PDA

View Full Version : Bobby Jindal???


J.B.
02-25-2009, 06:35 AM
I seriously cannot believe that the GOP would possibly think that this guy is going to bring Republicans back to power in 2012. Of course he makes good points...they were spoon-fed by the GOP, but do they seriously think this guy has a chance against the great orator that is OBAMA?

I know 2012 is still far away in political terms, but some of the best moves are made in the pre-season and the GOP just botched it's draft-pick IMO.

Mac
02-25-2009, 06:54 AM
I seriously cannot believe that the GOP would possibly think that this guy is going to bring Republicans back to power in 2012. Of course he makes good points...they were spoon-fed by the GOP, but do they seriously think this guy has a chance against the great orator that is OBAMA?

I know 2012 is still far away in political terms, but some of the best moves are made in the pre-season and the GOP just botched it's draft-pick IMO.



PLEASE tell me they are not wanting this goon for a candidate ? this fella looks as fake as Dolly Partons, uhmmmmmmmmm eyes.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-25-2009, 09:21 AM
I've read good things about Bobby Jindal! Personally I think I would like Palin for Pres and Jindal for VP! As for experience I can't see where Obama's so experienced.

Bonnie
02-25-2009, 05:25 PM
I've read good things about Bobby Jindal! Personally I think I would like Palin for Pres and Jindal for VP! As for experience I can't see where Obama's so experienced.

They were throwing out Bobby Jindal's name during this last election; so it's already started--2012 is gonna be here before you know it!

And, Obama isn't experienced; that's not what got him elected. And I'm not being racist, just stating a fact.

CAVEMAN
02-25-2009, 05:40 PM
I have to be honest, I don't know much about Jindal. I do know the republicans need to get back to their roots and pick a true conservative to lead them......but I'm not very hopeful!

mikthehick
02-25-2009, 07:29 PM
I have to be honest, I don't know much about Jindal. I do know the republicans need to get back to their roots and pick a true conservative to lead them......but I'm not very hopeful!

that's exactly why I now support the Constitution Party

CAVEMAN
02-25-2009, 07:32 PM
that's exactly why I now support the Constitution Party

Me too! I voted for Chuck this last round!

VCURamFan
02-25-2009, 07:39 PM
I'm calling for a Mike Huckabee/Ted Nugent 2012 ticket!!

Crisco
02-25-2009, 07:53 PM
It scares me that anyone thinks Palin would be a good choice to run this country.


Obama will most likely win this up coming election. The democrats are starting to rally from the perceived poor performance by GWB.

I would have loved to have Mccain in office but he will too old. I also wanted Palin no where near the white house.


I would really like an independent moderate to run and actually be able to make a go of it. I'm tired of the the Left and the Right wings kind of digging for a middle wing these days.

rearnakedchoke
02-25-2009, 08:32 PM
Bobby Jindal would be a great president ... but with once you go Barack, you don't go back ...

rearnakedchoke
02-25-2009, 08:38 PM
I have to be honest, I don't know much about Jindal. I do know the republicans need to get back to their roots and pick a true conservative to lead them......but I'm not very hopeful!

what is a true conservative? mccain wasn't a true conservative?

NateR
02-25-2009, 10:12 PM
mccain wasn't a true conservative?

Not even close.

Tyburn
02-25-2009, 10:13 PM
Never heard of him :mellow:

NateR
02-25-2009, 10:19 PM
It scares me that anyone thinks Palin would be a good choice to run this country.


Obama will most likely win this up coming election. The democrats are starting to rally from the perceived poor performance by GWB.

I would have loved to have Mccain in office but he will too old. I also wanted Palin no where near the white house.


I would really like an independent moderate to run and actually be able to make a go of it. I'm tired of the the Left and the Right wings kind of digging for a middle wing these days.

If things don't start turning around by this November, then Obama has no chance at reelection. His approval ratings are already starting to drop and the stock market is showing zero confidence in his Presidency.

I would vote for Palin or Mike Huckabee for sure, but I can't think of anyone else from the Republican party. I don't even know who this Bobby Jindal guy is.

