Are Demonic Forces sitting in the Capitol Building in Washington DC

How hypocritical of the left. Why teach a religion of equality and tolerance, and then turn around and do just the opposite when it suites you?

 

Right... it's better to hide in a hole and come up every once in a while to throw stones.

 

Then, Obama went on to claim all the credit, despite having literally done nothing, while telling the world about Seal Team 6 (which should have remained classified).
.[/QUOTE]

More right wing crap- really just total BS. You blame Obama for what you don't like happening and then claim his doesn't get credit for what does happen. Fact is that under Obama, Osama Bin Ladin was tracked down, fact is that Obama gave the order to go ahead- and the fact is that Obama has given the order to continue to attack Al Qaeda and other terrorists by drones- and less well publicized- other special forces attacks.

You made the claim that everything that Obama does is in support of the Muslim Brotherhood- now I can see you just rationalize everything based upon right wing BS.

He announced them while he was running for election- and as I said- we the people elected him based upon his announced plans. And we had already won the war in Iraq- remember Bush announced that.

So you only support protesters protesting for Democracy if they are the RIGHT protesters. And only support Democracy if it is the right Democracy. The fact is that all three cases- Egypt, Libya and Iran were popular uprisings by people who were against their autocratic governments. And U.S. support of protesters in Iran would have endangered their lives- the government of Iran wants America to be its Great Satan.

Again- Libya was a popular uprising- and there were elements of Al Qaeda within that popular uprising. Apparently you are in favor of dictators killing people as long as they are the right dictators.

I stand corrected- you are correct.

So you are upset that Obama didn't go to Benghazi to make a speech?

So your claim that Obama has verbally supported Al Qaeda was just a lie then. Why not just admit that you were lying?

So much right wing BS.

 

Yep, just ignore the accounts of Seal Team 6 and the Military... They don't count. Obama has handled the entire mission regarding OBL as carelessly as he handles the economy. He had to be pulled off the golf course to give the go ahead for the mission. During the mission he played cards with his friends. Plus, if it was so important to get OBL, why didn't he act sooner, when he had the same intel for over a year?

Yes, just ignore every link I posted, which proves my point. You could read the linked articles and become educated and informed, or just ignore them and remain a clueless/deluded/uninformed Democratic voter. The choice is yours.

Bush never announced we "won the war in Iraq." Where'd you get that left wing propaganda? You mean when he was riding on the USS Abraham Lincoln battleship and a photographer took a picture with the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background? Here's a newsflash: that battleship's mission WAS accomplished (as it was returning to California). Time to reassess where we get our information from, isn't it?

That is correct. I would never support an uprising of anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Liberty protesters. Why would I support that? Replacing one dictator with a worse dictator is progress? What you're seeing in Egypt, Libya and Syria are protesters who don't give a crap about Democracy, because they're just as corrupt and just as tyrannical. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Muslim Brotherhood-backed democratic government. They don't exist.

The protesters in Iran endangered their own lives, merely by protesting, and hoped that we would back them. They had signs in the street, written in English, so that we could read them. Why else would an Farsi speaking country write them in English?

We're fighting a war with Al Qaeda on one hand, and we're supporting them on the other. Why would we do that? You can't choose a side, if both sides are equally evil. We should stay out of it. Let them have their civil war. Assad didn't start the war, anyway, the protesters did. You reap what you sow... and violence begets violence. If the Syrian rebels are so peaceful and democratic, why would they be doing this? If one thing could be said for Assad, it's that he at least protected Christians from being murdered relentlessly by Islamists. They're doing this unprovoked, and you'd have them gain control of the country?

Anyway, I wonder what you'd say if another country tried to influence the outcome of the American Civil War.

I appreciate you saying so.

No, I'm upset that Obama lied about a video being the cause of the attack on the Consulate, and I'm upset that he actively did nothing to immediately help those under fire, when he had plenty of time to react and save those Americans.

Because I didn't say he verbally supported Al Qaeda... you did. However, I did show you a video that suggests he knew the risk of supporting the Syrian rebels. Try watching it.

So much left wing ignorance.

 

And then he made every possible mistake he could have made and made the hole situation worse. The boy has no clue how to fight a war, nor had the two clowns giving him most of his dirt-dumb ideas. The republicons have not had a POTUS with a clue how to conduct a war since Eisenhower. Come to think of it, that was the last time they had one who was not mentally defective in some way.

