View Full Version : More Pat
Robertson Says All Other Religions Worship “Demonic Powers”
A viewer wrote in to ask Pat Robertson a question
Why [do] evangelical Christians tell non-Christians that Jesus (God) is the only way to Heaven? Those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc. already know and have a relationship with God. Why is this? It seems disrespectful.
Robertson replied that it is not all disrespectful because all other religions really just worship “demonic powers.”
No. They don’t have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world.
OTM Al
11-19-2006, 07:12 AM
It must be a strange and scary world for the people that follow Pat. Imagine desiring to have a close personal relationship with a god that has condemned 99% of the world's population to hell......
Was there a point to posting this without a comment? Just trying to put someone down for thier beliefs without even having the courage to dispute them yourself?
Is this who you justify your own existence, putting people down?
Who says he is wrong? Some perch?
Some people talk to God, some talk to PERCH.
luv_america
11-19-2006, 12:22 PM
Tom,
As you know so many people in the country despise Christians. The mainstream media never hesitates to take advantage of any Christian leaders shortcomings. Of course this is from the people that say humans are all flawed and should have tolerance.
In my mind we never get enough stories about the truth of Islamists and what they really believe and how they plan to go about forcing us all to believe along with them. Instead we get fluff on how we should understand Islam.
Despite the rambling of one preacher, the fact is Christianity is very tolerant of other religions. Islam is not! Muhammad said in the Haddiths – the only way to paradise is to know Allah. All other religions are false.
Do you recall Afghan Taliban leader orders destruction of ancient buddist statues? http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm
Anywhere strict Islamic law is practiced other religious practitioner are persecuted and beaten to accept the religion of peace.
Hcap – separately, when Muslim go on their Hadj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadj) why do they pray to a large stone? I thought idolatry was forbidden.
____________________________
Pull the wool over your own eyes.
The only think I need to know about islam is the co-ordinates of its radcial leadership. Let THEM talk to God and explain themselves.
kenwoodallpromos
11-19-2006, 01:29 PM
Most religionsand sects teach all others are are satanic becuse they have to have theirs stand out from others to win converts, and they want others joining to validate thier own beliefs. Many religions teach if you deny yourself when you are alive you can have what you want when you die, like riches.
Tom, luv_, Bala, all I did was to quote Pat.
Good that youse guys agree with him.
Tom you seem to be on a "fishing expedition".
As I said on the Webb thread . Stop whining
Take some cheese why dontcha?
Where does he get this stuff?????
Gee Tom, I guess you can photoshop.
http://www.littlemonkeymurals.com/Fish.jpg
"Now ya see here's hcap.... blah, blah,blah...."
http://www.theguys.org/Monkey/Months/2005plus/pix/HDTVinstall-Amino1.jpg
Had some trouble installing the program?
fergie
11-19-2006, 05:03 PM
A person on this board (who is much smarter than me) made a statement with which I have taken some writer"s leeway, anyway, it goes something like this----"MY IMAGINARY FRIEND CAN WHIP YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND".Hmmmm.
Fergie
Past experience seems to indicate some people here only communicate through cartoons, so I go that extra mile to make them feel comfortable and learn their language.
Indulto
11-19-2006, 09:12 PM
Despite the rambling of one preacher, the fact is Christianity is very tolerant of other religions. Islam is not! Muhammad said in the Haddiths – the only way to paradise is to know Allah. All other religions are false.
Do you recall Afghan Taliban leader orders destruction of ancient buddist statues? http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm
Anywhere strict Islamic law is practiced other religious practitioner are persecuted and beaten to accept the religion of peace.Bala,
Perhaps I misunderstood hcap, but it didn't appear to me that you agreed with Robertson.
Fortunately Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all of Christianity any more than Meir Kahane spoke for all of Judaism. Robertson's tactics are similar to those of Muslim fanatics. He distorts the teachings of the bible like they distort the teachings of the Koran.
There are Christians who also renounce this man. Does that make THEM anti-Christian? Political fanaticism should be condemned as well when it seeks to divide people by pitting one religion against another, and the religious against the secular.
There must be some way to separate serpents from sheep without a sword until religious tolerance becomes the preferred practice among followers of every religion.
To my knowledge, Pat has not issued any fatwas yet.
All his three piece sutis consist of jacket, pants, adn vest. No dyno-mite!
And anyway,who can prove he is wrong?
luv_america
11-19-2006, 11:41 PM
There is always an attempt from the left to draw some moral equivelence between what Christians do and what fundamentalist Muslims do. The best they can come up with us some sick abortion clinic bomber once in a while.
I won't defend what Robertson says. In fact it really doesn't matter what Robertson says. He says it to his followers for his followers consumption. He doesn't ask anything of governments, other religions, or non-believers.
The attempt at moral equivelence ends here. There is no violence, threat of violence, or thoughts of violence in anything that Pat Roberson says. So if he thinks you're going to hell becuase you don't believe what he believes you should just get over it.
It just boggles my mind how comparisions to Mulslims or other "so-called" fanatics always get thrown around against Christians and to a lesser extent Jews, when clearly in comparision to Muslims fanantics, there is NO moral equivelence unless I see Pat Robertson with a sword cutting a non-believers head off, or at the very least instructing his flock to so something violent. To end this, please don't give me the Crusades BS and the other 600 year old stuff. We and our ancestors weren't alive then. We're talking about the 21st century and the dangers that await us. Pat Robertson isn't on the danger list.
JustRalph
11-19-2006, 11:54 PM
I am a hell of a lot less scared of Pat than I am the muslim boys wanting to meet their maker and his unlimited supply of virgins.
Indulto
11-20-2006, 01:44 AM
There is always an attempt from the left to draw some moral equivelence between what Christians do and what fundamentalist Muslims do. The best they can come up with us some sick abortion clinic bomber once in a while.Aside from your standard "they always ..., they never ..." BS, you might have had a point if you had also postulated what "fundamentalist Christians" do.I won't defend what Robertson says. In fact it really doesn't matter what Robertson says. He says it to his followers for his followers consumption. He doesn't ask anything of governments, other religions, or non-believers.Does that qualifies him as a "good" conservative" and is that what's meant by "conspicuous conservative consumption?" ;) Careful, HA, it's HIS followers that comprise a considerable bloc of support for Israel. I guess you're not worried about their reading a horse racing board.The attempt at moral equivelence ends here. There is no violence, threat of violence, or thoughts of violence in anything that Pat Roberson says. So if he thinks you're going to hell becuase you don't believe what he believes you should just get over it. His influence enabled Reps to use the Gay Marriage issue to their detriment. Maybe you should "get" such voter manipulation attempts "over" and done with.It just boggles my mind how comparisions to Mulslims or other "so-called" fanatics always get thrown around against Christians and to a lesser extent Jews, when clearly in comparision to Muslims fanantics, there is NO moral equivelence unless I see Pat Robertson with a sword cutting a non-believers head off, or at the very least instructing his flock to so something violent. To end this, please don't give me the Crusades BS and the other 600 year old stuff. We and our ancestors weren't alive then. We're talking about the 21st century and the dangers that await us. Pat Robertson isn't on the danger list.I still can't figure out whether you're Crusader Rabbit or the Energizer Bunny.:lol:
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2006, 03:28 AM
It's strange that in this country, we have been instructed (mostly by those on the left), that it would be best to try and understand all of Islam (including radicals). Yet, it is never recommended that we try and understand fundamentalist Christians or guys like Pat Robertson.
