with? Hes going to run stirckly on the WAR and Foreign Policy. He has to prove in a few weeks or months that 4000+ lives of Americans and countless Iraq women and children died for a very good reason, and while we are making progress for sure this war was unjust. I was for it for a while untill I saw new evidence and I changed my mind due to the information that was avaialble to me. Bush didn't

John Mcaain as President will mean nothing more than 4 more years of stay the course, the same course that has gotten worse every year... Im not looking forward to 6.00 gas beacuse our goverment is not doing it's job and allowing huge corporations to expose and screw the Americans beacuse they have friends or family in the business and they are paying them back..

Obama is the ONLY shot we have at change. Hes fresh, will bring new blood and people into washington and will try to change some things..

he may not do it, but hes the BEST shot we have...

I hate our choices as well, but this is politics anymore it's not about whats right or wrong for us the citizens it's a dog and pony shell game based around power and money...

America is heading for a meltdown, where average people start rioting. Once this happens the goverment will imposs new laws they have been waiting to restricting our rights even more...

New World Order is slowly coming to pass..

[Cooke_E_G]

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


I received this from my Grandma and I just read it....any truth behind it?

[noD]

Are 3 are the same to me

McCain has some view I agree with but his view of working with the Dems is giving into their side on every issue.
He is good man but political wimp.

Obama - All talk, supposed to be the great uniter but look how divided the Dem race is, If he can unite Dem's behind him how's he going to get rest of the country. Good speaker

Hillary - not worth commenting, fake.

[TheGreatDane17]

Ill take McCain. I agree with finishing what we started. Every day the democratic state of Iraq increases its efficiency. We can leave once there military and government is ready to make decisions to further help there country. Bush will look like a hero in 25 years when Iraq is a great country and the government will be able take care of there citizens. On the other hand, people will see neighboring country's continuing the downward spiral that they are in today.

Obama wants to re-instate the capital gains tax which will further ruin our economy along with the real estate market. Not only that, but he keeps speaking of change, but has not revealed any plans on how he will bring the change. Don't even get me started on universal health care. It has been proven in canada to be terrible. It takes up to a year to get surgery and 6 months to get x rays. The ER price will also increase with the universal health care. It sounds great now, but when you are bringing your child in to the hospital with a broken bone & you either have to wait 6+ months for him to get surgery or pay out the *** for him to get operated on in the ER, you will be sorry.

[hoverbike]

It has been proven in canada to be terrible. It takes up to a year to get surgery and 6 months to get x rays. The ER price will also increase with the universal health care.
More myths about the health care system in Canada. I have never heard of a x-ray taking 6 months to be done, usually it's within a few days if not the same day. Surgery wait time is probably similar to the US.


Bush will look like a hero in 25 years
He will be published as a hero in books if the Elite have it their way by then.

[TheGreatDane17]

More myths about the health care system in Canada. I have never heard of a x-ray taking 6 months to be done, usually it's within a few days if not the same day. Surgery wait time is probably similar to the US.



He will be published as a hero in books if the Elite have it their way by then.

Myths? Actually, doctors from Canada have said it themselves.

As for the other comment, if we have the wrong liberals in office(obama), we could end up not living for 25 more years.

[Vulgotha]

McCain>Obama and Hillary.

So I agree with the original post.

[SymphonyX]

Are you guys going to throw a party once Obama wins?

[Vulgotha]

I'm half tempted to hide myself in a bunker 300ft below ground actually.

My hopes and expectations aren't too high if he takes office.

[SymphonyX]

Nice I'v never had a party in a bunker before. Am I invited?

[Vulgotha]

Quite naturally. Booze and AK-47's for all! So we can fend off the impending zombie apocalypse nowhere near sober.*


*No this is not a political joke or attack at obama it's pure fun.

[Centurion]

Ill take McCain. I agree with finishing what we started. Every day the democratic state of Iraq increases its efficiency. We can leave once there military and government is ready to make decisions to further help there country. Bush will look like a hero in 25 years when Iraq is a great country and the government will be able take care of there citizens. On the other hand, people will see neighboring country's continuing the downward spiral that they are in today.

Obama wants to re-instate the capital gains tax which will further ruin our economy along with the real estate market. Not only that, but he keeps speaking of change, but has not revealed any plans on how he will bring the change. Don't even get me started on universal health care. It has been proven in canada to be terrible. It takes up to a year to get surgery and 6 months to get x rays. The ER price will also increase with the universal health care. It sounds great now, but when you are bringing your child in to the hospital with a broken bone & you either have to wait 6+ months for him to get surgery or pay out the *** for him to get operated on in the ER, you will be sorry.

That's odd, because every time I've had to go in for X-Rays, its been on the same day, and this was in Toronto.



Quite naturally. Booze and AK-47's for all! So we can fend off the impending zombie apocalypse nowhere near sober.*


*No this is not a political joke or attack at obama it's pure fun.


Throw up the barracades and break out the Kalashnikovs :)

[Lefein]

I've got an M&P-15, can I party with ya'll?

[Vulgotha]

Quite naturally. The more the merrier.

[superJoel]

We are all sheep. Obama will probably win the election, because all the voters hear is CHANGE eloquently spoken in a demeanor that incites emotion... we need CHANGE, McCain is more of the SAME. CHANGE. You've been hypnotized into believing this line of BS. I see college students with huge CHANGE bumper stickers... OBAMA '08, and all they can say is CHANGE. If that's all you know about the election and politics and what's going on in the world, we're doomed. It's no wonder the news is mostly about what Paris Hilton or Brittney is doing, or the Grandma who got her cat stuck in a tree, cuz we don't want to know the important things about the world and the government that may be hard to hear. It's so easy to blame Bush for a war that, after 9/11, we were all too eager to start. Let's also blame him for $4/gal gas prices... yep that's his fault too. The Housing market and lending practices... Bush's fault. We need Change. We need to change the way America thinks... stop being sheep. Learn the policies... look at real current events. Obama wants to do a lot, but can he... will he and how will he get it done. Is what he proclaims a good idea? Higher taxes to support more spending? Don't just assume that McCain is more of the same. Quit buying into the talk and nice little motto's. Look into the issues. Really look them over... Then Vote based on a true understanding of the issues and each candidate. Quit being sheep! Make up your own mind.

[valleyshrew]

Learn the policies... look at real current events. Obama wants to do a lot, but can he... will he and how will he get it done. Is what he proclaims a good idea? Higher taxes to support more spending? Don't just assume that McCain is more of the same. Quit buying into the talk and nice little motto's. Look into the issues. Really look them over... Then Vote based on a true understanding of the issues and each candidate. Quit being sheep! Make up your own mind.
There's no evidence that people are being sheep here, of course they have made up their own mind, it's really not a difficult thing to do. McCain is a horrible horrible choice, he believes the constitution establishes America as a Christian nation, he's rated 0% by the aclu. People talk often talk about lack of experience of candidates in certain areas, but they hire experts in those areas to decide things, and the senate has a large responsibility too, so a president does not necessarily need experience, just good judgement, that's the most important thing. Obama will stand up for human rights and freedom, help relations with the rest of the world, use reason instead of divine inspiration, make policies transparent through use of the internet, listen to the public, and most importantly to me, obama will embrace science, mccain at least believes in evolution, but I'm sure he would not be as much of an advocate for science as obama. McCain is not a moral person, he advocates teaching abstinence only and christianity, yet he's a womaniser himself, and believes in evolution. I don't trust what he says, there are a ton of stupid quotes attributable to him, but rarely do you get any from Obama, he speaks with eloquance and intelligence. Just look at this on mccain (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccainisms.htm) and this on obama (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-quotes.htm), and compare.

Don't go to weasel news for candidate info, here (http://www.ontheissues.org/) you can find some info that's a little bit more objective, but still not by much. Maybe read their wikipedia pages, it's well worth spending a few hours reading about them.