Preach
02-25-2009, 10:27 PM
Mac I soooo thought of Crazy Cooter when I saw this http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/bobby-jindal-shaking-hands.jpg

hizo64
02-25-2009, 10:45 PM
I had never heard of Jindal until I saw him on some talk shows and the guy is very intelligant genuine sounding guy. He grew up super poor and worked his way up, he earned my respect, not to steroetype but I thought he was Democrat. He is far from it!!

CAVEMAN
02-25-2009, 10:48 PM
what is a true conservative? mccain wasn't a true conservative?

:unsure-1: No kidding that's why he did not get my vote! :laugh:

I thought Mccain was a horrible choice and to be honest, that is one of the reasons the republicans lost the election. That and Bush showed in his last 4 years that he was not a conservative either. The republicans lost alot of supporters to 3rd parties because of it. People like me!

NateR
02-25-2009, 11:04 PM
:unsure-1: No kidding that's why he did not get my vote! :laugh:

I thought Mccain was a horrible choice and to be honest, that is one of the reasons the republicans lost the election. That and Bush showed in his last 4 years that he was not a conservative either. The republicans lost alot of supporters to 3rd parties because of it. People like me!

Exactly, McCain would have been my last choice for the Republican nominee. In fact, when I first heard that he was the choice, I thought the Republicans were intentionally trying to throw the election.

Bonnie
02-25-2009, 11:30 PM
I've seen a little of Huckabee on his show and he comes across as very common sensical. I like that!

It would be refreshing to see someone run who actually means what he says and says what he means and proves trueblue after he's elected.

Crisco
02-26-2009, 02:19 PM
Nate just curious

Aside from Palin's religious views matching your own why would you vote for her?

rearnakedchoke
02-26-2009, 02:24 PM
Nate just curious

Aside from Palin's religious views matching your own why would you vote for her?
because she can see russia from her house .. kidding .. i actually think she would make a decent pres, better than hilary .... she was given a real hard time and people targeted her because she was female ... and the media never let up on her at all ...

County Mike
02-26-2009, 02:28 PM
Somebody mention Dolly Parton?

http://www.yourcelebritystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dolly-parton.jpg

Not bad for an older gal.

Llamafighter
02-26-2009, 02:52 PM
Somebody mention Dolly Parton?

http://www.yourcelebritystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/dolly-parton.jpg

Not bad for an older gal.

She's 98% recycleable!

County Mike
02-26-2009, 02:57 PM
She's 98% recycleable!

Good for the environment.

VCURamFan
02-26-2009, 05:56 PM
I've seen a little of Huckabee on his show and he comes across as very common sensical. I like that!

It would be refreshing to see someone run who actually means what he says and says what he means and proves true blue after he's elected.I think that Huckabee may be very cleverly building his popularity in the young voters on purpose right now. He appears on the Colbert Report fairly regularly, he's endorsed by Chuck Norris, he play the guitar regularly: he sounds like the new "hip" choice for 2012 if Obama tanks.

Buzzard
02-26-2009, 10:13 PM
because she can see russia from her house .. kidding .. i actually think she would make a decent pres, better than hilary .... she was given a real hard time and people targeted her because she was female ... and the media never let up on her at all ...

I believe that she was targeted because she was ignorant and showed her true ignorant self when she was interviewed. I could go on but I won't.

Josh
02-26-2009, 10:24 PM
I really don't care for Huckabee. I would love to see someone like Tancredo or Brownback but I know that a true conservative has no chance at this point unless Obama REALLY screws things up.

Crisco
02-26-2009, 10:26 PM
I really don't care for Huckabee. I would love to see someone like Tancredo or Brownback but I know that a true conservative has no chance at this point unless Obama REALLY screws things up.


A true conservative only represents a small portion of the population. Difficult to get someone elected who the vast majority don't really agree with unless they are born with amazing oratory.

Bonnie
02-26-2009, 11:16 PM
A true conservative only represents a small portion of the population. Difficult to get someone elected who the vast majority don't really agree with unless they are born with amazing oratory.

Yeah, I think the way our society is going with "anything goes", unless the candidate is running with a "middle of the road" platform (even if that's not what he/she truly believes) then they're probably not going to get elected. If you're against gay marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, etc... you're probably not going to get elected president.

As far as I can see, it's all about the money...who can raise the most...or...has very rich friends with lots of power and lots and lots of money.