With them, the left only has condemnation and ridicule to offer.
Why is that?
Indulto
11-20-2006, 04:49 AM
It's strange that in this country, we have been instructed (mostly by those on the left), that it would be best to try and understand all of Islam (including radicals). Yet, it is never recommended that we try and understand fundamentalist Christians or guys like Pat Robertson.
With them, the left only has condemnation and ridicule to offer.
Why is that?In general I think comparative religion courses are no less useful than courses on the Constitution or on ethics. I also believe economics should be introduced far earlier.
So I would agree that it is a good idea to understand as much about all religions and their component sects in order to avoid both internal and external conflict to whatever extent that can be accomplished. As the world gets smaller through technology that will become critical.
I know I'll get dumped on for this, but I think it's also critical to start offering more optional Arabic and Farzi, courses to start giving more of us the ability to understand exactly what foreign Muslims -- fundamentalists or other -- are thinking and communicating.
All we're prepared to do now with Muslim terrorists is kill them and I agree that's always warranted whenever we can separate them from non-innocent non-terrorists. I also agree that those who enable terrorism are no longer "innocent" bystanders. But I also submit it's as important in the long run to prevent the creation of terrorists as well. Or are you going to claim that Muslim terrorists are born and not raised?
Obviously, I would give higher priority to understanding Muslim terrorists than Robertson followers, but only because the former appear to pose a more immediate threat to my personal freedom. But consider this:
As our troops must be willing to die to protect our consitutional freedoms, it follows that personal freedom is more important than life itself. In that case, any followers of Robertson that would restrict the personal freedoms of those who do not follow him might well pose the greater threat. Hmmm.
luv_america
11-20-2006, 08:03 AM
I know I'll get dumped on for this, but I think it's also critical to start offering more optional Arabic and Farzi, courses to start giving more of us the ability to understand exactly what foreign Muslims -- fundamentalists or other -- are thinking and communicating.
Yes. I'll have some terrorists over for dinner tonight to eat with my wife and children. My kids can ask them about how many heads they've cut off with that sword, and how many people they've blown up in office buildings.
The left doesn't get it. They DON'T want to talk with us. They WANT to kill us.
For the record, there is yet another attempt to square moral equivelence between the peaceful Christian fundamentalists and the violent Islamists. It is sickening.
Tom, you nailed it exactly. I never see a fluff piece on the news about a good god-fearing Christian family and trying to understand their motivation, yet I see endless stories about nice Muslim families. Their distain for Christians and their morality is over the top purely because it gets in the way of their agenda. Thank God.
Indulto
11-20-2006, 08:44 AM
... They DON'T want to talk with us. They WANT to kill us.Tsk, tsk, HA.
I serve you up a softball and the best you can do is an infield pop-up. ;)
Why don’t you check out Russert’s interview with Koppel on yesterday’s Meet the Press and then you can pop off again about what a bad idea it is to talk with Muslims and try to understand them. I can’t wait to hear your spin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/)
But you’d probably rather listen to Pat Robertson. :(
It's strange that in this country, we have been instructed (mostly by those on the left), that it would be best to try and understand all of Islam (including radicals). Yet, it is never recommended that we try and understand fundamentalist Christians or guys like Pat Robertson.
With them, the left only has condemnation and ridicule to offer.
Why is that?
Man, you hit the nail on the head here.
My question to hcap still stands - how do we know Pat is wrong?
Tsk, tsk, HA.
I serve you up a softball and the best you can do is an infield pop-up. ;)
Why don’t you check out Russert’s interview with Koppel on yesterday’s Meet the Press and then you can pop off again about what a bad idea it is to talk with Muslims and try to understand them. I can’t wait to hear your spin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/)
But you’d probably rather listen to Pat Robertson. :(
You left-leanig guys keep insisting that it is NOT mainstream muslems who are casuing the problems, just the radcial fundamentalists. So what the hell good would stufying mainstream islam do - it is NOT mainstream islam trying to kill us?
JustRalph
11-20-2006, 11:53 PM
Tsk, tsk, HA.
I serve you up a softball and the best you can do is an infield pop-up. ;)
Why don’t you check out Russert’s interview with Koppel on yesterday’s Meet the Press and then you can pop off again about what a bad idea it is to talk with Muslims and try to understand them. I can’t wait to hear your spin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/)
But you’d probably rather listen to Pat Robertson. :(
I saw this interview. Koppel is a patsy. I am not so sure that he even believes the shit he spilled on that show. I am a student of body language and he has his on camera schtick down to an art. years of practice keeping his hair from moving I guess.
I don't believe a thing Koppel says or his stories about "no way they could have staged this" He acted like Rather did when he went over to interview Saddam. he was their best buddy showing up for a puff piece.
Robertson sezNo. They don’t have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world.Tom sezMy question to hcap still stands - how do we know Pat is wrong?The statement above needs no explanation as to its stupidity. narrow mindedness, and illustrates the the same brand of predudjice and hatred that the Islamic loonies preach. God is never on either side of this literal minded crap.
How do we no Pat is wrong? How do we know Tom?
Let me point out a previous gem of wisdom J Falwell and P Robertson agreed on...
According to the CBN website, on Thursday, September 13 ......
Both men spoke harshly of the terrorists and clearly blamed them for the attacks 2 days earlier
"During a discussion about whether this crisis might bring revival to America, Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God's protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement."
JustRalph
11-21-2006, 04:58 AM
"During a discussion about whether this crisis might bring revival to America, Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God's protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement."
It goes right back to Tom's original hypothesis..........how do you know they are wrong? If you believe what the bible says........you might recall the little story about sodom and gomorrah............
If you follow that line of thinking...........and are devout........why wouldn't you be inclined to agree with their statements about 9-11? To each his own, you know?