[superJoel]

There's no evidence that people are being sheep here, of course they have made up their own mind, it's really not a difficult thing to do. McCain is a horrible horrible choice, he believes the constitution establishes America as a Christian nation, he's rated 0% by the aclu. People talk often talk about lack of experience of candidates in certain areas, but they hire experts in those areas to decide things, and the senate has a large responsibility too, so a president does not necessarily need experience, just good judgement, that's the most important thing. Obama will stand up for human rights and freedom, help relations with the rest of the world, use reason instead of divine inspiration, make policies transparent through use of the internet, listen to the public, and most importantly to me, obama will embrace science, mccain at least believes in evolution, but I'm sure he would not be as much of an advocate for science as obama. McCain is not a moral person, he advocates teaching abstinence only and christianity, yet he's a womaniser himself, and believes in evolution. I don't trust what he says, there are a ton of stupid quotes attributable to him, but rarely do you get any from Obama, he speaks with eloquance and intelligence. Just look at this on mccain (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccainisms.htm) and this on obama (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-quotes.htm), and compare.

Don't go to weasel news for candidate info, here (http://www.ontheissues.org/) you can find some info that's a little bit more objective, but still not by much. Maybe read their wikipedia pages, it's well worth spending a few hours reading about them.
Well... I'm basing this on people saying that Obama is the least of the two evils or we need change, McCain is more of the same. Those are from the words of this page and kind of mirror those quotes coming from the mouth of Obama... sounds like some sheep to me... instead of saying McCain will be more of the same, look at how he's different. He also claims he will make changes.

If you've done your homework and you can say that these issues are fine with you, then vote for Obama... power to ya. I think that I would rather have someone be informed on the issues and make a vote based on fact rather than empty quotes and slogans... even if it goes against my stance... that's the wonder of democracy.

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian and believing in evolution. I think that most people have accepted some part of evolution as being true. But, has he stated that he believes in macro-evolution? I hope that doesn't have any basis on your voting. That's what I was getting at... the whole... forgetting the issues and focusing on the sidebars. Cuz, Obama claims to believe in the Christian God of the Bible or Koran... he refused to swear in on the bible, used the koran, and he supports abortion. I dont' understand your logic about Morals... There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. It prevents all sorts of STD's and Pregnancies... is there something wrong with not having sex until you're old enough to make a good judgement on your own... sure we should tell people about sex and explain the consequences of said actions... but some of this falls back on the parents.

How is McCain a womaniser... because after 5 1/2 years in a POW camp, his wife also went through a tramatic accident and being an officer in the military not spending much time in the same state or country as his wife... he got a divorce and married a younger woman. Being in the navy myself, I've felt the stresses on married life with many others... I've had supervisers who've been married four times. This means little about a man's moral compass. He was a POW in Hanoi and refused to take partial treatment for being the son of an admiral... said the only way he'd leave if they let everyone else who was there leave before him... with injuries, tortured day and night for 5 1/2 years... I think he's got great character.

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

There's no evidence that people are being sheep here, of course they have made up their own mind, it's really not a difficult thing to do. McCain is a horrible horrible choice, he believes the constitution establishes America as a Christian nation, he's rated 0% by the aclu. People talk often talk about lack of experience of candidates in certain areas, but they hire experts in those areas to decide things, and the senate has a large responsibility too, so a president does not necessarily need experience, just good judgement, that's the most important thing. Obama will stand up for human rights and freedom, help relations with the rest of the world, use reason instead of divine inspiration, make policies transparent through use of the internet, listen to the public, and most importantly to me, obama will embrace science, mccain at least believes in evolution, but I'm sure he would not be as much of an advocate for science as obama. McCain is not a moral person, he advocates teaching abstinence only and christianity, yet he's a womaniser himself, and believes in evolution. I don't trust what he says, there are a ton of stupid quotes attributable to him, but rarely do you get any from Obama, he speaks with eloquance and intelligence. Just look at this on mccain (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccainisms.htm) and this on obama (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-quotes.htm), and compare.

Don't go to weasel news for candidate info, here (http://www.ontheissues.org/) you can find some info that's a little bit more objective, but still not by much. Maybe read their wikipedia pages, it's well worth spending a few hours reading about them.
Our nation was established with Christian beliefs.

I agree with OP.

[Vulgotha]

You'd be surprised how many individuals contest that idea Guitaras. More then a few of my teachers "Respectfully disagree"- despite all my sociology\history\government teachers saying that "We were absolutely founded on Christians tenets".

The split is like this (atleast in my school, which is in the middle of conservative nebraska lol):

Liberal english\art teachers
--------------------------
Government\History\Sociology teachers


I honest to God think you don't know anything about the United States or you're in denial, if you truly believe that our Nation was not founded on Christian beliefs\tenets\doctrine.

[One-Shot]

he's rated 0% by the aclu.
Man I am liking McCain more and more everyday.

[Vulgotha]

Man I am liking McCain more and more everyday.

Hahaha.. My sentiments exactly.

Who gives a flying crap about the ACLU.

[DayWalker]

No one is saying not talking at all is good but talking with no preconditions and pressure is foolish and pointless.

yeah... b/c the current policy has worked so well in North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, etc... :roll:

Myths? Actually, doctors from Canada have said it themselves.

As for the other comment, if we have the wrong liberals in office(obama), we could end up not living for 25 more years.

Canada is actually overwhelmingly proud of their heathcare system- despite the propaganda...

Are you guys going to throw a party once Obama wins?

yes :cool:

I'm half tempted to hide myself in a bunker 300ft below ground actually.

My hopes and expectations aren't too high if he takes office.

Money says my party is going to be SOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER than your party ;)

That's odd, because every time I've had to go in for X-Rays, its been on the same day, and this was in Toronto.




Throw up the barracades and break out the Kalashnikovs :)

Republican propaganda.

Well... I'm basing this on people saying that Obama is the least of the two evils or we need change, McCain is more of the same. Those are from the words of this page and kind of mirror those quotes coming from the mouth of Obama... sounds like some sheep to me... instead of saying McCain will be more of the same, look at how he's different. He also claims he will make changes.

If you've done your homework and you can say that these issues are fine with you, then vote for Obama... power to ya. I think that I would rather have someone be informed on the issues and make a vote based on fact rather than empty quotes and slogans... even if it goes against my stance... that's the wonder of democracy.

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian and believing in evolution. I think that most people have accepted some part of evolution as being true. But, has he stated that he believes in macro-evolution? I hope that doesn't have any basis on your voting. That's what I was getting at... the whole... forgetting the issues and focusing on the sidebars. Cuz, Obama claims to believe in the Christian God of the Bible or Koran... he refused to swear in on the bible, used the koran, and he supports abortion. I dont' understand your logic about Morals... There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. It prevents all sorts of STD's and Pregnancies... is there something wrong with not having sex until you're old enough to make a good judgement on your own... sure we should tell people about sex and explain the consequences of said actions... but some of this falls back on the parents.

How is McCain a womaniser... because after 5 1/2 years in a POW camp, his wife also went through a tramatic accident and being an officer in the military not spending much time in the same state or country as his wife... he got a divorce and married a younger woman. Being in the navy myself, I've felt the stresses on married life with many others... I've had supervisers who've been married four times. This means little about a man's moral compass. He was a POW in Hanoi and refused to take partial treatment for being the son of an admiral... said the only way he'd leave if they let everyone else who was there leave before him... with injuries, tortured day and night for 5 1/2 years... I think he's got great character.

:lol:

what a load of ****. Obama did not swear in on a Koran. Onyl one Congressman in the history of the US has ever been sworn in on the Koran... and his name is not Barak Obama.

I thought you were the guy trumpeting following the issues and facts over listening to spin and soundbytes???

teaching abstinence to a bunch of horny teenagers is STUPID. Teaching them how to use the necessary precautions is SMART.

[Vulgotha]

Blaaaah this post came off as more of a flamefest then I intended.

We'll see. Daywalker I do not resent the fact that Mr. Obama is a Democrat- Parties matter very little to me. I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent really.

All that matters to me, are his ideologies. Screw parties.

[One-Shot]

yeah... b/c the current policy has worked so well in North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, etc... :roll:

..yeah and asking nicely will fix everything I am sure. We need a new strategy indeed, but I put more faith in the person who actually has foreign policy experience to come up with something new.

