This Can't Be True....

[CaribbeanGreen]

You said it there, Flyer...

...Good God... that made it WORSE.

[CaribbeanGreen]

concerning my aparthied comments: i know what aparthied is and was playing devil's advocate. i personally abhor aparthied as i do slavery but could defend either position....now....that does not mean i support aparthied or slavery, which i do not, it only means in a civilized debate i could play devil's advocate and might support it better than what you could being against aparthied or slavery.

concerning the hutu's and tutsee killing each other: in the 70's and 80's television covered the south african conflict with a fine tooth comb as they do, today, with Isreal and Palestine. when the minority government (whites) handed over the country to the ruling party (black south africans) a void of police protection occured where about, conservatively, 1,000,000 tribesmen and their families were slaughtered by each other....mostly by machetes. these television images are still indelibly etched in my mind. fact.

conerning india and gandi: hindus, in india, consider the gangee's river a sacred river that gives them the opportunity for a greater reincarnated state than what they are living. my father was stationed in india from 1941 to 1945 and said he saw thousands upon thousands of indians go to the river and die. families would take their dead family members and toss them into the sacred river for their journey to the next reincarned life. unfortunately, they still do it today. a hindu's next life can be another person, animal or something. there is plenty of information on this subject on the internet and other scholarly writings. india is now getting out from becoming a third world country. we all know that and needs no explanation. facts.

as for some post from the stormfront: it may have been a post on german synthetic fuel production near the end of the war using some form of ethenol to fuel their vehicles. among wwII historians a well known fact. that same information was brought up in a couple of history classes i had at NT years ago by some profs. is historical fact any less a fact if it gleaned from vogue magazine than it is from stormfront?

Sigh. I can't resist.

I want to hear you defend slavery and apartheid first, you know, since you can support better than we can, being that we're against it. Good word choice there.

I'm sure the ANC's takeover in the RSA had everything to do with their race. Yeah.... how is that relevant? Are you blaming the new gov't's blackness for their difficulty during transition? Why else mention it? I think it may have a little more to do with about fifty other factors, but I won't bore you with those...

As for India... yeah, so? The Ganges is their holy river. What's the point? That's their faith. They have a caste system. It's what they do. Your point?

And finally -- oh. my. GOD. Yes, EE, a historical fact from Stormfront is worth less than a fact pulled from the drunken mouth of a drunk homeless black South African floating down the Ganges. It's worth less than what I left in the toilet this morning. End of story. Period. If you disagree, then you fall into the same category.

[Mean Green Matt]

Where? Never is God or a Creator or any kind mentioned in the Constitution.

It does though in the Declaration of Independence, the document that started this nation, and as much as I disagree with most of what EE said, it is really hard to say that this country was not founded on Christian principles. You might not have meant it that way, but still...

[CMJ]

It does though in the Declaration of Independence, the document that started this nation, and as much as I disagree with most of what EE said, it is really hard to say that this country was not founded on Christian principles. You might not have meant it that way, but still...

He said Constitution. I knew it was in the Declaration, but if you can't even get your info right you can't win an argument. It was a huge mistake. One that I similarly destroyed a girl in a college class debate with when she misquoted one for the other.

As an aside, considering Jefferson(author of said Declaration) wrote his own version of the Bible, to suggest he was some devout Christian is probably not a good idea. Religious? Yes. But more of a "clock maker" theory kind than what we'd consider a Christian today.

[Mean Green Matt]

He said Constitution. I knew it was in the Declaration, but if you can't even get your info right you can't win an argument. It was a huge mistake. One that I similarly destroyed a girl in a college class debate with when she misquoted one for the other.

As an aside, considering Jefferson(author of said Declaration) wrote his own version of the Bible, to suggest he was some devout Christian is probably not a good idea. Religious? Yes. But more of a "clock maker" theory kind than what we'd consider a Christian today.

He didn't change the story, he just changed how it was told. Granted, thats a little odd to do that, but regardless he believed in Jesus, and so did the other signers, although I am sure you have explanations for each of them on how they were not "devout Christians."

The country made a huge mistake with slavery, and made a lot of other huge mistakes, but I fail to see how you, or anyone else can say that this was not a Christian nation, one nation Under God, and yes, I know that was not added until Eisenhower's presidency, but that shows how long those principles carried on. They stayed until they took prayer out of schools, and the ten commandments from our courthouses (see Alabama Supreme Court). Whether we are or are not now, you can't say that we weren't.