How do we know the "Sphagetti Monster" didn't fake the moon landings. An all powerful being can alter mens' memories and physical evidence. How do we know the movie the Exorcist didn't REALLY HAPPEN and Linda Blair is not still spinning her head and levitating her bed?
Although I do agree that robertson and falwell have not bombed or killed any one outright, their brand of thinking is the flip side of the Islamacists.
The root cause is believing not in ones religion, but the exclusitivity. Each believes in absolutes. Bottom dwellers of belief systems. Robertson and the other "Rapture" folks are not that far from the literal 12th Iman return stuff.
Both claim the only ones getting the ticket for the up elevator gotta buy it only thru them.
Linda Blair is more believable than either.
Seperating church and state is a grand solution.
luv_america
11-21-2006, 11:55 AM
Pat Robertson is not a state. He is a free man in a free country. I hope you are not advocating censorship for his views, of which this country was founded on, and despite your reluctance to accept still forumlates the faith of the majority of its inhabitants.
Although I do agree that robertson and falwell have not bombed or killed any one outright, their brand of thinking is the flip side of the Islamacists.
As stated before, the moral equivelence attempt between Christian Fundamentalists and Muslims in unfair. In your quote you use the word "outright", which I suppose leaves the door open that you may believe that Roberston and Falwell followers have somehow inspired violence. I'm interested to understand what you mean by that.
It's strange that in this country, we have been instructed (mostly by those on the left), that it would be best to try and understand all of Islam (including radicals). ?
You have?:
Where?: Who told you that?: On this board?: On your TV?:
Who has instructed you to understand Radical Islam? And by understand , do you infer sympathize? But before we cross that bridge , please amplify on when and who instructed you to understand radical islam?
Roberston's a whack job and anyone that even attempts to paint it otherwise is flawed as a human being.
Light
11-21-2006, 12:57 PM
Lets not forget PR and Islamic extremists look tame compared with Bush's belief that he is on a mission from God in Iraq.
Roberston's a whack job and anyone that even attempts to paint it otherwise is flawed as a human being.
...or, those who think like you are the wack jobs. Maybe hating Jews and Christians is a sign of wack-dom.
PaceAdvantage
11-22-2006, 02:16 AM
Lets not forget PR and Islamic extremists look tame compared with Bush's belief that he is on a mission from God in Iraq.
Here, take my telescope. You're going to need it being that far out in fantasy-land.
PaceAdvantage
11-22-2006, 02:17 AM
Roberston's a whack job and anyone that even attempts to paint it otherwise is flawed as a human being.
Not anymore of a whack job then those who think Bush brought down the WTC.
PaceAdvantage
11-22-2006, 02:22 AM
You have?:
Where?: Who told you that?: On this board?: On your TV?:
Who has instructed you to understand Radical Islam? And by understand , do you infer sympathize? But before we cross that bridge , please amplify on when and who instructed you to understand radical islam?
I said understand ISLAM (including the radicals) Note the parenthesis for the radicals, as I did not bring them into the MAIN focus. I believe Light, for starters, has recommended that we try and understand all that is ISLAM, their situation through history, and why the radicals among them act as they do. That's for starters.
You want other examples? Just stop by any number of the far-left websites and news media outlets.
Are you trying to tell me there aren't those in the media who have called for a better understanding of ISLAM by all Americans as a way of trying to soothe the tensions between the USA and the more radical Muslim nations of the world?
It's a kinder and gentler way of saying we brought this upon ourselves because of our imperialistic ways and our lack of "understanding."
Utter bullshit, I say.
Secretariat
11-22-2006, 02:45 AM
To my knowledge, Pat has not issued any fatwas yet.
All his three piece sutis consist of jacket, pants, adn vest. No dyno-mite!
And anyway,who can prove he is wrong?
Tom,
A fatwa is simply a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader .
Now Pat is not an Islamic leader, but he has called for the assasination of other heads of state, and declared an entire town damned, and declared President Bush said there’d be no casualites in Iraq. But he is definitely wacko.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." --Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial
Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." –Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
"Well, I totally concur." –Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."
:bang:
JustRalph
11-22-2006, 04:30 AM
keep posting......... I am starting to like the ole nutball the more I read :lol:
luv_america
11-22-2006, 07:57 AM
They keep trying to make him sound like Osama, but I ain't getting it yet. I've never seen Pat Robertson with a machine gun during his interviews, nor has he ever praised the deaths of innocents or called for the destruction of civilizations. I just don't get it. Couldn't they come up with something better?
rastajenk
11-22-2006, 08:39 AM
Doubtful.
Well if youse guys like Pat you must also like his buddy Jerry....
Jerry Falwell has warned parents that "Tinky Winky," a character on the popular PBS children's show, "Teletubbies," may be gay.
In a "Parents Alert" in the February issue of Jerry Falwell's National Liberty Journal, the Falwell newspaper says the "sexual preference of Tinky Winky" is the subject of debate and notes that the character sometimes carries a red purse.
The newspaper article, headlined "Tinky Winky Comes Out Of The Closet," cites other evidence as well.And then there is Dobson. Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family. You gota love him too.Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/01/19/national/sponge.184.jpg
Yeah no Osamas, just twisted little men unable to deal with reality outside of their literal minded religio-centric caccoons. Influencing tens of millions of gullibles. Setting an agenda in line with the rapture, a skewed latter day myth, strangely shared by their loonie Islamic counterparts. Now that I think of it, same irrational fear of homosexuality.
Moral equivalence is not the only criteria. In fact it is only one facet of assesing who should and should not frame the agenda. They, and others have framed a new false agenda. The Islamo fascist myth and the mortal existential uber alles threat unlike any we have faced before-- bullshit
Equivalence is a "straw man" youse guys set up and then conveniently procede to rail against. Not everything must be "see these loonies-the Dobson Boys, didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings---so they ain't as bad". No one said "AS" bad. Just differently bad, and potentialy the spark that inflames existing political socio-religious divisions.
The so-called new existential threat framed in overaly dramatic terms of WWII, or a new cold war, the ultimate good vs evil, and the same being done by the other side, only furthers and inflames the less grandiose, but still real threat that does exist.
Not anymore of a whack job then those who think Bush brought down the WTC.
Your of the belief that it is just as likely that a Goverment can be involved in a false flag operation, as it is that Jesus Christ sent a Hurricane to New Orleans because they were drinking to much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Go ahead and say it. Jesus Christ killed a bunch of innocent people in New Orleans because he was unhappy with thier drinking habits.
Remember Roberston said that?:lol:
oh he also said he changed God's mind to hit Virginia with a Hurricane...