[SymphonyX]

..yeah and asking nicely will fix everything I am sure.

You never know until you try! :heart:

[DayWalker]

..yeah and asking nicely will fix everything I am sure.

"asking nicely"?????

TALKING!!!!

Do this... and we can do this for you.
Do this... and we can work on a way to do this for you.

it's not a complicated process. :roll:

and its a much better approach than saying:
"Do this or we'll pressure you you to do it- which really means will throw a couple sanctions at you, which we know will only hurt the people, and then ignore you while you continue doing whatever the hell you were doing." (see North Korea, Iran, Iraq)

Personally- i'd much have have an open dialog than continue the ridiculous failed policies of the past.


McCain doesn't have foreign policy experience- he has military experience.

[superJoel]

teaching abstinence to a bunch of horny teenagers is STUPID. Teaching them how to use the necessary precautions is SMART.
You should teach them to take necessary precautions... but parents need to take an active role in parenting their children.

Yeah... I'll have to look into where I got that info. We're all guilty of believing a little propoganda... my bad.

Obama, as far as our military and national security goes, really scares me.

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

You'd be surprised how many individuals contest that idea Guitaras. More then a few of my teachers "Respectfully disagree"- despite all my sociologyhistorygovernment teachers saying that "We were absolutely founded on Christians tenets".

The split is like this (atleast in my school, which is in the middle of conservative nebraska lol):

Liberal englishart teachers
--------------------------
GovernmentHistorySociology teachers


I honest to God think you don't know anything about the United States or you're in denial, if you truly believe that our Nation was not founded on Christian beliefstenetsdoctrine.
By this....you agree with my right? Lol I am groggy as heck right now.

[Vulgotha]

lol. Me? The uber christian?

Yes I agree with you mate!

[DayWalker]

You should teach them to take necessary precautions... but parents need to take an active role in parenting their children.

Yeah... I'll have to look into where I got that info. We're all guilty of believing a little propoganda... my bad.

Obama, as far as our military and national security goes, really scares me.

exactly- let the parents worry about chastity.

Let school worry about HIV, and unwanted babies.

(Although parents should really worry about both.)

Don't worry about Obama- if Bush meets whatever standard some people in this country hold then Obama will be just fine.

[One-Shot]

"asking nicely"?????

TALKING!!!!

Do this... and we can do this for you.
Do this... and we can work on a way to do this for you.

it's not a complicated process. :roll:

and its a much better approach than saying:
"Do this or we'll pressure you you to do it- which really means will throw a couple sanctions at you, which we know will only hurt the people, and then ignore you while you continue doing whatever the hell you were doing." (see North Korea, Iran, Iraq)

Personally- i'd much have have an open dialog than continue the ridiculous failed policies of the past.


McCain doesn't have foreign policy experience- he has military experience.

See where the naivety comes from is thinking that Ahmadinejad is some rational person who will respond to diplomacy. Right now he is continuing with his program anyway so what does he need from us? What would make him stop supporting the insurgents in Iraq? Us stopping supporting Israel? As President Bush said it is like people saying if only we could of talked to Hitler than maybe ww2 could have been avoided.

Yes I know "zomg we have not tried how do we know he would not respond!" Well his actions and words have not exactly been diplomatic. Correct me if I am wrong but haven't we tried talks?

[Vulgotha]

Pretty sure Jimmy Carter was campaigning on a siiimilllar prospect there Daywalker.

Edit: For the love of moses. Admaenijead isn't the problem! It's the Supreme Leader and the Clerics!!!!

HE'S A SOCKPUPPET!



http://www.thriftyfun.com/images/articles11/sockpuppet300x386.jpg




^ There he is without his suit on.

[DayWalker]

See where the naivety comes from is thinking that Ahmadinejad is some rational person who will respond to diplomacy. Right now he is continuing with his program anyway so what does he need from us? What would make him stop supporting the insurgents in Iraq? Us stopping supporting Israel? As President Bush said it is like people saying if only we could of talked to Hitler than maybe ww2 could have been avoided.

Yes I know "zomg we have not tried how do we know he would not respond!" Well his actions and words have not exactly been diplomatic. Correct me if I am wrong but haven't we tried talks?

if "talking" fails- guess what we have waiting in the wings??? not sure why you are so panicked...

and there are other countries int he world besides Iran that need to be dealt with more directly.... Cuba for example.

[SymphonyX]

Jimmy Carter said that he won because his mom campaigned for him. Thats crazy.

:lol: @ Vulgotha because its true.

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

lol. Me? The uber christian?

Yes I agree with you mate!
Lol good.

Personally, I don't care for Obama. To me, he stands out too much as a bad member for office. Specifically for presidency in this case. Hillary is out of the way, but again I hated her. McCain isn't a huge guy for me either, but I like him way better than Obama.

[DayWalker]

Lol good.

Personally, I don't care for Obama. To me, he stands out too much as a bad member for office. Specifically for presidency in this case. Hillary is out of the way, but again I hated her. McCain isn't a huge guy for me either, but I like him way better than Obama.

what do you mean by "stands out too much"???

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

what do you mean by "stands out too much"???
When I said stands out too much, I probably worded it really wrong. I meant there is a lot I don't like about him.

[InfernoReaper]

To be honest, I hope McCain wins, for the sake of this country.

The US is going to explode in hate riots if the order doesn't continue like always. If by some freak chance Obama does get elected, I feel an assassination would be following close behind.

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

That is exactly what I believe...along with Hillary too if she became president.

[scoob1]

I agree with valleysheew.... vote for McCain and sit in the unemployment line with the rest of you family and friends..... PSN ID: scoob1 Clan:1FAM

dag ....GuitarasDeAmor...cutie!!!

[scoob1]

loved her on Transformers...:snicker

[renegadevikingPS3]

Alien obduction by Transformers. Be afraid!

In other news, sign your email over at Americansolutions.com (headed by former speaker of the house & PhD Newt Grinwitch) to drill in US waters BEFORE the Chinese get at it. They'll go for it for sure. Be sure we get to the gulf first!

[OldlandRed]

Blimey, I didn't realise the US had such assets off shore.

Where do the Chinese come into it?

[weskurtz81]

Blimey, I didn't realise the US had such assets off shore.

Where do the Chinese come into it?

China has leased plots off the shore of Cuba in which they are planning on drilling under the gulf (Florida, and anywhere else they can reach), and take the oil that we are not allowed to drill for.

China might not be drilling yet, but they are moving forward with this project.

[shinoff2183]

How is McCain a womaniser... because after 5 1/2 years in a POW camp, his wife also went through a tramatic accident and being an officer in the military not spending much time in the same state or country as his wife... he got a divorce and married a younger woman. Being in the navy myself, I've felt the stresses on married life with many others... I've had supervisers who've been married four times. This means little about a man's moral compass. He was a POW in Hanoi and refused to take partial treatment for being the son of an admiral... said the only way he'd leave if they let everyone else who was there leave before him... with injuries, tortured day and night for 5 1/2 years... I think he's got great character.


Or that 5 and a half years could have traumatized him. He wont say that in public, but you never know.

[renegadevikingPS3]

We want CHANGE....WE WANT COMMUNISM!

Obama = People's Republic of America
McCain = good old Federal Democracy and Republic.

Take your pick.

[Kougaiji]

This is, quite simply put: stupid.

Not one person here has talked about a single issue.

Being a college student in a pretty well ranked institution, I'm around tons of liberals and very many people active in the political process. It's almost a culture shock to see such ignorant replies on this thread!



Let me put it this way, plain and simple:
Americans vote with their wallets. Every time that the economy is down, the GOP is voted out. This is consistently true. Tax cuts haven't helped, and giving even MORE tax breaks to the richest 0.2% of america is also not going to help. With a democrat, in this case obama, the high and uber high class will get tax increases, while the rest of us get tax decreases.

Besides: McCain = 4th from last class rank at the navy academy
Obama = magna *** laude harvard graduate

I'm sorry if you believe that because he was a POW he deserves a presidency, but not only are there thousands of veterans and POWs not running for office, but his policies are actually even more unfriendly to veterans and current servicemen than bush's. McCain has the bright idea to decrease benefits for people serving in their first tour, only when they come back for more tours will they receive the benefits deserved to anyone serving the country.