This is the first time in my life that I felt like it really didn't matter if I voted or not. It's not about them winning "our" votes; it's about who has the best handlers who know how to manipulate our political system (as it stands) to win their guy the race.

BTW, yes, I did vote. :wink:

J.B.
02-27-2009, 12:42 AM
I have been so busy the last couple days I have not had time to really check the forum, let alone engage in this discussion until now. I want to touch on a couple points that I have read.

Number one, John McCain is not only a great human being, but a great conservative, and a great AMERICAN. Anybody who thinks McCain is somehow a "bad conservative" when it comes to presidential politics is just inept to how presidential politics actually works. I did NOT vote for Obama, and I don't agree with all of his views, but up to this point (which is only 1 month in) he is governing just how a typical democratic president would govern. He is not only pushing the spending that WE ALL KNEW HE WOULD, but he has already downplayed the outcome of his actions, like any president would. It's something that we need to realize as Americans...campaign promises and presidential realities are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Had John McCain been elected, he would be doing the same thing only with a different view. The conservative base who bashed McCain for not being "conservative enough" were largely ticked off about McCain's stance on immigration. Well, when the American people spoke, McCain reacted and he CHANGED his stance, so as to better represent the views of the American public. However, I will say, to the people who bashed McCain for his stance on the immigration bill that would have given "amnesty" to the 12 million illegal aliens, you really truly don't understand the depth of the issue because what McCain proposed was actually feasible and fair.

I'm sorry, but this idea that it's somehow a bad thing to be "in the middle of the road" on some topics is just ridiculous. In my opinion, if you find yourself agreeing with every single topic on either side of the political spectrum, you are either misguided or just drinking political kool-aid.

Sarah Palin? She would have been a great representative as VICE President. Do I think she has the savvy to actually be president? I'm honestly not sure. She is probably a little too "green" in the realm of politics to actually be taken seriously by the rest of the world. However, I think the bashing of her has been ridiculous and she is a lot better than most of the politicians in this country. People just need to hate so they can follow suit and show love to their side, even if it's not always "fair and balanced". :wink:

Now, I can't say the same about Joe Biden. If fact, I think he may be the biggest douchebag to ever be that close to the presidency, even though I'm sure somebody will have nice response about Dick Cheney...

Oh, and Dolly Parton RULES!!!:cool:

NateR
02-27-2009, 02:36 AM
Nate just curious

Aside from Palin's religious views matching your own why would you vote for her?

Well, yes she is a Christian and I agree with John Jay in that America should only elect Christian leaders. She is also anti-abortion and pro-gun, so those are two more pluses on her side. Finally, she is a very intelligent woman and a very good leader. Plus she still has more experience than Barack Obama.

Her character was essentially assassinated on national TV by the mainstream media. They report lies and rumors as facts in order to destroy her image and credibility and, obviously, a lot of otherwise intelligent people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Buzzard
02-27-2009, 03:33 AM
Well, yes she is a Christian and I agree with John Jay in that America should only elect Christian leaders. She is also anti-abortion and pro-gun, so those are two more pluses on her side. Finally, she is a very intelligent woman and a very good leader. Plus she still has more experience than Barack Obama.

Her character was essentially assassinated on national TV by the mainstream media. They report lies and rumors as facts in order to destroy her image and credibility and, obviously, a lot of otherwise intelligent people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

I don't mind what religion the president is, as long as they don't force it down my throat.

What do you use to gauge her intelligence? What basis do you use to determine that she is a good leader?

What lies and rumors did the media portray as fact about her to destroy her image?

Oh, thanks for the welcome.

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 03:57 AM
I have been so busy the last couple days I have not had time to really check the forum, let alone engage in this discussion until now. I want to touch on a couple points that I have read.

I'm sorry, but this idea that it's somehow a bad thing to be "in the middle of the road" on some topics is just ridiculous. In my opinion, if you find yourself agreeing with every single topic on either side of the political spectrum, you are either misguided or just drinking political kool-aid.