“(Regarding his prayers to keep Hurricane Gloria away from Virginia Beach) It was 'extremely important because I felt that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation”
Come to think of it....he could be useful... You think he change the results of the 7th at Aqueduct? :D
.
Just for the record , these guys have reveled in deaths of innocents... Americans...
many of them, Coslon , roberston, and Falwell said Hurrican Katrina was God sending America a message....
and further... These deaths in Iraq, and perhaps soon to be in Iran are wars thay are actively encouraging.....
If you ever heard the things they say about America it would curl your skin. Have you seen what these guys say about America?: The left hates America? These guys despise America.
Indulto
11-22-2006, 05:23 PM
… Moral equivalence is not the only criteria. In fact it is only one facet of assesing who should and should not frame the agenda. They, and others have framed a new false agenda.
… Equivalence is a "straw man" … set up … to rail against. Not everything must be "see these loonies-the Dobson Boys, didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings---so they ain't as bad". No one said "AS" bad. Just differently bad, and potentialy the spark that inflames existing political socio-religious divisions.
The so-called new existential threat framed in overaly dramatic terms of WWII, or a new cold war, the ultimate good vs evil, and the same being done by the other side, only furthers and inflames the less grandiose, but still real threat that does exist.Thanks, hcap. I just wanted to reread your corroborating insight without any visual or political distraction. ;)
My attention is always attracted to "But look at what them other dudes did" defenses. :D
I also wanted to ask you to comment on Rangel’s advocacy for reinstating the draft, if you haven’t already.
Indulto, your cable dosen't have the cartoon network? :lol:
Light
11-22-2006, 07:40 PM
Here, take my telescope. You're going to need it being that far out in fantasy-land.
Who is in fantasy land? Me or Bush?
Bush has been quoted as saying :‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.’”
He's a deluded idiot who thinks he is the new Lawrence of Arabia. Bob Woodward also reffered to Bush's evangelical psychosis in one of his books.This is old stuff.But as usual the righties on this board seem to be the last to know. :sleeping:
Indulto
11-22-2006, 07:40 PM
Indulto, your cable dosen't have the cartoon network? :lol:Tom,
I have a complete set of Bullwinkle CDs and Uncle Scrooge comic books. What else do I need? :D I just wish PA didn't think my internet address was a Beagle Boy number 'cuz I'm just a Jr. Woodchuck at heart. :lol:
46zilzal
11-22-2006, 08:28 PM
He's a deluded idiot who thinks he is the new Lawrence of Arabia. Bob Woodward also reffered to Bush's evangelical psychosis in one of his books.This is old stuff.But as usual the righties on this board seem to be the last to know. :
know about just deny it
PaceAdvantage
11-23-2006, 01:33 AM
Your of the belief that it is just as likely that a Goverment can be involved in a false flag operation, as it is that Jesus Christ sent a Hurricane to New Orleans because they were drinking to much?
I'm not going to sit and disect with microscopic accuracy why I hold certain opinions. Let's just say that I place those who believe Bush was behind 9/11 in the same light as you place Pat Robertson.
That's all. Simple.
PaceAdvantage
11-23-2006, 01:39 AM
Who is in fantasy land? Me or Bush?
Bush has been quoted as saying :‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.’”
He's a deluded idiot who thinks he is the new Lawrence of Arabia. Bob Woodward also reffered to Bush's evangelical psychosis in one of his books.This is old stuff.But as usual the righties on this board seem to be the last to know. :sleeping:
This is all twisted bullshit based on 1/2 truths and reconstructed HERESAY fantasy-land baloney from a PALESTINIAN POLITICIAN. It doesn't even warrant serious discussion.
Throughout my life on this Earth, I have witnessed US PRESIDENT after US PRESIDENT walk out of CHURCH on Sundays. No President before has ever had to take the kind of religious baloney bullshit that this President has had to endure.
Ah Light, once again you escape IGGY.
I guess you don' t find it ironic that the whole islamic menace is fueled by mad dogs pretending to please allah? That seems to be ok with you, eh?
Bush never asked for virgins, though.
I'm not going to sit and disect with microscopic accuracy why I hold certain opinions. Let's just say that I place those who believe Bush was behind 9/11 in the same light as you place Pat Robertson.
That's all. Simple.
You put the people who back Robertson in the same place as those who DO NOT support the Governments version of 9-11?
My Views towards Roberston is moot. As is my View towards Bush. I'm speaking to the members of Pace Advantage who give Robertson merit. Do you?
Or do you find the people such as myself who DO believe that something else happened on 9-11, just as far out as people who think Roberston is legit.
I know you won't answer that. But I did not want you wiggling away with what you describe as its as simple as that
Throughout my life on this Earth, I have witnessed US PRESIDENT after US PRESIDENT walk out of CHURCH on Sundays. No President before has ever had to take the kind of religious baloney bullshit that this President has had to endure.
wrong. Jefferson took BIG HEAT, as did most of the early Presidents.
And the statement you dismiss as unworthy , Bush has made many , many other statements that imply the same thing.
Don't kid yourself into thinking this GUY is not thinking he has the will of God on his side.
His God
richrosa
11-23-2006, 03:48 PM
On this Thanksgiving Day, I'm thrilled that many Americans believe in the US as a beacon of hope in freedom and for many that beacon is inspired by their belief in God.
As the great Ronald Reagan once said.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'"
wrong. Jefferson took BIG HEAT, as did most of the early Presidents.
And the statement you dismiss as unworthy , Bush has made many , many other statements that imply the same thing.
Don't kid yourself into thinking this GUY is not thinking he has the will of God on his side.
His God
A president who acted any other way would be danger. I am glad he does what he thinks is right. You make it sound like a bad thing. That is what is scarry - and wacked.
A president who acted any other way would be danger. I am glad he does what he thinks is right. You make it sound like a bad thing. That is what is scarry - and wacked.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President.
I tremble for my species when I reflect that God is just.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President
----------------------------------------------------
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare
James Madison 4th US President
Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
James Madison 4th US President
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
James Madison 4th US President
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality
George Washington 1st President of the US.
I stand with them.
And they sure had a handle on islamic mad men, didn't they?
Something you can really sink your wooden teeth into, but before or after you feed the slaves, you remember, the 4/5 people that these guys allowed for?
I find thier comments not remotely related to the topic at hand.
But then, they did say "In God we Trust, eh?
And wasn't it George who added "one nation, under God?"
And did they not say "We hold theses turths to be self evident......then some about, what, a Creator?
I'd say they trusted in Him, and would approve of Bush doing the same. You libs/dems would proabably be facing thier muskletts is they saw what you guys are saying/doing to thier country.