No one's going to take away your gun rights. Conservatives always say their oponents are against guns, when no one in their right mind would even consider touching that issue in office if they want to keep their job. This is america. Politicians don't display their personal beliefs and ideologies, none of them. They display what they believe the people want. Whoever interprets the people... and the lobbyists... best wins the game.

end of story.

And america is more than ready for a woman or black president, as poll numbers will tell you. I'm sorry your inbred southern closet racism is so against this viewpoint, but lobbyist money and the washington machine doesn't care about race if you can do what it takes to get there.

[Vulgotha]

So tell me Kougajji, who (of the two) has more years of political experience?

Additionally what do we warrant as "criteria for presidency"?

[weskurtz81]

This is, quite simply put: stupid.

Not one person here has talked about a single issue.

Being a college student in a pretty well ranked institution, I'm around tons of liberals and very many people active in the political process. It's almost a culture shock to see such ignorant replies on this thread!

Just because you are a college student around a bunch of liberals doesn't make you any more correct than anyone else in here, nor does it make your response any less idiotic. I am not saying it's a stupid response, but your opening statement in this thread was uncalled for and gives you very little credibility as far as I am concerned. It only makes you look like you think you are superior to everyone else that has posted in here so far. Big deal, you go to UT, who the hell cares, people go there and flunk out all the time.... I go to a University too!!! It's actually the first time I have mentioned it, because it doesn't need to be mentioned.



Let me put it this way, plain and simple:
Americans vote with their wallets. Every time that the economy is down, the GOP is voted out. This is consistently true. Tax cuts haven't helped, and giving even MORE tax breaks to the richest 0.2% of america is also not going to help. With a democrat, in this case obama, the high and uber high class will get tax increases, while the rest of us get tax decreases.Why do you think tax cuts haven't helped? The economy started to slip into a recession before Bush even started to take office, took a hit @ 9/11, and now, ONLY after high energy prices and the bust of the housing market has the economy begun to falter. The economy has been fine until now. Also, the tax cuts went to everyone, not just the richest. And actually, percentage wise, the less wealthy people got a higher percentage cut, it just ends up being a smaller amount because they already make and pay less. Also, Obama wants to reinstate the "death tax" along with essentially doubling the capital gains tax. The death tax is a horrible tax, and the capital gains tax has not business being raised. How about this, the government just spend less money? Ever think of that one? Why do ANY taxes need to be raised? They don't.... the government just needs to be more fiscally conservative. Also, just consider, prior to Bush cutting taxes, the margin between what the rich and and the middle class families were paying was actually closer. Sure, everyone got a tax decrease, but the people making less money got more of a decrease than those paying the lion share.

Besides: McCain = 4th from last class rank at the navy academy
Obama = magna *** laude harvard graduateAnd that matters why? Just because some guy graduated higher in his class or lower in his class doesn't mean he will be any more successful. It's a baseless comparison. There are many variables involved which could have influenced grades, they weren't in the same school, they were not taking the same classes.

I'm sorry if you believe that because he was a POW he deserves a presidency, but not only are there thousands of veterans and POWs not running for office, but his policies are actually even more unfriendly to veterans and current servicemen than bush's. McCain has the bright idea to decrease benefits for people serving in their first tour, only when they come back for more tours will they receive the benefits deserved to anyone serving the country.Decrease what benefits? I know he wants to restructure the GI bill to try to influence people to re-enlist, which I don't think he should push, but I can understand why he would want to, in order to increase retention. I don't agree with that though, and it would never pass.

No one's going to take away your gun rights. Conservatives always say their oponents are against guns, when no one in their right mind would even consider touching that issue in office if they want to keep their job. This is america. Politicians don't display their personal beliefs and ideologies, none of them. They display what they believe the people want. Whoever interprets the people... and the lobbyists... best wins the game.

end of story.Yeah, both sides both say whatever they can to get people to vote for them, old news. I am sure you are aware of the fact that conservative don't have a monopoly on this type of tactic.

And america is more than ready for a woman or black president, as poll numbers will tell you. I'm sorry your inbred southern closet racism is so against this viewpoint, but lobbyist money and the washington machine doesn't care about race if you can do what it takes to get there.Sure, America as a whole is perfectly ready for a black/woman president. But, I would not be surprised to see some idiot try to assassinate either. It only takes one person to mess things up.



Canada is actually overwhelmingly proud of their heathcare system- despite the propaganda...

I just found this from earlier, way earlier, so I thought I would comment. None of the Canadians I know which actually know what is going on with that system are proud of it. A good friend of mine (Canadian) says the system is getting worse and worse. He said it was ok when it first started, but is really going down hill. Other Canadian friends of mine had similar experiences. One guy broke his arm and wasn't able to have a cast put on for weeks. By the time they could get to him, they had to re-break his arm. It really isn't working all that great today. From what my Canadian friends say, it was better before they tried to reform it. This guy, not to be named, does computer maintanance for one hospital, and the director of the hospital unbeknownst to her, gave him complete access to the entire network, which gave him access to ALL the electronic medical records among other things. She was using the servers remotely from her house as an admin, which leaves the entire system open to exploitation.

[Vulgotha]

Weskurtz is right.

Being at a university doesn't make you any different then the majority of other individuals on this thread, let alone this forum.

This does not immediately demand nor warrant respect unless it is duly earned in intellectual discourse.

Also, you should take note that in most intellectual and academic circles, resorting to base personal attacks and slurs is looked down upon. Especially in debate.

[sonyfan6]

I think Kougaiji was using "Being a college student in a pretty well ranked institution," to demonstrate that he is "around tons of liberals and very many people active in the political process." I don't think he was using it to demonstrate or support his own superiority/command respect (although I could be wrong).

I'm not defending anything else that he wrote nor how he wrote it. So please don't take this isolated comment as me associating myself with his position or mannerism.

[DayWalker]

can we close this thread seeing as the primary is over?

[weskurtz81]

I think Kougaiji was using "Being a college student in a pretty well ranked institution," to demonstrate that he is "around tons of liberals and very many people active in the political process." I don't think he was using it to demonstrate or support his own superiority/command respect (although I could be wrong).

I'm not defending anything else that he wrote nor how he wrote it. So please don't take this isolated comment as me associating myself with his position or mannerism.

It's cool. I just didn't care for his attitude or his approach to the subject.

The way I personally think that claiming you are always around a bunch of liberals, when you are clearly liberal, will help support your stance on the subject. Had he said something which would have shown his conservative roots and then tried to make his point why liberalism was better, then I would have taken it differently. But, he basically came in here and said "hey guys, I am a liberal, who hangs out with a bunch of liberals, and here is why Obama and liberalism is better than McCain and conservatism".

I guess I could have better summed up my response as..... "So what?"

Nothing against you, and what you said does make sense, but I am not quite sure if that is what he meant by his post, but who knows?

[Vulgotha]

I think Kougaiji was using "Being a college student in a pretty well ranked institution," to demonstrate that he is "around tons of liberals and very many people active in the political process." I don't think he was using it to demonstrate or support his own superiority/command respect (although I could be wrong).

I'm not defending anything else that he wrote nor how he wrote it. So please don't take this isolated comment as me associating myself with his position or mannerism.

No, I understand.

Besides I have too much respect for you to just lash out like that...

I can see how that may have been what he was trying to convey- but he did it poorly. Very.