Sarah Palin? She would have been a great representative as VICE President. Do I think she has the savvy to actually be president? I'm honestly not sure. She is probably a little too "green" in the realm of politics to actually be taken seriously by the rest of the world. However, I think the bashing of her has been ridiculous and she is a lot better than most of the politicians in this country. People just need to hate so they can follow suit and show love to their side, even if it's not always "fair and balanced". :wink:



Hey, I'm not knocking being "middle-of-the-road" in regard to some issues especially if it actually gets something worthwhile or good done for our country and us. I was commenting on someone else's post about "true conservative". I don't think in today's society where apparently everyone is supposed to agree with being gay and gay marriage and letting people who broke the law by coming into this country illegally stay here because they've been here and had children here, etc... or else you're a "terrible" person--in this atmosphere, I don't believe you're going to survive in politics, especially running for "president" if you DON'T run a "middle-of-the-road" platform. How many times have you seen politicians on both sides (conservative and liberal) swing to the middle because they were seen as being too radical left or right just so they can get the vote.

Answer me two things (anyone): 1) why is "amnesty" okay for illegal immigrants and not for say, that woman who was accused of that bombing (not sure if she killed anyone) during the sixties? For 20+ years after that bombing she lived an exemplary life, raised a family and apparently did good works. But, they found her in the 90's and she went to prison (and as far as I know is still there). Why not amnesty for her, a citizen?

and 2) why is it Sarah Palin is too "green" for politics to be elected but Obama was not. She had way more experince than him. He wasn't elected for his experience! Puhleeze!:rolleyes:

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 04:00 AM
Well, yes she is a Christian and I agree with John Jay in that America should only elect Christian leaders. She is also anti-abortion and pro-gun, so those are two more pluses on her side. Finally, she is a very intelligent woman and a very good leader. Plus she still has more experience than Barack Obama.

Her character was essentially assassinated on national TV by the mainstream media. They report lies and rumors as facts in order to destroy her image and credibility and, obviously, a lot of otherwise intelligent people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Nathan, you're being too kind! :laugh:

J.B.
02-27-2009, 05:32 AM
Hey, I'm not knocking being "middle-of-the-road" in regard to some issues especially if it actually gets something worthwhile or good done for our country and us. I was commenting on someone else's post about "true conservative". I don't think in today's society where apparently everyone is supposed to agree with being gay and gay marriage and letting people who broke the law by coming into this country illegally stay here because they've been here and had children here, etc... or else you're a "terrible" person--in this atmosphere, I don't believe you're going to survive in politics, especially running for "president" if you DON'T run a "middle-of-the-road" platform. How many times have you seen politicians on both sides (conservative and liberal) swing to the middle because they were seen as being too radical left or right just so they can get the vote.

Answer me two things (anyone): 1) why is "amnesty" okay for illegal immigrants and not for say, that woman who was accused of that bombing (not sure if she killed anyone) during the sixties? For 20+ years after that bombing she lived an exemplary life, raised a family and apparently did good works. But, they found her in the 90's and she went to prison (and as far as I know is still there). Why not amnesty for her, a citizen?

and 2) why is it Sarah Palin is too "green" for politics to be elected but Obama was not. She had way more experince than him. He wasn't elected for his experience! Puhleeze!:rolleyes:


I was not comparing Obama to Palin. I never said Obama was not "green" when it comes to politics, but in all honesty, Obama is going to be taken a LOT more seriously amongst world leaders than Sarah Palin, and NO she did not have more experience than Obama. That is an unfortunate fact.

As for why should an "illegal alien" be given "amnesty" compared to some person who bombed something? Umm... I think that goes without saying. Being a illegal alien does not make you a murderer, or an an attempted murderer. It simply makes you guilty of a form of trespassing.

You mention "amnesty" after what I said about the bill that John McCain sponsored. The thing is, you deleted the entire comment I made about it in your quote. The whole reason the word "amnesty" was put in quotations was because what the bill offered was not amnesty at all. As I said before, what McCain offered was a fair and feasible response to the situation. However it got blocked the Congress and distorted by the media. McCain was made to look weak, when actually he was offering a part of the solution to this problem. Needless to say, nothing has been accomplished with this situation before or since this has proposed by Sen. McCain.

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 06:46 AM
I was not comparing Obama to Palin. I never said Obama was not "green" when it comes to politics, but in all honesty, Obama is going to be taken a LOT more seriously amongst world leaders than Sarah Palin, and NO she did not have more experience than Obama. That is an unfortunate fact.

As for why should an "illegal alien" be given "amnesty" compared to some person who bombed something? Umm... I think that goes without saying. Being a illegal alien does not make you a murderer, or an an attempted murderer. It simply makes you guilty of a form of trespassing.