JustRalph
11-23-2006, 06:07 PM
great points Tom.........
great points Tom.........
No. They are not. They are baseless, illogical, and senseless.
And we could go on and on and on and on.... but in the end what the issue is, is that people on this board think they have a lock on the high road. They don't. The knock you have heard is that you wrap yourselves in the American Flag, MOM and APPLE Pie......and everybody that disagress with you does one or all of the following
1. Hates America
2. Risks America's saftey
3. Does'ny understand America
4. Is Weak
5. Is a threat to you , your family and your values
6 Is traitor
Depsite the consolations, these are the primary reasons why the power shift happened. You cannot do what you guys do,,,,you just cannot do it.
The truth is there,,, yet you don't see. All of Tom's post is easily rebutted. But you, nor Tom, want to learn, or to reconcile.
To answer Tom....Yes...AMERICA and Thomas Jefferson specificaly dealt headon with ISLAM,,,,,and built a free country while doing so,,,,,,,NOT ripped one apart as you are doing.
Daniel Pipes in his article, “US’s unilateral concessions” (November 13), has quoted from the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship”, signed at Tripoli (November 4, 1796) and Algiers (January 3, 1797) to demonstrate how the US had made friendly gestures towards Islamic states from its earliest days. Pipes’s citation is ironic, as these treaties did not secure any reprieve for the American ships from the pirate states of the Barbary Coast. Had George Washington’s homilies placated the Barbary potentates in 1797, Thomas Jefferson would not have been forced to fighting a four-year-long war between 1801 and 1805 to liquidate those thugs.The Article 11 of the treaty says, “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 tranquillity of Musselmen, and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation…” This is obsequious. In 1796, the US was a young trans-Atlantic republic with hardly any navy beyond its territorial waters. Independence actually deprived it of the British naval protection it had enjoyed as a colony.By what stretch of imagination could the US have harmed Muslims in Africa or West Asia? The Barbary States, on the other hand, were living off Christian maritime commerce for nearly three centuries. They raided European ships, coasts and islands to plunder merchandise, enslave men and women, and extort ransom. Their reach was as far as England and Iceland. Two Christian orders - Trinitarian and Mercedarians - were devoted to secure release of Christian captives by doling out ransom.This was, however, more than plain banditry. Barbary piracy had enjoyed the patronage of the Ottoman empire. Booty-taking, enslaving ‘infidels’ are sanctified in Islamic theology under the name of Ma’l-e-Ghanimat (legitimate loot), which the Barbary pirates adopted as the mainstay of their economy.In 1801, when Tripoli demanded immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, President Thomas Jefferson felt enough was enough. He raised the call “millions for Defence, not a cent for tribute”, and built a navy. The First Barbary War (1801-1805) dealt a lethal blow to these thugs. Thus, Jefferson’s thump, rather than Washington’s tributes, tamed Islam.
DO YOU SEE HOW WRONG AND ILL ADVISED YOU GUYS ARE?? DESPITE YOUR EXCALMATIONS OF LOVING THIS COUNTRY<<<YOUR KILLING IT!!
Happy Thanksgiving. Over and out.
JustRalph
11-23-2006, 07:12 PM
Suff, as a person who is a strict constructionist when it comes to most of the constituiton, I have to say that Tom's point about the founding fathers not having any concept of foreign policy as it stands today, is valid. If there is one area the constitution the founders have very little reference it is the nature of our world as it stands today, and the relationship between nations. They cannot be blamed or denigrated at all. They lived in a world where crossing the ocean took 3 months and a two hour window for an attack could never be conceived of. They had not even conceived of air travel and the like. There 200 hundred year old ruminations cannot be applied to foreign policy and the relationship between nations in 2006.
Suff is the one with the problems here - he just cannot accept anyone who has any Christian beliefs. HE is the one full of hate and intolerance.
Bush, like millions of other people, does what he thinks his God wants him too, and Suff has an issue with it. That's the bottom line.
JustRalph
11-23-2006, 09:46 PM
Suff, as a person who is a strict constructionist when it comes to most of the constituiton, I have to say that Tom's point about the founding fathers not having any concept of foreign policy as it stands today, is valid. If there is one area the constitution the founders have very little reference it is the nature of our world as it stands today, and the relationship between nations. They cannot be blamed or denigrated at all. They lived in a world where crossing the ocean took 3 months and a two hour window for an attack could never be conceived of. They had not even conceived of air travel and the like. There 200 hundred year old ruminations cannot be applied to foreign policy and the relationship between nations in 2006.
"their two hundred year old ruminations cannot be applied to foreign policy"
I hate it when I do that. I wrote that post above sitting at the bar in the wife's restaurant trying out the new wireless network in the place...........
PaceAdvantage
11-24-2006, 12:32 AM
You put the people who back Robertson in the same place as those who DO NOT support the Governments version of 9-11?
My Views towards Roberston is moot. As is my View towards Bush. I'm speaking to the members of Pace Advantage who give Robertson merit. Do you?
Or do you find the people such as myself who DO believe that something else happened on 9-11, just as far out as people who think Roberston is legit.
I know you won't answer that. But I did not want you wiggling away with what you describe as its as simple as that
Whoa....since when does "DO NOT support the Governement's version of 9-11" equal "BUSH WAS BEHIND 9-11"
You're transforming what I said. I don't know why, or how....what I said couldn't be more clear.
PaceAdvantage
11-24-2006, 12:38 AM
To answer Tom....Yes...AMERICA and Thomas Jefferson specificaly dealt headon with ISLAM,,,,,and built a free country while doing so,,,,,,,NOT ripped one apart as you are doing.
I may be wrong, but the Civil War pre-dated George W. Bush by almost 140 years......but like I said, I could be wrong....
I saidThe so-called new existential threat framed in overaly dramatic terms of WWII, or a new cold war, the ultimate good vs evil, and the same being done by the other side, only furthers and inflames the less grandiose, but still real threat that does exist.The Rapture. Fine if you keep your beliefs personal. This myth is affecting tens of millions and priming the hate pump against our latest Uber alles enemy. It's like the always evil madman terrorist Emanual Goldstein of 1984 has been re-packaged as a Muslem. This is but one of a number of strong currents in American religious and attached right wing political culture promoting an ideology of religious warfare. It has surfaced on this board over and over again. Just like the WMDs issue. Take a minimal or moderate threat and blow it up to superhuman size by exageration and bullshit and scare the literal hell out of everyone.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/10/11/19506/376
"The publisher's blurb for Tim LaHaye's 1980 book, The Battle for the Mind: A Subtle Warfare, gushes that it is a "shocking, detailed exposé of the humanist onslaught, as well as a positive, practical handbook for waging war against this subtle infiltration." So LaHaye has been preparing for this "war" for over 25 years. No surprise to find this frame of an apocalyptic battle between good and evil in the Left Behind book series and video game."