[valleyshrew]

I honest to God think you don't know anything about the United States or you're in denial, if you truly believe that our Nation was not founded on Christian beliefstenetsdoctrine.
Our nation was established with Christian beliefs.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read, and yet you say it with the conceited contemptuous audacity to call him in denial. It makes me feel sick to my stomach that people like you exist. The united states was founded as a secular utopia to escape the dogmatic tyranny of Europe, with freedom to believe whatever religion you desired, and the government not to have the ability to punish or privilege you for it.
Does the constitution mention christianity in it? Do the laws of the united states in any way even remotely resemble christian values? Have you even read the new testament if you believe that? Of the ten commandments, only 2 have any basis in the law (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder). Of all of jesus' teachings, I can't think of any that are part of the foundation of the united states. Give all your money to the poor, you can only divorce if your wife cheats on you, detest your parents, kill unbelievers. These are Christian values, where are they represented in the law? "In god we trust" on coins and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance weren't added until the mid 20th century! Post was delivered on sunday up until 1912! Most of the founding fathers were deists! George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin all spoke openly about their dislike for the church! The god damn treaty of tripoli specifically refutes your claim!!!
Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I'm so sick of you american christians expecting to be privileged, treated better than everyone else, your vapid heads are utterly filled with extremely harmful propagandist dogma. Seperation of church and state doesn't harm you, it empowers you! Everyone is equal regardless of religion, no religion should seek privilege. I'm sick of reading about christians forcing their beliefs on children and complaining when prayer was taken out of the schools! Pray on your own, to expect the government to force your choice of religion on everyone else, well that's just an abhorrent display of inhumanity. If you believe in the power of prayer you don't deserve proper medical treatment.

Obama claims to believe in the Christian God of the Bible or Koran... he refused to swear in on the bible, used the koran, and he supports abortion. I dont' understand your logic about Morals...
Lie lie lie lie. You cannot invoke the supernatural in law making, thus abortion has to be legal. If you can prove a soul exists do so and then you can argue. The pope allowed abortions up until the quickening, god himself performs an abortion in the bible! Nevermind the myriad innocent women and children slaughtered in the bible, pro-life is such an empty phrase whose proponents completely betray it's meaning.

There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. It prevents all sorts of STD's and Pregnancies... is there something wrong with not having sex until you're old enough to make a good judgement on your own... sure we should tell people about sex and explain the consequences of said actions... but some of this falls back on the parents.

Abstinence only has been proven to be ineffective and leads to more people getting STD's. It is wrong to teach abstinence, if you dont want to have sex, dont, but most people will that's our nature and there's nothing wrong with sex so that you need to be a certain maturity to have it. You're just lieing here too, do you think a 15 year old can make a good jugement? It's nothing to do with age, sex as sin is such a disgusting corrupt teaching, we are viviparous animals, sex is necessary for our existence! Your values are based on fear and control and power, not human rights and objectivity.
How is McCain a womaniser
It's well accepted by pretty much everyone who has a clue about him. Look it up yourself. I'd be surprised if you've ever actually done that considering your nonsense about obama being a muslim.

Man I am liking McCain more and more everyday.
lol yeah **** liberty! Let's go start war with canada! Do you even realise that the vast majority of the ACLU's clients are christians who have been discriminated against because they are christians?! You seem to be against communism but your values seem quite close to it to me, the ACLU is one of the best examples of what seperates america from fascism.

Obama, as far as our military and national security goes, really scares me.
I suppose Edward Teller is one of your heroes? You've been brainwashed by sensationalist scaremongering news outlets. Obama will relieve a lot of the hatred felt for the US from the middle east, McCain will create more. I didn't disagree with the Iraq war and Im not a big fan of obama I think he panders to both sides to get votes. But it's so obvious that obama will be better in terms of military, he wouldn't hesitate to nuke Iran if necessary, he's not a pacifist!

Kougaiji
I love you, someone who isn't an evil judgemental ignorant moron!

And that matters why? Just because some guy graduated higher in his class or lower in his class doesn't mean he will be any more successful. It's a baseless comparison. There are many variables involved which could have influenced grades, they weren't in the same school, they were not taking the same classes.
McCain is dumb, it's obvious if you hear him speak. If you hear obama speak the exact opposite is obvious, he's very quick minded and intelligent. Being well educated and intelligent should pretty much be a necessary part of being in a position of power, good judgement (most important quality in a candidate!) can only come with good critical thinking skills and intelligence.

Also, you should take note that in most intellectual and academic circles, resorting to base personal attacks and slurs is looked down upon. Especially in debate.
This is a ps3 forum, not the place for rules of debate. Plus, he didn't use argumentum ad hominem, but you have used it many times in this thread, thus you are a hypocrite and have completely avoided all the substance of his post, i.e. creating a straw man. Typical christian way of winning an argument! You are but a sanctimonious little baby with megalomania soothing yourself on a mellifluous spray of anthropocentric wishful thinking.

[Vulgotha]

As an individual from Ireland, I'm sure you have absolutely no idea what's going on within that document.

All of our founding fathers and our nation's patriots were men of God, or at worst Deists. The audacity you have, as a foreigner, to make such a statement about my country is absurd. You can take your personal anger out at me all you want, but the fact remains that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tenets.

John Adams:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men… The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart (Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp, December 27, 1816)."


Samuel Adams:

The Rights of the Colonists:

"II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." In his Last Will and Testament:

"Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."

Benjamin Franklin (nearing death):

"I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."


Alexander Hamilton:

"In my opinion, the present consitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banner bona fide must we combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provided for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated "The Christian Constitutional Society," its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States. "


reported dying words (upon being shot by Burr in the duel):

"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me. "

Patrick Henry (Give me Liberty or give me Death):


"Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast."

(inscribed in his will, he wrote):

"This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."


John Jay:

"I have long been of opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds. . ."



Thomas Jefferson:

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."


Though it should be noted he categorically removed any and all supernatural elements of Jesus. By for my argument, his quotation easily links him to Judeo-Christianity and it's various tenets regarding morality and the etc. Deist he was, but he was also semi-Christian.

He was probably very fond of the Book of Thomas.


Upon reading this (and a considerable other amount of literature) I find it hard to buy into your and other liberal revisionists interpretations that indeed our nation was not founded on mutually exclusive Judeo-Christian values.





The burden of proof is on you to debunk my claims that our country's founding document was not in anyway influenced (heavily) by religion, and it's overly religious authors.


In addition to this:
Go and visit any of our national monuments you'll see biblical sculptures and passages engraved upon them. The Ten Commandments and Moses,for example.

You're simply irrationally lashing out at anger in hopes of apparently ruining my image here in front of others. You're not going to succeed. If you even bothered to read my post from Sonyfan, you'd understand that I then recognized and accepted this possibility.

I suppose you ignored it. Your anger is leaking over from other threads, amend this.


To other SMC and Mods: I justify this post due to it's historical relevance and in the context of my nation's foundations.

[nskinnear]

I don't like either candidate, but I'd go with the lesser of two evils and say McCain. Besides, I couldn't see mydelf wanting a Democrat to win.

[valleyshrew]

As an individual from Ireland, I'm sure you have absolutely no idea what's going on within that document.
:dunce As an individual from America I'm sure you have absolutely no idea about what's going on in the bible, after all it wasn't written in the country in which you live, therefore you cannot make any argument in regards to it, no matter how right you.

All of our founding fathers and our nation's patriots were men of God, or at worst Deists.
Did you even read my post? Most of them were deists, some were anti-religious, and some were religious. What none of them did, was found a country based on religious values, that was what they were escaping from. They all came together to live freely in a new land where they wouldn't be burnt at the stake for minor differences in their beliefs.

The audacity you have, as a foreigner, to make such a statement about my country is absurd. You can take your personal anger out at me all you want, but the fact remains that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tenets.
I really don't understand your gripe with me not being American, I happen to know a lot about Americas founding, I studied it in great detail in school. I am aware that many of your textbooks teach outright lies about American history, so perhaps that's were you get the idea that it's a fact. I asked you to present an actual argument, you have failed to do so. Explain how any of the judeo-christian tenets are the foundation of the USA. It's nonsense, those values are not the law and I proved it inmy post. You have completely failed to address it but simply posted an inane irrelevant reply to make yourself feel better and look like you've responded properly.

The burden of proof is on you to debunk my claims, not only as an American, but as a Christian as well, that our country's founding document was not in anyway influenced (heavily) by religion, and it's overly religious authors.
You're the one who came into this thread wielding your grand illusions about america's history. I have already debunked your claims, Jefferson and Franklin had many terrible things to say about christanity, look them up. The constitution is the founding document of the USA (i realise you don't much care for it but it still is so), it makes no mention of religion other than to say the government shall not get involved! Talking about burden of proof is incredibly indolent of you, I have presented some evidence for my claims, you have not presented any. What "founding document" are you even talking about? Stop getting your history from conservapedia!