You mention "amnesty" after what I said about the bill that John McCain sponsored. The thing is, you deleted the entire comment I made about it in your quote. The whole reason the word "amnesty" was put in quotations was because what the bill offered was not amnesty at all. As I said before, what McCain offered was a fair and feasible response to the situation. However it got blocked the Congress and distorted by the media. McCain was made to look weak, when actually he was offering a part of the solution to this problem. Needless to say, nothing has been accomplished with this situation before or since this has proposed by Sen. McCain.

You don't know how much, as a woman, that ticks me off, "in all honesty Obama is going be taken a LOT more seriously..." I'm not ticked at you, JB, just at the fact "America" is supposed to be a leader in the free world and yet we can't vote a woman into the top office. Well, in that respect we are lagging well behind the rest of the world! I do not agree with you that Obama has/had more experience than Palin, sorry (NOT!). She is a governor of a state, JB, with all the powers/responsibilities that that position entails.

As for the illegal immigration situation: my point is both broke the law (and I never said the lady murdered anybody), but one group is being given a free pass, I believe, for political reasons. Neither should be rewarded for breaking the law.

I really wasn't "commenting" on the amnesty issue in regard to Mccain and his solution. I brought it up in regard to how our politicians have used and are going to use it to win votes. They don't want to alienate what is fast becoming a "majority" block of potential voters.

Peace! :)

County Mike
02-27-2009, 01:40 PM
How could a woman make a good president? She has FAR TOO MANY chores to do in the kitchen.

Crisco
02-27-2009, 02:10 PM
You don't know how much, as a woman, that ticks me off, "in all honesty Obama is going be taken a LOT more seriously..." I'm not ticked at you, JB, just at the fact "America" is supposed to be a leader in the free world and yet we can't vote a woman into the top office. Well, in that respect we are lagging well behind the rest of the world! I do not agree with you that Obama has/had more experience than Palin, sorry (NOT!). She is a governor of a state, JB, with all the powers/responsibilities that that position entails.

As for the illegal immigration situation: my point is both broke the law (and I never said the lady murdered anybody), but one group is being given a free pass, I believe, for political reasons. Neither should be rewarded for breaking the law.

I really wasn't "commenting" on the amnesty issue in regard to Mccain and his solution. I brought it up in regard to how our politicians have used and are going to use it to win votes. They don't want to alienate what is fast becoming a "majority" block of potential voters.

Peace! :)

It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Palin is a nice woman a good VP but wouldn't make a good president because she has no commanding presence. She doesn't inspire any sort of feeling with her demeanor. she's a nice country girl dontcha know but that isn't the demeanor that gets respect on the world stage it may be refreshing here but not when it comes to other world leaders.

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 04:42 PM
Crisco, of course, her being "a woman" was a "big" factor. Didn't you hear them talking about, "yeah, but what if something happened to the President...". In other words, they couldn't chance her being VP just in case...

Even my husband said if Hillary got the Dem nomination she wouldn't get the presidency because men wouldn't vote for her. He said because they're not going to vote for a woman.

So I guess I expect it from you guys, but you know what is so disheartening, the women. The way Palin was treated by Katie Couric and portrayed by Tina Fey (and what she did went way beyond trying to be funny) was disgusting.

I have nothing against Obama personally. It's actually the way the people acted in regards to him that just BLOWS my mind. I'm kind of feeling really cynical right now about our whole political system and all politicians.

Please forgive me if some of that leaks through in my posts. :ashamed:

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 04:53 PM
How could a woman make a good president? She has FAR TOO MANY chores to do in the kitchen.

:fryingpan:

Go to your room...and while you're in there clean the toilet! :tongue0011:

Crisco
02-27-2009, 05:16 PM
Crisco, of course, her being "a woman" was a "big" factor. Didn't you hear them talking about, "yeah, but what if something happened to the President...". In other words, they couldn't chance her being VP just in case...

Even my husband said if Hillary got the Dem nomination she wouldn't get the presidency because men wouldn't vote for her. He said because they're not going to vote for a woman.

So I guess I expect it from you guys, but you know what is so disheartening, the women. The way Palin was treated by Katie Couric and portrayed by Tina Fey (and what she did went way beyond trying to be funny) was disgusting.