PaceAdvantage
11-24-2006, 09:59 AM
Take a minimal or moderate threat and blow it up to superhuman size by exageration and bullshit and scare the literal hell out of everyone.
Hell, I'd be right there by your side, nodding in agreement, if it weren't for the fact that the World Trade Center disappeared a number of years ago......BTW, where did it go? Have you seen it lately?
Secretariat
11-24-2006, 10:16 AM
Bush, like millions of other people, does what he thinks his God wants him too...
I guess the same could be said about Bin Laden, or those "Christian Identity" nutcases.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick25.htm
Suff,
Thanks for an intelligent post. It is always refreshing to see some of those quotes from the founding fathers. I had not seen the Washington one before. Nice to read the persepctive of a true Commander-in-Chief.
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington 1st President of the US.
Funny, you support the guys who illegally stole the colonies from England, started a war with no exit stretegy, no timetable, killed people for thier own personal gains.
But, I do see why you and Suff like quoting the founding father's so much - 200+ year old political ideas are so democrat!
Tell me, Sec, who would you prefer Bush listened to the Son of Sam's dog for guidence?
So what you area saying, God is irelevant, no one should listen to Him, and we would all be better off? If the nation goes your way, we will all be listening to allah.
You should read the book The Truth About Mohamed. Eye opening.
lsbets
11-24-2006, 11:59 AM
I think some folks need to revisit Chickenhead's thread about the historic definition of liberal versus todays use of the word. Washington most certainly wasn't addressing the beliefs of todays "progressives" when he talked about a liberal world.
Secretariat
11-24-2006, 01:08 PM
Tell me, Sec, who would you prefer Bush listened to the Son of Sam's dog for guidence?
So what you area saying, God is irelevant, no one should listen to Him, and we would all be better off? If the nation goes your way, we will all be listening to allah.
Again, it's the old either/or tunnel vision of Repubs.
Of course it's OK to pray, to seek solace in prayer. However, beleiving you have a direct line to God, and he told you to invade a country is in my opinion a deluded messianic complex. Much like Bin Laden.
Why would I say no one should listen to God? I beleive however that God's intentions are hard to decipher. Jim Jones thought he was listening to God, so did David Koresh and Bin Laden. Basing your foreign policy decisions on cryptic messages from a Deity means that you have 100% faith that there is no static in the cosmic transmission which in GW's case proved to be his downfall.
Secretariat
11-24-2006, 01:10 PM
I think some folks need to revisit Chickenhead's thread about the historic definition of liberal versus todays use of the word. Washington most certainly wasn't addressing the beliefs of todays "progressives" when he talked about a liberal world.
That may or may not be true. What we do know is GW has transformed the definition of "conservative" in 6 short years.
46zilzal
11-24-2006, 01:11 PM
how can a person be conservative and spend that much of other people's money??
I think some folks need to revisit Chickenhead's thread about the historic definition of liberal versus todays use of the word. Washington most certainly wasn't addressing the beliefs of todays "progressives" when he talked about a liberal world.
He most certainly was. I suspect the only reason you assert that the meaning is different is that your not a liberal, and you disagree with liberals. For if you did not, you wouldn't be so quick to use the only loophole Conservatives have.
They meant something different
They did not. Despite your protestations they did.
Here's the quote again.
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
The areas in bold/color are both timeless and unambiguous. There is no possible morphing of their meaning or intent.
That sure ain't today's liberals.
You been talking directly to Gerge instead of God? :lol:
lsbets
11-24-2006, 04:26 PM
Nice try spinning Suff, but anyone who is a student of political philosohpy knows that classical liberalism is most closely related to the conservative movement of today (Note to all the kneejerk "progressives" - closely related does not mean equal to, and conservative movement does not mean Bush). Todays progressive thought has very little to do with the values this nation was founded on, and in many cases is an affront to the proud heritage of our great country. But, if you want to believe that classical liberalism equals todays progressive movement, than go ahead, not all delusions have to come from mushrooms. :)
Indulto
11-24-2006, 05:26 PM
On one hand some here argue that the constitution is obsolete after less than 300 years, but that the Bible isn’t after more than 3000!
The Bible initially addressed life with far fewer people, less complications, and little knowledge about or understanding of the body, the mind, or the physical world. Religions dealt with fear of the unknown and the irrational using fear of a supreme being whose existence could neither be confirmed nor disputed. That fear could be and was manipulated to enable a few to control many. Ultimate authority rested with a self-perpetuating tiny minority assuming and maintaining responsibility to interpret the supreme being’s intentions. Change was unanticipated and inhibited.
The constitution addressed life with much more complexity including the interactions among multiple religions and cultures, without challenging the concept of a supreme being, but based on the assumption that control or rule by any single religion was undesirable. The constitution anticipated change, population growth, encouraged rational change, and established rule by the majority.
While our founding fathers may not have envisioned technology advances in transportation, communication, medicine, etc., they were quite aware that there would be such advances (as Ben Franklin documented) because they themselves were not that far removed from the discovery that the earth was round, and from the ravages of disease. They understood that it was important to challenge convention to improve conditions.
The freer we became, the more we valued freedom, and consequently challenged the concepts of slavery and absence of women’s rights. The principles ARE still timely, even as technology changes their application. Compacting the world has brought some dangers closer, but technology and tactics will eventually combine to neutralize those threats.
The 9-11 attack on the twin-towers, as devastating as it turned out, was not equivalent to the bombing of Hiroshima, nor did it reflect anywhere near the resources to accomplish. The devastation was due at least as much to the UNANTICIPATED collapse of the buildings as to the hijacked airliners flying into them. A handful of dedicated, patient, intelligent, fanatical, religious INDIVIDUALS slipped past lax (non-existent?) security to right a perceived wrong. They were more lucky than powerful, but the power of human desire to defeat injustice can’t be underestimated, even when it can’t be applauded.
But the real ju-jitsu effected by these true “enemies of America” was our subsequent deployment of vast resources to multiply our own casualties and destroy countless innocent lives. As we avenged ourselves upon a tiny fraction of the deserving, we enabled the recruitment of armies against us, and lost many friendships built when we WERE true to the principles of those founding fathers.
Perhaps like bomb or drug-sniffing dogs, there will be life-forms or capabilities for locating nuclear facilities, or the ability to go to extra-terrestrial locations to convert wastelands into communities, or even thought-detection devices to separate terrorists from innocents. We will only find out if we don’t blow ourselves up first.