[CMJ]

He didn't change the story, he just changed how it was told. Granted, thats a little odd to do that, but regardless he believed in Jesus, and so did the other signers, although I am sure you have explanations for each of them on how they were not "devout Christians."

The country made a huge mistake with slavery, and made a lot of other huge mistakes, but I fail to see how you, or anyone else can say that this was not a Christian nation, one nation Under God, and yes, I know that was not added until Eisenhower's presidency, but that shows how long those principles carried on. They stayed until they took prayer out of schools, and the ten commandments from our courthouses (see Alabama Supreme Court). Whether we are or are not now, you can't say that we weren't.

Deism was much a more prevalent philosophy at the time of the founding than it is now. And, there is much debate how Christian Jefferson, Franklin, and even someone like Washington really was.

(Some were obviously VERY Christain, like a John Adams)

The fact that we both could comb the internet, or go thru books and post articles to and for their supposed religious beliefs just proves that no one really knows how religious they were. And no, not all the founders were Deists, but there is evidence that several were.

Edited June 29, 2008 by CMJ

[emmitt01]

He said Constitution. I knew it was in the Declaration, but if you can't even get your info right you can't win an argument. It was a huge mistake. One that I similarly destroyed a girl in a college class debate with when she misquoted one for the other.

As an aside, considering Jefferson(author of said Declaration) wrote his own version of the Bible, to suggest he was some devout Christian is probably not a good idea. Religious? Yes. But more of a "clock maker" theory kind than what we'd consider a Christian today.

What you are referring to "deism" with the clock maker theory. This just happens to be my personal position.

[UNTflyer]

*delete*

Never mind.

Edited June 29, 2008 by UNTflyer

[eulesseagle]

cmj-

please look at the syntex of the conjuntion "and" that separates three points: magna carta, constitution and one nation under God.

as you know the first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the bill of rights. the first amendment begins with congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. my point is that the constitution was written to protect freedom of religion not the freedom from religion. so the constitution does point to the existence of one nation under God.

[CMJ]

cmj-

please look at the syntex of the conjuntion "and" that separates three points: magna carta, constitution and one nation under God.

as you know the first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the bill of rights. the first amendment begins with congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. my point is that the constitution was written to protect freedom of religion not the freedom from religion. so the constitution does point to the existence of one nation under God.

God was never mentioned in the Constitution, as stated before. Neither is a Creator of any kind. Nice try covering up the fact that you were refering to the Declaration of Independence originally though.

As for Freedom OF religion vs Freedom FROM religion goes - did I ever say anything about that per se? Not that I recall. I never once broached that argument in this setting; though I would argue that a freedom of religion implies that a belief in no religion is just as valid a belief in our country.

[Censored by Laurie]

concerning my aparthied comments: i know what aparthied is and was playing devil's advocate. i personally abhor aparthied as i do slavery but could defend either position....now....that does not mean i support aparthied or slavery, which i do not, it only means in a civilized debate i could play devil's advocate and might support it better than what you could being against aparthied or slavery.

A reasonable person debates the merits of the death penalty...a reasonable person debates the merits of the half back dive on 3rd and 8...a reasonable person debates the merits of supply side economic theory. Bigots seek justification 52 years of violent oppression and racial segregation or for hundreds of years of human trafficing. I mean...UNTFlyer is as free market as they come but I doubt even he would support the economic value of owning individuals.

concerning my comments on nelson mandela: fact: he is a marxist by his own admission.

And...me too. Again it is your inherent bigotry that won't allow you to believe that anybody but a white christian is capable of running a nation. You argue that unemployment and poverty were the result of Mandela...not the CIVIL WAR that had just taken place. America wasn't exactly the best place to look for a job from 1866 right up until around the turn of the century.

concerning the hutu's and tutsee killing each other: in the 70's and 80's television covered the south african conflict with a fine tooth comb as they do, today, with Isreal and Palestine. when the minority government (whites) handed over the country to the ruling party (black south africans) a void of police protection occured where about, conservatively, 1,000,000 tribesmen and their families were slaughtered by each other....mostly by machetes. these television images are still indelibly etched in my mind. fact.

I'll be nice here and say that these "indelible" images simply pushed from your mind any concept of geography since the Hutu's and Tutsi were warring "tribes" (arbitrarilly segragated by the Belgians and Dutch) in Central Africa, most notable Burhundi and Rwanda (ask Don Cheadle). I mean...I could've said that to you all Africans must look the same...but I'll play nice

conerning india and gandi: hindus, in india, consider the gangee's river a sacred river that gives them the opportunity for a greater reincarnated state than what they are living. my father was stationed in india from 1941 to 1945 and said he saw thousands upon thousands of indians go to the river and die. families would take their dead family members and toss them into the sacred river for their journey to the next reincarned life. unfortunately, they still do it today. a hindu's next life can be another person, animal or something. there is plenty of information on this subject on the internet and other scholarly writings. india is now getting out from becoming a third world country. we all know that and needs no explanation. facts.