I have nothing against Obama personally. It's actually the way the people acted in regards to him that just BLOWS my mind. I'm kind of feeling really cynical right now about our whole political system and all politicians.

Please forgive me if some of that leaks through in my posts. :ashamed:

Not a single person I know cared that she was a woman the issue with her was some of her policies her stance on sexual education and her in ability to command respect.

Her demeanor played the largest role in me not being a fan of her. I don't like the hole Dontcha know thing a president if it was a man I would have felt the same way. Hillary would have won the Dem nomination if Obama was not in the picture.

J.B.
02-27-2009, 06:05 PM
Bonnie, I was not saying she would be taken less seriously because she is a woman. She would be taken less seriously because Obama is just a better speaker, plain and simple. Oh, and as for experience, I am not taking anything away from Palin's political experience as a governor, but let's be realistic, on the scale of political experience her and Obama are just about the same. I would certainly not say she is "more" experienced that Obama. For the record, I voted for McCain and Palin.

Back to "amnesty". You had raised the question of why should the bomber lady not be given amnesty if we are going to give it to illegal aliens? The answer is we are NOT giving amnesty to the illegal aliens, we have not done ANYTHING. I think trying to make a comparison of being in this country illegally and setting off bombs is a BAD comparison. Just because something is illegal, does not make it just as wrong as something else that is also illegal. Of course we should not "reward" people who break the law, but nobody is getting any reward in this case. The term "amnesty" is simply being thrown around way too much by people in Washington and in the media.

The bigger point in this issue is quite simple, America is NOT going round up 12 million people and deport them. They are here, and for the most part, they are not going anywhere. We need to first secure our borders, then turn the task to identifying all the ones who are already here. Having over 12 million undocumented people in this country is not a good thing. I also think anybody who is here illegally should have to pay a fine, and possibly owe back payment on income taxes. They should have to learn the English language, and also face deportation should they commit a crime.

In my opinion, that is a pretty good start to getting this problem under control, and that is pretty much what McCain had offered, and he got flamed by his cronies on the right. I agree with you, there is too many political chess moves when it comes to issues in Washington, and especially on immigration. However, McCain did not sponsor that bill because it was the most popular choice, he sponsored it because he truly believed it was the right approach at the time. As I have said previously, we have since accomplished ZERO on this issue. Had what McCain proposed been the most popular choice, it most likely would have passed.

Crisco
02-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Bonnie, I was not saying she would be taken less seriously because she is a woman. She would be taken less seriously because Obama is just a better speaker, plain and simple. Oh, and as for experience, I am not taking anything away from Palin's political experience as a governor, but let's be realistic, on the scale of political experience her and Obama are just about the same. I would certainly not say she is "more" experienced that Obama. For the record, I voted for McCain and Palin.

Back to "amnesty". You had raised the question of why should the bomber lady not be given amnesty if we are going to give it to illegal aliens? The answer is we are NOT giving amnesty to the illegal aliens, we have not done ANYTHING. I think trying to make a comparison of being in this country illegally and setting off bombs is a BAD comparison. Just because something is illegal, does not make it just as wrong as something else that is also illegal. Of course we should not "reward" people who break the law, but nobody is getting any reward in this case. The term "amnesty" is simply being thrown around way too much by people in Washington and in the media.

The bigger point in this issue is quite simple, America is NOT going round up 12 million people and deport them. They are here, and for the most part, they are not going anywhere. We need to first secure our borders, then turn the task to identifying all the ones who are already here. Having over 12 million undocumented people in this country is not a good thing. I also think anybody who is here illegally should have to pay a fine, and possibly owe back payment on income taxes. They should have to learn the English language, and also face deportation should they commit a crime.

In my opinion, that is a pretty good start to getting this problem under control, and that is pretty much what McCain had offered, and he got flamed by his cronies on the right. I agree with you, there is too many political chess moves when it comes to issues in Washington, and especially on immigration. However, McCain did not sponsor that bill because it was the most popular choice, he sponsored it because he truly believed it was the right approach at the time. As I have said previously, we have since accomplished ZERO on this issue. Had what McCain proposed been the most popular choice, it most likely would have passed.

I wish Mccain had won...

Just no Palin. Sorry just can't get behind her dontcha know.