My sentiments exactly - blow THEM up first.
Do unto others before others do unto you.
History teaches us that violence cannot be prevented, that there is no avoiding war. So at least we can decide when and where, and do it at our convenience, not thiers. To me an islamic extremeist is one who doesn't go out and kill everyoneinthe name of allah, one who can live in peace. That is a muslem extremist.
Indulto
11-24-2006, 09:15 PM
My sentiments exactly - blow THEM up first.
Do unto others before others do unto you.
History teaches us that violence cannot be prevented, that there is no avoiding war. So at least we can decide when and where, and do it at our convenience, not thiers. To me an islamic extremeist is one who doesn't go out and kill everyoneinthe name of allah, one who can live in peace. That is a muslem extremist.You know, Tom, you're one of the few people I would come to SAR to meet if I could. Not only do I wish I could be certain that you MEAN what you say, but that you actually BELIEVE it. :lol:
The spin on the Golden Rule I prefer is "Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you."
BTW I had a great time reading an Uncle Scrooge story to MY nephew's kids yesterday thanks to your inadvertently jogging my memory. They now refer to themselves as "Booey" and "Hooey." :ThmbUp:
Come to Toga, I will give you an autographed copy of my manifesto! ;)
Nice try spinning Suff, but anyone who is a student of political philosohpy knows that classical liberalism is most closely related to the conservative movement of today (Note to all the kneejerk "progressives" - closely related does not mean equal to, and conservative movement does not mean Bush). Todays progressive thought has very little to do with the values this nation was founded on, and in many cases is an affront to the proud heritage of our great country. But, if you want to believe that classical liberalism equals todays progressive movement, than go ahead, not all delusions have to come from mushrooms. :)
Here's the quote again.
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
GEORGE WASHINGTON DID NOT MEAN 21st century conservatives when he said among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. He meant Liberal idealogy. An ideaology that is a templet. Not a classical verision or a modern day version. A templet. And todays liberalism is the same templet that our Founding Father used.
I bolded two different sections. Look at the quote in the context of Gay Marriage. Look at the quote with a questioning mind of "what protections" could he have envisioned? And look again and ask if he felt sections of society required protection, then he insinuates there are BUILT IN predjudiced that block equality. (14th amendment)....
So nothing that is there in that quote can be attached to a piece of the 21st century conservative. The stances on womens rights, immigration, gay rights and a host of others leave little doubt that conservatives fall embarassingly short of President Washingtons hopes....
A hope he describes as "As Mankind becomes more Liberal"
btw... I walk by George Washingtons house everyday. The house he lived in from 1774 to 1776. I'll take a picture with my phone and show it to you. You should see the names on the mailbox's up and down these blocks...
Coolidge, Warren, Hooker, Adams, Revere, Smith,.......all families who can trace thier American roots to 1650 and up...... They are all Liberals...because they know.....as I do......exactly what principles this country was founded on. They know....Because their Family founded it.
Secretariat
11-25-2006, 12:32 AM
....but anyone who is a student of political philosohpy knows that classical liberalism is most closely related to the conservative movement of today ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:bang: :bang:
JustRalph
11-25-2006, 12:37 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:bang: :bang:
I don't know what you are laughing about? Ever heard of JFK or FDR? they would be considered opposite your side today...........
Secretariat
11-25-2006, 01:01 AM
I don't know what you are laughing about? Ever heard of JFK or FDR? they would be considered opposite your side today...........
:lol: :lol: :lol:
lsbets
11-25-2006, 08:38 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:bang: :bang:
I refer you back to Chickenhead's thread on this subject. Once you educate yourself to know what the terms mean, than you might be capable of understanding them. And if you educate yourself, perhaps you could also educate Suff, because if you believe that America's founding fathers founded this nation to be governed by the abortion that is modern liberalism, than you have very little understanding of our heritage.
GaryG
11-25-2006, 10:04 AM
Fortunately most democrats are more moderate as has been reflected in the crossing over to vote for republican candidates when the demos put up some bleeding heart lib. There is no way in hell this country will elect a liberal democrat to the white house. Look what has happened to them in the recent past. Bush was vulnerable in 2004 but not vulnerable enough to lose to a New England liberal. The rest of the country (I think Ralph referred to it as fly over country) still packs a wallop at the polls. That kind of gov't might play in Suff's back yard but not in the real world.
Yup. Anyone ever wonder why if Mass. was the cradle of democracy, we spent the next 100 years moving west, as far away from it as we could get, even facing Indians and bears rather than Boston politicians? :lol:
I perhaps you could also educate Suff, because if you believe that America's founding fathers founded this nation to be governed by the abortion that is modern liberalism, than you have very little understanding of our heritage.
I understand our Heritage extremely well. I also have a general sense of why you take the position you do. Your not left with much of a choice when your presented with clear cut evidence that our Country was founded by Liberals. The only out you have is to proclaim "not these types of liberals". What else could you say?: I know the founders were Liberal but I'm a conservative anyway?
In March of 1776 the colonies took the most aggressive steps yet towards independence. They Instructed South Carolina to seize English ships of their Coast....and disarm ALL TORIES in The colonies!!. The Whigs made their move.
The Whigs and Tories were the world's first political parties and over the years to come they were to share government and opposition in a dual party system. The Whigs became the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the Tories became the Conservative Party. Both still exist today, although the Liberal Party is now called the Democratic Party
Probably one of the single most notorious Whig vs Torie political battles of the 17th century was the Habeas Corpus Act. Here's little snippet on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Habeas Corpus Act
This Act, passed in May 1679, allowed a prisoner to demand that he should be brought before a court and have his case examined. It was passed during the reign of Charles II and meant that even a political prisoner, an opponent of the king, as well as a common criminal, could have a fair trial and not just be thrown into prison to be forgotten about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you go... an identical issue we are debating today. Where do you stand? With the Whigs? Or the Tories?
There is no morphing....no abortion..... There is our heritage right there in front of you in 2006. George Bush suspended Habeas Corpus...
You don't need to listen to any one's opinion on where our Founders stood on this. I give you COLD HARD FACTS. They stood against George Bush. They Stood against Conservatives ( Tories ).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.:ThmbUp:
lsbets
11-25-2006, 12:17 PM
SUff, I'm not going to argue the point with you, because you so want to believe what you do that nothing will change your mind. But, modern liberalism or progressivism, or whatever you want to call it today, has nothign to do with the liberalism that our nation was founded on. And with that I'll agree to disagree and for once walk away before a conversation gets heated.