In addition to this:
Go and visit any of our national monuments you'll see biblical sculptures and passages engraved upon them. The Ten Commandments, for example.
This is not evidence for your claim, it's irrelevant. I don't care if all of the founding fathers were hardcore christians (the weren't), they didn't establish the country to be a christian nation, it is what makes America so great, it's not a theocracy, it's based on freedom and civil rights and democracy (loosely) and freedom from and of religion.

You mention the ten commandmets - okay, if they're the foundation of America, where is the law that you have to honour your parents? Or the law where you shalt not covet goods/wife(america nowadays is completely saturated with coveting...) or worship one god (cos there are others according to genesis, "in our image, after our likeness" - in the original translation the word Elohim is used, which is the plural of El (god), this is the only explanation for the other quotes such as that god is "more powerful than all other gods"), or not bathe a goat in it's mothers milk (the actual 10th commandment if you bother to read it in the torah!).

You're simply irrationally lashing out at anger in hopes of apparently ruining my image here in front of others.
What is all this about image? You keep referring to how other people see you in such a great light, you're a renowned theologian are you? This is an ad hominem, the thing you chastised the guy earlier for. Whether I'm angry or not, my arguments stand on the meaning of the words, not whatever tone you choose to read into it.

You're not going to succeed. If you even bothered to read my post from Sonyfan, you'd understand that I then recognized and accepted this possibility.
This doen't appear to refer to anything I wrote - you said he did it "poorly. Very." That doesn't sound like accepting possibility, whatever that means. You really didn't say anything about accepting anything.

I suppose you ignored it.
These are the sort of snide interjections that are not conducive to reasoned discussion. You have attacked me for being Irish and you have attacked me for failing to address something you said, when you pretty much completely ignored any of the substance of my post!

Your anger is leaking over from other threads, amend this.
No, it is not. My anger is caused by you mocking the idea that America wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, which it clearly wasn't. There has never been any evidence, any official government writing, where it says america is a christian nation. It seems like argumentum ad populum, you think the majority of people are christians, ergo christian nation. It doesn't work like that.

Now if you don't have any actual argument to make, stop replying in the hopes others will be convinced by you getting the last word, however illogical and irrelevant those words happen to be to the argument.

[Vulgotha]

You entered your post far too late. Check the one I updated a considerable amount of time before you posted.


You may refute my argument and it's subsequent facts at your leisure. I'm off to bed. This site has a bad habit of keeping me up waaaay to late.:)


I have just committed a travesty, I have left out George Washington:dunce!!!:
"Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. . . . in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life. Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state. continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." ~ The Big man himself, George.

Any quotes which you may be able to dig up which contradict the ones I have used will not suit your purposes and the needs of your argument. At best it will merely show they are conflicted, or the quotes you have used are taken out of context. It is possible (Naturally) mine have been as well... But when engaged in reading them I find it almost impossibly hard to see that they are thus.

Again I cannot emphasize how much it would mean to me if we could just bury our personal grudge and talk to one another as fellow posters or better yet, intellectuals. We have had a spotted past due to a misunderstanding in that religious joke thread, and I tried to clear that up via the pm. I can understand the anger, but I was equally frustrated on what you said as well. I accept blame for what I did. So can we not simply move on?


Edit again (lol): I have not "attacked you" for being Irish, I merely question why it is that you immediatly reprimand me on my facts and argument when you, yourself are not a citizen of my country. I suppose I find it more a source of personal irritation then anything even remotely close to a professional objection. I'm sorry it appeared that I was slandering you (and your argument) due to your ethnicity. I merely take great pride in what I know and love about my country.

It was also not meant as a "Snide interjection". Merely an observation, no emotional value attached to the above quoted statement of mine (in your post).


Now, I am presently aware that our country, religion and masonry aside was indeed meant to be a religiously "fair" entity, which contained many fail safes to protect and insulate itself from the potential threats and problems of any one religion (A lesson Russia was learning at some great cost). In effect, our government is secular, but it's roots and foundations are that of Judeo-Christian tenets with the religious aspects extricated.**

Still, it would be erroneous to assert that our government is devoid of religious influences. It most certainly is, and I point you back to my original post which properly illustrates this fact.

For example if our country was supposedly lacking in religious attendence (as some revisionists accuse) and so many were seemingly deists or apathetic, why then (years later) was the South so keen on justifying slavery pre-Civil War through Biblical myths?*

3 of the common arguments used (both commonly and even in congress by southern delegates):

1. Mark of Cain

2. Curse of Ham

3. A map which they constructed which illustrated the supposed location of Eden (post-abel's murder) and how Cain (And his descendents) could have wandered into Africa.

In essence they were asserting that blacks were descendants of Cain.

Why?





*Interesting note, the constitution originally had within itself a provision regarding slavery. It was later removed due to the clear and obvious threat of support eroding were it to be included.



** This is not to say however, that "Separation of Church and State" is real. In fact this phrase is found nowhere within the constitution. It was used (verbatim) in a letter sent to an inquiring constituent of Thomas Jefferson.

And nothing more.


Broadly and vaguely one can discern that the constitution has elements within in it that lend itself to this policy. However it was not meant to be taken forth as powerfully as the Courts have decided it should be today. Never meant to be.

[valleyshrew]

You entered your post far too late. Check the one I updated a considerable amount of time before you posted.
What am I telepathic? You chose to make your post as it was when I replied, thus my reply, I saw that you had edited it when I hit post, there's no need for you to make another post putting blame on me.

John Adams:

You can find all the quotes you like about them extolling their christian religious beliefs, I didn't at any point claim they were all non-christians. This quote contains no evidence for the idea that the founding was based on christian values. He seems to be saying the conditions in which independence was achieved were not contrary to christian values. Were does that address the founding?


Samuel Adams:

Nothing relevant. The declaration of independence, the bill of rights, the constitution of the united states of america - these official documents, not the personal opinions of fallible men, contain no mention of religion, or that america is a christian nation. The declaration refers to Divine providence, and nature's god, and a creator - these are not terms for the christian god. The rights to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - those are not christian values. And this is bearing in mind that the declaration isn't a legal document for the nation, it cannot be cited as precedent, yet you aren't even citing it, you're citing far lesser materials than it, mere quotes from a few of the founders expressing their personal religious beliefs.

Benjamin Franklin (nearing death):

He doesn't even refer to himself as a Christian! He clearly makes a pandering argument about liking Jesus as a philosopher, and he makes no mention of the founding of the country. Why are ou choosing to put in these irrelevant quotes? Are you really that ignorant that you think these pass as proof?

Let an association be formed to be denominated "The Christian Constitutional Society," its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States. "
This is not anything to do with the USA. Does this association even exist? I apologise I can't reply as fully as I'd like to as I just don't have the time to look these up when I can see they're irrelevant.

Though it should be noted he categorically removed any and all supernatural elements of Jesus. By for my argument, his quotation easily links him to Judeo-Christianity and it's various tenets regarding morality and the etc. Deist he was, but he was also semi-Christian.
What's this got to do with the foundation of the united states? Let's say you were creating a country. Clearly you are of strong Christian faith. Would you create a theocracy? Would your countries laws enforce the morals of christianity? I hope not, and likewise, it is possible (shock horror!) for good people who happen to be christians, to not want to force everyone else to believe as they do.

Upon reading this (and a considerable other amount of literature) I find it hard to buy into your and other liberal revisionists interpretations that indeed our nation was not founded on mutually exclusive Judeo-Christian values.
It's not revisionist, it's just the truth. I have asked multiple times, and I will ask again, what are these "judeo christian values" that your country is founded on. Give me bible quotes and laws that match them. Give me a quote in a legal founding document that proves it was founded on those values. It's quite obvious a country run on the values of the bible would be utterly impossible. People talk about these values as if "thou shalt not murder" is an original concept, christian values are not what you think they are, go have a look at the bible, Jesus when asked how a person can be saved said, sell all your belongings and give all the money to the poor. Have you done that? Are those american values?