Again...nobody was questioning your facts. Most freshmen in high school know the Ganges is a sacred river (no figures to support that...and I'm not saying where these mythical high schools are).. Its your mockery of this belief and of the people who practice it that again make you a bigot: "people still go down to the Gangee's River to drop dead in it thinking it will propel them into the next life of reincarnation......hopefully to come back as a cow, bird or something better than what they were." Personally...the idea that a virgin can pop out a kid...and that one day this kid, who is long since dead, will one day come back to Earth and all those who believe in the omniscience of this dude will suddenly vanish and I'll be left here to endure bugs and sanguin water...well...that sounds pretty fucking nuts to me...however I don't belittle the 1-2 BILLION people who believe this.

concerning the Magna Carta and the Constitution and one nation under God: Both were created from Biblical precepts. One unique twist between the two is that in our Constitution we give thanks to the one true God of creation for the deliverance of our sacred nation. The Magna Carta, with its Biblical foundation of the human rights of man gives its thanks to the king. thoughout washington d.c. most all the monuments have inscriptions giving thanks to God for the founding of this nation in some form or another. God makes countries and blesses those countries that follow His precepts. God also condems countries as he did with Egypt and has placed disention upon the arab race (i paraphrase from the Bible). These are paraphrases from the Word of God, not mine. if you have any concerns on the Holy Scripture that has not changed in over three thousand years, i am only a conduit for what the word says. Man has changed not the Bible. i truely believe that without christianity there is no soul for a country. of course the counter point is that epicurian agnostism holds to no moral foundation and is based upon cynicism....a cancer of society. i believe in the 100 percent accuracy of the Bible from not only reading and studying the word but also reading Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, some Vatican writings and other works. We all live temporally on earth but where we live eternally is through our own free will. do you know for sure?

Odd...very similar philosophy.

as for some post from the stormfront: it may have been a post on german synthetic fuel production near the end of the war using some form of ethenol to fuel their vehicles. among wwII historians a well known fact. that same information was brought up in a couple of history classes i had at NT years ago by some profs. is historical fact any less a fact if it gleaned from vogue magazine than it is from stormfront?

Been covered by the others

cbl is correct in labeling me a christian conservative. i see life as only black and white (not racially intended). you are either on one side of the "line in the sand or the other" and you have either "crossed the Rubicon" or not.

Again...very similar. Perhaps you have more in common with those you spew your hatred and bigotry towards than you first thought.

You know...we don't agree on much...

[UNTflyer]

UNTFlyer is as free market as they come but I doubt even he would support the economic value of owning individuals.

The ownership of human beings is an abomination... and slavery is the Original Sin of America that may never be absolved. There are no economics to justify raping human beings of their freedom and liberty.

Any policy that debases our fellow human beings based on the color of their skin, the God in their heart, or the beliefs in their mind is counterproductive.

You know, I sometimes wish the GOP could have their own Dixie-crat moment, when all these bigoted, redneck, evangelical, family-values Religious Right types break off and form their own damn party.

Edited June 29, 2008 by UNTflyer

[eulesseagle]

cbl-

your vile intolerance toward others with differing viewpoints is unconscionable. would it not be easier to present a viewpoint without calling someone a white conservative christian bigot?

why not say that my assessment of killings of south africa was caused by: (1) the lack of training that the minority govt gave to the majority govt. or (2) the lack of colalition building between the various cultures that made up the nation state by the minority govt.. that would be easier than to call someone a racist bigot because you disagree with their statements, true or not.

personally, you should learn to become a little more tollerent of other's opinions and present a congruent opposite response that is well thought out, as i so have given you in example, instead of getting the "red-eye" of your own version of intolerance and bigotry of, evidently, my demographic classification.

cbl, learn to be more tollerent, learn to accept other viewpoints/opinions and learn how to write a scathing rebutal that kills 'em with kindness instead of vile outrage and hate.

we will have to continue to disagree on certain aspects of politics & religion but i do like some of your in depth reports on nt and our opponents.

[Quoner]

quoner & cbl-

since you can not carry on a civilized conversation about a generic comment without feeling threatened i see that both of you have turned to the lowest denominator of rebutal....a slanderous racist comment that has nothing to do what was stated in my post. i really dont feel intimidated by your trite and meaningless comments as i feel sorry for your sophmorish posts that indicate to me and others that your credability is waning.