The American Stinker is not a reliable source on the subject of Islam.

Fact is, your using it calls your judgment into question.

The Imam is a Sufi. Did you see how the Sufis took al Qaeda's crap last year?

 

So the Lutherans share the blame for that Qur'an-burning sack of crap in Florida? Amazing!

 

"In God We Trust" on printed currency and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were both added during the 1950s "Red Scare" by conservatives who were afraid of the so-called Godless Soviets. If you read the document which is the foundation of U.S. government, the constitution, nowhere will you find the word God, and the only mention of religion is to say "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The Founders were rejecting rule by monarchy and rule by church. People are free to practice whatever religion they choose or practice no religion at all. The United States of America is very much a secular country that protects the free practice of religion without tyranny or oppression. To say America is not a secular state is to reject what the Founders stood for.

 

Really? Reagan won a war without firing a shot. Bush Sr. won a war that made the opposing force look like children. Bush Jr. had war imposed on him on 9/11, he then took the fight to enemy soil and was winning the war on terror in Afghanistan, overthrew a hostile Iraqi dictator and left things much more stable than they became under Obama.

Oh, really? What is? How about http://www.jihadwatch.org/ ? Or http://www.actforamerica.org/ ?

Fact is, you not having any modicum of sense for actually researching the topics you debate calls your validity into question. How about instead of belittling my sources, you post some sources of your own to debunk them?

Yes, Muslims kill other Muslims on a day-to-day basis. They also kill Christians, Jews and anyone that doesn't believe Mohammad was a prophet.

You act like being a Sufi excuses his radicalism. Here's a more in-depth bio of our good friend: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2462

 

Incorrect: http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts5

Incorrect: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names," appears prior to the Founder's signatures at the end of the Constitution.

The correct quote for the 1st Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

While your first sentence is true, the underlying basis or foundation for this country is of Judeo-Christian principles. Heck, the first design of the Seal of the United States was proposed by Jefferson & Franklin to be the Jews fleeing Egypt.

Here's an article by Dennis Prager on just such a subject (I thought it was well-written and informative): http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/america-founded-to-be-free-not-secular.html

Here's another one by Prager that I enjoyed, on the meaning of judeo-christian: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3

 

It wasn't law until 1955, as it says in the link you provided. It was added in the 50s by conservatives during the Soviet red scare and it was done so with actual legislation, not mere suggestion. The fact that examples of it's use exist before then does not invalid what I said.

There is nothing binding about that closing remark in the constitution. It's the constitutional equivalent to a message board signature or email sign-off. And you know it is, but you need to make your point on a technicality even though your point is meaningless. So I say again nowhere will you find the word "God" in the constitution. A salutation to close a document is hardly proof that the country was founded as a Christian nation and it's definitely not in any way a means to enforce a particular religious belief. At their time, this was how things worked. This is pre-Darwin. This is how they spoke To point that statement out as some kind of validation of God and/or Christian doctrine by the Founders is to say any law passed right now that includes the year is also an endorsement as we all know why we say it's the year 2013. But acknowledging it's the year 2013 does not endorse Christ as your savior or the foundation of your government.

Thanks for clearing that up because I had no idea. Or it's possible I was citing the relevant portion of the First Amendment, and you in turn decided it's necessary to make a marginal critique, for style points I guess.

Where people derived their viewpoints is quite different then what is or isn't recognized by the U.S. constitution. And since this was pre-Darwin, people who might have been non-believers of their time still would have subscribed to the common language of the day, just as many non-believers now still do the same.

The point of all this is to say the constitution does not endorse any specific religion. You can make all the points you want about the backgrounds of the various founding fathers and what their religious beliefs were, and that's all well and good. But it was fairly remarkable for it's time to construct a founding document for a country that did not rely on any reference to God or religion in creating the framework of government.

 

Who said anything about making it law? The fact that they found it necessary to give thanks to God on their coinage speaks volumes. Also, in that same link... legislation was passed much earlier than 1955, but in 1864 and later in 1908. What is it with Lefties and reading whole articles? Sure, you can write a good line, but c'mon... read, comprehend and speak honestly. Stop omitting the truth.