It's a secular country. It appears that more and more people like you are trying to change that. I like letting other people have freedoms, I like everyone being happy and living in peace next to each other. I realise your beliefs are based on "judeo-christian values" thus - wars must be, kill unbelievers, don't associate with them, detest your family etcetera are your bread and butter and it's impossible for you to get along with me, but you don't own this forum and until you do, I will continue to express my free speech and reply when you spread your lies. I am a nice person, I came to this forum hoping to make friends, not to start arguments, but I have a very argumentative nature, and if I believe something to be true, I will say so. I am also, I believe unlike you, very happy to admit defeat and concede any argument I made, I am just trying to find what is true, and arguing is the best way of doing so, I am not stubborn.

Again I cannot emphasize how much it would mean to me if we could just bury our personal grudge and talk to one another as fellow posters or better yet, intellectuals. We have had a spotted past due to a misunderstanding in that religious joke thread, and I tried to clear that up via the pm. I can understand the anger, but I was equally frustrated on what you said as well. I accept blame for what I did. So can we not simply move on?
I repped you on another post, does that not show I bear no personal grudge against you? What is wrong with arguing about these things? I may get a little angry, but you support McCain who called his wife a **** when she made a joke about his baldness, so I don't think it's fair to criticise me for that. We are moving on, but we can still argue, if you do not want to, don't reply and I will lose interest.

I merely take great pride in what I know and love about my country.
I like your country too. I think Ireland is a despicable country, they actually cite catholic teachings as the basis for some of their laws. But, and here's a great quote you should remember:
"Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."
—Arthur Schopenhauer, Aphorisms

That is not referring to you personally, but good to remember that most countries are terrible and their citizens shouldn't be patriotic.


but it's roots and foundations are that of Judeo-Christian tenets with the religious aspects extricated.
Please give example of these "judeo-christian tenets" - are you simply referring to freedom, kindness, not murdering and things as being judeo-christian? Because I cannot see any of the more complex moral values (turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, rules on marriage, etcetera) as being what you are thinking of.

For example if our country was supposedly lacking in religious attendence (as some revisionists accuse) and so many were seemingly deists or apathetic, why then (years later) was the South so keen on justifying slavery pre-Civil War through Biblical myths?*
I don't think they do say that. Most immigrants found community through attending church. Personally I think before the 19th century, believing in god was the sensible thing to do, perhaps not the personal god as that'd take a huge leap of faith, but certainly in a scientific sense it was the only explanation around. I realise this is too long and no one wants to read it, so I'm leaving now, with a final note - thank you for the last post, it was a nice change of heart, and I again apologise if I get angry, it was mostly caused by the assertion that Obama was sworn in on the koran, which to be fair wasn't said by you.

[Vulgotha]

Now you're just avoiding cold hard facts and quotations. I just quoted to you the most prominent Fathers of the constitution, many of which proclaim that they embrace the organized religion Christianity- they just have some issues with the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The definition of "Deist" isn't quite what it means today.


For one easy example: Natural Law.

The constitution was framed with checks and balances to counter the very nature of man which had oft led to the destruction of many other governments. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely (etc maxims).

The Bible (and like Abrahamic texts derived from the Tora\Talmud) teaches very definitively that human nature is anything but "Good"* and cannot be trusted with exorbant amounts of powers. This is firmly integrated into the constitution.

Checks and Balances were a revolutionary notion for a government, as most at the time were monarchies or enlightened monarchies. Some led by despots. Although Britain's Parliament was gradually encroaching upon the powers of the throne.

It's Christian Natural Law. It's intertwined all throughout the constitution, in fact one cannot even attempt to separate this from that parchment. It is true that enlightenment philosophy and philosophers of the day massively contributed to it (only a fool would say otherwise) but it's a fusion.

Given how I have already clearly linked many of the founding fathers to Religion of Judeo Christian descent (Deism back then is often not what is meant now) it is clear they shared a very similar opinion of man. Otherwise this document would be radically different.

The constitution itself does not contain carbon copy principles of the Bible- what the constitution is, is merely action reflecting these principles. Or, in other words, a practical application of Christian natural law and it's view on human nature. (paraphrased by one Robert R. Reilly)

It's littered with such pre-suppositions on man and power.

*Example of a counter theory: Marxism.


Oh, a note to clear up confusion: Due to whatever reason, while making a long post occasionally I will be "Timed out" and all data I've entered is gone lol. So I constantly update the post in small segments until it's complete. I also proof read it after this.

[valleyshrew]

Now you're just avoiding cold hard facts and quotations. I just quoted to you the most prominent Fathers of the constitution, many of which proclaim that they embrace the organized religion Christianity- they just have some issues with the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I don't doubt that they did embrace christianity, but you explicity keep repeating that the country was founded on Christian values. What are these values and were in any of the founding documents are they contained? Ok, how about this, I concede that the founders of America were largely Christian, and that since then the country has been mostly christian, in this way you could technicaly refer to it as a christian nation, but there is no legal consequence, and the government legally cannot support christianity (it does find ways...). Britain is far less Christian than the USA, but Britain is officially a Christian country, it has a state church and the schools (I was forced to attend a school were science was taught by a 60 year old nun) are faith based. Muslims have even set up their own government paid schools were a lot of the local children are christians but have to attend a muslim school - would you accept this in the US? Is it not better to leave religion to the parents?

The Bible teachers very definitively that human nature is anything but "Good" and cannot be trusted with exorbant amounts of powers. This is firmly integrated into the constitution.
I don't think it's fair to assume this is because of christianity. They came from corrupt governments, and this was the obvious answer. I don't see the leap from bible says humans evil to limited government as being a causal one.

Checks and Balances were a revolutionary notion for a government, as most at the time were monarchies or enlightened monarchies. Some led by despots. Although Britain's Parliament was gradually encroaching upon the powers of the throne.
Were in the bible does it say that a government should be limited in power?


It's Christian Natural Law. It's intertwined all throughout the constitution, in fact one cannot even attempt to separate this from that parchment. It is true that enlightenment philosophy and philosophers of the day massively contributed to it (only a fool would say otherwise) but it's a fusion.
What is Christian natural law? I have read the bible, it does not in any way support freedom like the constitution does. If the constitution was based on christian values, it would have to openly reflect them as christian values are absolute. The death penalty for not being a virgin on your wedding night is not an empty threat, Jesus reaffirms it's validity. You cannot selectively be a little bit based on some of the basic values. "Not one iota shall pass from the old law until heaven and earth pass away."

The constitution itself does not contain carbon copy principles of the Bible- what the constitution is, is merely action reflecting these principles. Or, in other words, a practical application of Christian natural law and it's view on human nature.

You're trying extremely hard to fit the two together, but it just doesn't work. The constitution is almost the opposite philosophically from the bible, it's radically different. I showed in my post, the ten commandments and all other biblical laws are completely different from the law of the USA. Are you going to address this? I think the reason is the "christian" values you talk about aren't actually biblically based, but evolved through practice into something completely different. The bible barely mentions abortion or homosexuality. It talks a lot about helping the poor and giving money away, but the American Jesus is money.

[Vulgotha]

No.. It's not a literal passage.. Read my above edited post (explanation for my strange behavior is noted).


Again this has nothing to do with integration of religion within the government school system. I already addressed Separation of Church and State and how it was totally off kilter as it wasn't not even IN the constitution, but vaguely implied.

I'm not surprised you don't believe the veritable "Jump" exists between "Man is evil" to "Limited Powers" and it is noted that history was a good teacher (I.E. the truths deduced from the philosophers at the time, such as Voltaire).

Locke and Hobbs and their debate was also critical.


The constitution embodies the christian assertions and assumptions on the nature of mankind, and what he will do with such great power. The Bible has always taught this, but even the "Religious bodies" of Europe didn't see it, or intentionally ignored it (probably the last).