SU a conversation gets heated.
Heated? Heated over what? Nothing to get heated over.
Henry Thoreau said
Any 20 year old who is not a Liberal has no heart, and any 40 year old who is not a conservative has no brains.
You I assume are a conservative? Or a moderate Republican? You are supposed to find Liberalism vile. Your supposed to find Liberalism objectionable to decent society, Your supposed to find Liberalism a threat to the nations fiber.
that is what Liberalism is... That is much of the purpose of liberalism. It push's society. Not always proper or healthy, not always safe and comfortable.
There is no heat.......I understand conservativism. The Conservatives of the 1800's said that Liberals then were not the Liberals of the 1700's, and the 1900's conservatves said that the 1900's Liberals were not the Liberals of the 1800's...and now todays conservatives simply repeat it. It will go on....and what will happen is the country....IF IT STICKS to the core, will , as George Washinton predicted....Become more Liberal. Conservatives simply temper it.
because you so want to believe what you do that nothing will change your mind..
Do you think I want to believe what I believe? Seriously...? I wish i could walk away from what I believe. But I cannot. I'm a middle aged heterosexual white guy. Do you think its FUN or REWARDING for me to support Gay Civil Unions when not only is the MAJORITY of the country against that....my demographic is unanimously against that....
How well you think it would play over at Suffolk Downs if I wore that political position on my sleeve? They'd probably drag me out back and rob me!!:lol:
Here me out.
First one snippet from George Washington
they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.
In my city we have a gay neighborhood called the South End. It used to be all flop houses and junkies and booze bags. Bad place. In the 60's and 70's when there was still a lot of prejudice against Gays...., That is the only place they could rent apartments. It became a gay neighborhood. It is now without question...One of the best neighborhoods in Boston. When you think of inner city neighborhoods think of them like this..
South End has Banks and ATMS. Bad hoods don't because Banks don't put branches where no money is...and people get robbed at ATM"s.
South End has beautiful gas lamp lit streets and sidewalks... Property values have skyrocketed and their tax payments allow them TOP NOTCH city services. They refurbished 1000's of beautiful 19th century brownstones. Poor neighborhoods have no street lights because the drug dealers shoot them out so they can operate in darkness.
South End has Mailbox's, and poor neighborhoods don't because people steal them or 16 gang bangers are sitting on them.
All this has brought in great restaurants, and theaters, and bistro's and street vendors and outdoor artists.
I do not see how that is bad for America? Do you? These people are Doctors, Lawyers, Construction workers, Politicians......and they are gay.
They want the same civil benefits afforded others.
Now reread Washington's quote
they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government
I don't want to support gays. One man sticks his penis in another mans ass right?:?::confused: That don't seem right to me. :D The sex part is hard to grasp. But the RIGHTS part I get. I understand it. It's American.
I am a man of reason. I see with my own two eyes. I don't need the Boston Globe or the NY Times to advise me where to come down on this shit. I make my mind up using my GOD GIVEN SENSE OF REASON AND DEDUCTION.
Do you think I want this conclusion?: Hell no. I want to get on the train with all the popular people. I don't want to be standing with the penis/ass crowd:D
But I have to. Its what I find is the right thing to do in my heart and mind.
Forgive me for indulging myself with the thought that George Washington would be proud of me.
lsbets
11-25-2006, 01:33 PM
Suff, one of the basic mistakes you make in terms of today is associating political party with ideology. Republican doesn't equal conservative and Democrat doesn't equal liberal. More often than not, political party means nothing more than power hungry selfish whore. Because one party chooses to label itself something doesn't mean the label is accurate. As far as gay marriage, the constitution already dealt with it - 10th amendment, leave it up to the states. It doesn't matter to me one bit what you all do in Mass about gay marriage, and nothing should be done about it on the federal level.
46zilzal
11-25-2006, 01:34 PM
Suff, one of the basic mistakes you make in terms of today is associating political party with ideology. Republican doesn't equal conservative and Democrat doesn't equal liberal. More often than not, political party means nothing more than power hungry selfish whore. Because one party chooses to label itself something doesn't mean the label is accurate.
we agree again.
Suff, one of the basic mistakes you make in terms of today is associating political party with ideology. Republican doesn't equal conservative and Democrat doesn't equal liberal. More often than not, political party means nothing more than power hungry selfish whore. Because one party chooses to label itself something doesn't mean the label is accurate. As far as gay marriage, the constitution already dealt with it - 10th amendment, leave it up to the states. It doesn't matter to me one bit what you all do in Mass about gay marriage, and nothing should be done about it on the federal level.
I hear you. I don't want to agitate you to the point of heat. I really don't. I regret you and I having divisions that went personal. I enjoy your presence on the board and welcome your opinons and experience on any subject. My tone sucks. I have crooked way of talking ( typing).
I get around...most people take a peek out the door on these kind of issues. No one seems interested in talking about them unless they are rabid. Like me. I have this idea stuck in my head that I need to know whats going on and have an opinion on it.
A freind of mines mom is gay. We went by her house Thanksgiving morning. Her live in lover died about a week ago from Lupus. So we went by on the way to another shingding to spread some cheer and check in on her. I know her fairly well and I tried to engage her in a little conversation about issues. I even turned on Fox news. She was bored with it and had no interest in any poltical discussion. I thought to myself... jesus christ, I'm more interest in the issues that effect her than she is!:D I'm a strange person I think.:lol:
lsbets
11-25-2006, 01:48 PM
we agree again.
Stop agreeing with me, I'm getting worried. :lol: :lol: :lol:
GaryG
11-25-2006, 01:56 PM
Stop agreeing with me, I'm getting worried. :lol: :lol: :lol:Yo ls....have you become a pacifist when I wasn't looking??
lsbets
11-25-2006, 02:05 PM
Yo ls....have you become a pacifist when I wasn't looking??
That'll happen when you become a Yankee. :lol: :lol:
46zilzal
11-25-2006, 02:06 PM
the recent exchange had nothing to do with war.
JustRalph
11-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Suff, you really should read the chickenhead thread. It was pretty good.
Suff, you really should read the chickenhead thread. It was pretty good.
I read it as it unfolded...
It was refreshing in that it was thought provoking. I can't agree with everything he asserts. Some of it is placating the critics of Social Liberalism. No matter. Worthy ideas. What can you do when you have Lefty running around repeating Rush Limbaugh lines in a thread like that?
Jump in? Last week he asked me to show him the inaccuracies in an Ann Coulter Column. When I did....He said he wasn't interested in the inaccuracies.
What do you do with a guy like that in a decent thread? Reasoning with him is a nonstarter.....
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.