Considering I never once addressed you in this thread, I guess you are asking me to prove Godwin's Law. I just don't have the background.

In the meantime, I'll work on not being so "sophmorish" and enhance my "credability." Considering I don't wear my political views on my sleeve and stick to jokes on a UNT message board, please don't drag me in to these blackhole "political discussions" that show the worst in people on both sides of a political debate.

We may agree or disagree on more than you know, but nothing you ever post will ever have any shred of credibility after you posted the Stormfront page. Imagine your outrage if Obama started pulling ideology from the mythical Night of Justice Uprising message board?

[Quoner]

Here's a fun article to keep in mind as these wonderful discussions continue: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...96.story?page=1

[eulesseagle]

quoner et al.-

the questionable article delt with germany's synthetic fuel production at the end of wwII and came from the main link of ww2f.com. it had nothing to do jack boot troops, racism, anti-semitism, witches, goblins and other anti-anything.......just how germany used inovation to overcome fuel shortages.....das ist alles.

so you can, now, put down your ropes and branding irons.

[meangreenacct]

quoner et al.-

the questionable article delt with germany's synthetic fuel production at the end of wwII and came from the main link of ww2f.com. it had nothing to do jack boot troops, racism, anti-semitism, witches, goblins and other anti-anything.......just how germany used inovation to overcome fuel shortages.....das ist alles.

so you can, now, put down your ropes and branding irons.

I think the question is not about the merits of any specific article on the website, but as to why you were on that website in the first place. I guess conventional wisdom would probably not cause someone to think " I'm really interested in finding information on gas production/prices etc., let me look to a renowned racist website for guidance".

[Censored by Laurie]

so you can, now, put down your ropes and branding irons.

Yeah...save that for the pros

I think the question is not about the merits of any specific article on the website, but as to why you were on that website in the first place. I guess conventional wisdom would probably not cause someone to think " I'm really interested in finding information on gas production/prices etc., let me look to a renowned racist website for guidance".

Chone Figgins agrees with you.

[Quoner]

I think the question is not about the merits of any specific article on the website, but as to why you were on that website in the first place. I guess conventional wisdom would probably not cause someone to think " I'm really interested in finding information on gas production/prices etc., let me look to a renowned racist website for guidance".

To be fair, sometimes NAMBLA sites have the best scoop on the Dallas Cowboys. You got to go where the information is, man.

[eulesseagle]

quoner-

not familiar with that acronim. perhaps you can enlighten everyone.

[Green P1]

Chone Figgins agrees with you.

What to do with Figgins???????

[Quoner]

quoner-

not familiar with that acronim. perhaps you can enlighten everyone.

You're a big boy. Pop in the Google at work or show it to the Mrs. at home.

[Quoner]

What to do with Figgins???????

Is he off the DL? I seem to recall a thread about how he makes the Angels offense go?

[FirefightnRick]

I can't help but wonder that if Hussien Obama actually had any kind of recognizable character to begin with, other than the inability to choose quality individuals to associate with, that there wouldn't have been so many of those Urban legends popping up like they did in the first place? When you associate with admitted terrorists and hatemongers and give people reason to believe that your not all that proud of your country to begin with then I can understand how it all came about.

Funny stuff.

Rick

It happened again this past weekend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8063002422.html

Obama's speech came on the same day that his rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain, pushed back hard against criticism of his own record as a Navy flier and a prisoner of war. On Sunday, retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark questioned McCain's qualifications for the White House. "He hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Obama rebuked that line of attack Monday, acknowledging McCain by name in saluting veterans "who have endured physical torment in service to our country."

"No further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," he said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides." In a statement, a spokesman for the senator from Illinois said that Obama "rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

Rick

[emmitt01]

It happened again this past weekend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8063002422.html

Rick

I don't see what point you are making. Another person made a statement about how being a POW doesn't make you qualified to lead the U.S. military, a true statement mind you. Obama then came out and stated that he appreciates and honors anyone who puts themselves in harms way, even stating that he rebuked the questioning of a man who served our country.

What exactly did he do wrong again?

I'm honestly starting to think there mustn't be anything policy wise that you can question Obama for. (sarcasm intended)

Seems to me that you wouldn't need to paint him as the boogey man by questioning his patriotism, choice of pastors, "muslim" leanings, etc. Can the right not do any better than they have for the past few decades by attempting to frighten voters into submission?

Edited July 1, 2008 by emmitt01