You could very much be an atheist, pagan, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, or Protestant in those days, but certainly due to the enlightenment, Christianity was wide-spread. The fact is, it's a testament to the importance of Christ in their lives. The majority of the founders were Protestant Christians. If not for their base in Christianity, they would not have given credence to Christ "our Lord" (Anno Domini in latin). Muslims, Jews, pagans and atheists did not recognize the divinity of Jesus, so why would they spell it out in the Constitution?

I like to keep things in context... Liberals like to cut/paste bits and pieces to fuel their arguments. You can call me your checks/balances guy. ;]

Being pre-Darwin has little importance. What's your point by saying this multiple times? The Founders felt that a Republican Government required a greater moral foundation, which they felt was Christianity. Most were Christians, but those who weren't, were Christian Deists, who believed in Christ and the teachings of Christ, but questioned his divinity. This nation was meant to be a nation of religious morality, based on the Christian Bible... but they didn't feel government should force Christianity on the people, but instead the people should choose whether or not to be Christian, themselves.

No, it does not endorse a specific religion. The backgrounds of the Founding Fathers are certainly important, just as the discussions leading to the foundation of this country, which clarifies that it was founded on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles and morality. ;]

I noticed you're using my arguments on your website. "You're welcome" for providing you with content. Do I get paid for this, or doesn't "Social Justice" apply to the internet and Conservatives? ;]

 

Actually, I pride myself on getting to the truth and being thorough, so I stand corrected as I was in a hurry when I checked your link and I obviously missed the now very obvious "Act of Congress" and "legislation." But I will throw your generalized "lefties" attack back at you, because I could say the same exact thing in my dealings with those on the Right (via my website and elsewhere). Something those on the Right seem unwilling to do is admit when they are wrong about something, like I just did. Because of course conservatives are never wrong, just like Republicans in the House right now. And yeah, I'm laying the sarcasm on kinda thick. Having said that, I still stand by the fact that "In God We Trust" was added to all coinage and paper money in the 50s for the reason previously stated. The mistake I made is in assuming this was an absolute (as in, the phrase never appeared before that time). But regardless, the overall point I attempted (but failed) to make, which is also still true, is that this phrase on our money does not date back to the founding of the country. People tend to think certain things have always been with us, when in fact they haven't. But it turns out in this case "In God We Trust" has been with us longer than I previously knew.

We are probably splitting hairs to some degree, but the distinction I'm making is important. There are those (like yourself) who will claim the country was founded as a Christian nation because many of the founders were indeed Christians. But those like myself point out the religion of the founders does not mean the country itself is a Christian nation. And Exhibit A is when the founders went out on a limb drafting the framework of government without any explicit endorsement of God or religion. That wasn't exactly the norm of their time.

Again, I'd make the same exact statement about conservatives.

It's very important. People didn't have any other mental framework pre-Darwin. Most certainly there were atheists pre-Darwin, but without evolution, atheists of that time still fell into the construct of religion, using religious terminology, etc. Because people were predisposed to talking and sounding like Christians (even if they weren't) was a product of their time. It's not evidence of America being a Christian nation in it's governing principles. It just so happened it was founded by many Christians. And that's not the same thing. There's no doubt the Christian founders were influenced by their religion, but the form of government they constructed was entirely secular. Saying that does not dismiss that Christianity may have influenced many of the founders.

Well this is obviously where we part ways (oops, I guess that happened long ago) because we do not get our morality from scripture or God, we get it from ourselves. It actually diminishes the whole idea of morality to think it's not purely a product of our own intellect. There's a reason religions keep adapting and modernizing to secular moral and ethical norms. If scripture was where morality comes from, there would be no need to pick and choose passages and there would be no need for religions to adapt to modern ethical and moral norms. If scripture is where morality comes from, it would not change over time. That it changes, shows it's a product of our evolving intellect.

Hey thanks for the material and thanks for visiting! I use any and all publicly available debate material in articles. And sorry, there's no compensation, and this is not an issue of social justice, because you openly volunteered your words to a free public forum. But you were properly attributed.

 

Why hasn't this creepily insane OP been moved to conspiracies - I think I know why I sometimes feel depressed when spending a lot of times on these forums - some of this sh-t is really disturbing even to read

 

None at all.