Here is a good way of summing up the creators and their assertions in the Constitution:


"The Founders were deeply grounded in these beliefs. They proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that American independence is based upon total dependence on God. This is why the Constitution contains no solution to the problem of evil. The Constitution implicitly recognizes that politics cannot, and should not, attempt to spiritually transform man or turn the world into a terrestrial paradise. The more limited goal of politics is to arrange the material circumstances of man's life to mitigate the effects of evil so that he can pursue virtue and, in so doing, achieve the ultimate happiness which lies beyond politics. The primacy of the person, unthinkable without the foundation of Christian truth, defines the very order of the Constitution. " ~ R. Reilly


^ Regarding separation of powers, and the implied Separation of Church and State.



Look of the two of us, I've been very fair and have continually supplied material for my argument. However I have yet to see your side fully articulated except for the:

1. The constitution is the opposite of the Bible (How?)
2. That there is no Christian influence evident in the constitution (your turn)
3. That many of the founding fathers were deists (Debunked as many were Christian, and you misunderstand the term "Deist" as was used back in that day).

It's your turn my friendto argue your side to me.


Evidence of Christian lingo "Dropped" on the Constitution:


Notice Article 1 Section 7:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

^ (You must swear to higher authorities. Ergo why in court and etc in America you swear upon the Holy Bible, although this tradition was changed it remains widely used still)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Done in Convention by the 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 the Twelfth."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phrases from the Declaration of Independence:

"the laws of nature and of nature's God."*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"endowed by their Creator"

"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions"

"firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

(etc, etc etc)


*See: Second Treatise on Civil Government (John Locke) and Commentaries on the Laws of England (William Blackstone) for the proper theistic context of this phrased in which it was clearly based in the constitution.

Locke says that the "Laws of nature" are revelations or understandings imparted or revealed on man regarding Law and Creation. Locke based this term off of reading(s) from Romans chap 1 and chap2. He also mentions Law of God and Positive Law of God throughout his writings. This clearly establishes context of that phrase.

[TheGreatDane17]

if "talking" fails- guess what we have waiting in the wings??? not sure why you are so panicked...

and there are other countries int he world besides Iran that need to be dealt with more directly.... Cuba for example.

Yes because Cuba and their Grandpa dictator is a huge threat. :rolleyes:

[valleyshrew]

Again this has nothing to do with integration of religion within the government school system. I already addressed Separation of Church and State and how it was totally off kilter as it wasn't not even IN the constitution, but vaguely implied.

The right to a fair trial and right to privacy are not even IN the constitution either, but they're clearly use words to define what they mean.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It's not vague at all - no law shall be made in favour of one particular religion and no law shall be made which prohibits the freedom of other people to believe whatever religion they choose - i.e. prayer in schools violates both sides, the government would have to choose what prayer to use, and it would be unfair on those not of that particular religion. What I fail to understand is why christians have a problem with the prayer in schools debate, it almost seems to encourage you to pray in school, you just have to do it without official support, thus giving others the opportunity to not have to be part of it.

Here's an interesting quote for you:
at the Constitutional Convention, attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed. In addition, the people at the time were distinctly "unchurched." The best estimates indicate that only 10% to 15% of the population actually attended church services....
At the time, more than one critic denounced the Constitution as a "godless document" - hardly the product of people seeking to establish a "Christian Nation," is it? This was not an error or an oversight - it was a deliberate attempt to frame the nature of our government and political system in secular, worldly terms.

You specifically cited john adams and george washington, they both signed the treaty of tripoli which expressly states that the united states was by no means founded on the christian religion (see my first post).

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.
[...]
Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. - Justice Brewer of the supreme court, oft cited for his quote in a trial " add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. "

Look of the two of us, I've been very fair and have continually supplied material for my argument. However I have yet to see your side fully articulated except for the:

1. The constitution is the opposite of the Bible (How?)
2. That there is no Christian influence evident in the constitution (your turn)
3. That many of the founding fathers were deists (Debunked as many were Christian, and you misunderstand the term "Deist" as was used back in that day).

It's your turn my friendto argue your side to me.
This makes me quite angry, I feel the opposite - that I've been the one doing all the arguing and you've not yet addressed any of the important issues. You went on about Christian Natural Law, that would not stand up in court it's just not relevant. I don't see what further evidence I can provide. You think I misunderstand what deist means? It means they believed in a non-personal god. That means they weren't christians. Where have I used the word wrongly? It was most certainly not debunked, I never stated some weren't christians, but it has been proven that most of the signers of the constitution were deists, I believe I even read it on the wikipedia page. The constitution is the opposite of the bible because it establishes the rights of the people to have freedom from and of religion, this is the exact opposite of the bible which states you must believe what it says and to kill all unbelievers.


Evidence of Christian lingo "Dropped" on the Constitution:
I have seen this argument before, and I have been ready for it.

secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
You're really clutching at straws, blessing need not be in reference to god, it's simply a general term of well wishing.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him."
1. There is absolutely no evidence in the early records of any intention on the part of the authors to establish a particular Sabbath day by the government.
2. If this clause had been inserted for specifically religious reasons, it would have been the only clause in the entire Constitution which existed for such reasons. Isn't it reasonable, then, to conclude that if this were the case, some mention of this unique case would have been included in the records?
3. They refer to it as Sunday, not the sabbath, there's no mention of it being a day of rest, there is no other sunday exemption in legislative or governmental matters.
4. The President is neither prevented nor even discouraged from vetoing or signing legislation on Sundays which if it was intended to be for religious reasons would not be the case, thus completely destroying your argument.
5. It was actually put there because there were many strictly enforced sabbath laws at the time - travel was very difficult and so a reasonable amount of time was decided upon so as that congress couldn't get a law through without giving the president due time to consider it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This is not an establishment of religion, it specifically states "or affirm" - if a person is religious it happens to be a good way of enforcing trust, and since many people are religious it is put in there.

"Done in Convention by the 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 the Twelfth."
You want to use that one? :dunce You realise what this implies? That by using the names of the months and days of the week, you are establishing the pagan (or roman) religion. It's Friday, therefore I worship the god Freya! It was simply the way the date was written at the time, what else are they going to write!

"the laws of nature and of nature's God."*
1. I myself mentioned this!!!
2. The declaration of independence is not a legal document of the united states.
3. The few quotes from it about god, are not phrases used to describe the christian god, so no, you cannot use them as part of your argument.

[Vulgotha]

You're reading that out of context. They're referring to it not being a theocracy.

Big difference.

I also pre-emptively refuted your statistics on church activity about 2 posts ago when I was describing the Southern Senator activities and how they were justifying slavery and the etc. If there was so very little church attendance none of that posturing and pandering would have been even remotely warranted to justify slavery.

They had to morally absolve themselves of guilt, and prove to their constituents that their beliefs in no way conflicted with the trade.

Sounds awfully religious to me mate. The % of church activity means less then nothing is the entire country is extremely and overly religious. Your quotation in and of itself is a refutation for your intended use of it.

As it notes: Many were upset with the seeming "Lack of God" within the document (I have refuted). So...Why use this statistic to hurt my argument..if they're still overly and entirely religious?


Also read my above post.


I wasn't using some of those quotes as "proofs" but they are definite leanings towards the religion of Christianity.

You also wonderfully skipped my part about John Locke, that in and of itself is wonderfully Judeo-Christian and it was a large part of our government's founding.



Well I think we're getting this thread massively off course. We can continue this later on PM, or let this drop. Your call my friend.

[Str7k3r]

valleyshrew, I love you.

You disgracing 'christian' values is like me declaring the constitution is a piece of paper, interpreted by people in the government.

I consider myself a 'God Believer' but by no means does that mean I'm going to vote for someone in a political office that believes the same as I do.

If Jesus came back today, he'd be a liberal.

For people so based on the Christian religion, we definitely have lost touch with what our founding fathers - and the people before them - came to this country to evade.

If you want to get down on it, this country was founded on puritan ideas and values.

If you're not voting this year because you don't like your options, you need to get out of the rock your under.

Call me a 'sheep', call me a 'liberal looney', but the one thing you can never do, is take away my ability to think for myself. No matter how much 'control' is implemented by the 'system'.

And guess what, most of the games your playing, are made by 'the liberal' side of the country.

I honestly don't care what person you are voting for, as long as you vote. valleyshrew has a point. Show me an article in our constitution (that wasn't am