Bonnie
02-27-2009, 06:26 PM
Bonnie, I was not saying she would be taken less seriously because she is a woman. She would be taken less seriously because Obama is just a better speaker, plain and simple. Oh, and as for experience, I am not taking anything away from Palin's political experience as a governor, but let's be realistic, on the scale of political experience her and Obama are just about the same. I would certainly not say she is "more" experienced that Obama. For the record, I voted for McCain and Palin.

Back to "amnesty". You had raised the question of why should the bomber lady not be given amnesty if we are going to give it to illegal aliens? The answer is we are NOT giving amnesty to the illegal aliens, we have not done ANYTHING. I think trying to make a comparison of being in this country illegally and setting off bombs is a BAD comparison. Just because something is illegal, does not make it just as wrong as something else that is also illegal. Of course we should not "reward" people who break the law, but nobody is getting any reward in this case. The term "amnesty" is simply being thrown around way too much by people in Washington and in the media.

The bigger point in this issue is quite simple, America is NOT going round up 12 million people and deport them. They are here, and for the most part, they are not going anywhere. We need to first secure our borders, then turn the task to identifying all the ones who are already here. Having over 12 million undocumented people in this country is not a good thing. I also think anybody who is here illegally should have to pay a fine, and possibly owe back payment on income taxes. They should have to learn the English language, and also face deportation should they commit a crime.

In my opinion, that is a pretty good start to getting this problem under control, and that is pretty much what McCain had offered, and he got flamed by his cronies on the right. I agree with you, there is too many political chess moves when it comes to issues in Washington, and especially on immigration. However, McCain did not sponsor that bill because it was the most popular choice, he sponsored it because he truly believed it was the right approach at the time. As I have said previously, we have since accomplished ZERO on this issue. Had what McCain proposed been the most popular choice, it most likely would have passed.

Me too. :)

rearnakedchoke
02-27-2009, 06:52 PM
Well, yes she is a Christian and I agree with John Jay in that America should only elect Christian leaders. She is also anti-abortion and pro-gun, so those are two more pluses on her side. Finally, she is a very intelligent woman and a very good leader. Plus she still has more experience than Barack Obama.

Her character was essentially assassinated on national TV by the mainstream media. They report lies and rumors as facts in order to destroy her image and credibility and, obviously, a lot of otherwise intelligent people fell for it hook, line and sinker.
It doesn't really matter what the person's religion is and eventually non-christian leaders will be leading the US ... nothing wrong with that ...

i have no problem with palin and she would make a good running mate for Jindal ...

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 07:04 PM
eventually non-christian leaders will be leading the US ... nothing wrong with that ...
...
I dont think so. The United States isnt like England or Canada. They still hold dear what is Sacred, and Belief in the Christian GOD is written into their consitution...half the people who call themselves Americans, probably arent by Constitutional Standards

People make three wrong assumptions. First they think because the United States has a Dis-established Church, that means noone in Government needs to be Religious. Well, the Government wouldnt need to have an established Church, when the founders set it up, they wanted to keep the spirituality IN, but minimize the power of the Instituional Church because their backgrounds was persecution by Churches as an established Institution

The Second Assumption is that the Founders were Deists. This is based on the fact that they were freemason, and that freemasonry now is considered more a cultic religion at worst, and a silly mens club at best. But Freemasonary Now is NOT how it was viewed at the Revolutionry period. Actually the most charasmatic Christians were Masons, because they were considered full Christians, but not really outspoken members of any one denomination. EXACTLY as planned.

Thirdly, people forget what paradigmn "Freedom" is to be viewed under. People say that America should allow anything and all things because it promoted Freedom. But America never intended to promote Anarchy. It was Freedom UNDER GOD.

Half the Americans these days believe their Nation gives them the right to believe and express what they want, when they want. Actually thats reading the constitution under the present Zeitgeist, with the ommission of GOD. The authors intention includes GOD and was penned under a different Zeitgeist.

You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian. They should only be pulling from that pool for their Leaders. Whilst their is "nothing wrong with that" when applied to Canada and England...it would fundementally go against the TRUE understanding of the Consitution of the United States...thus Ammending something that doesnt need changing. That would change what America really is. So many Americans, let alone others from different countries dont realize this about the United States.

rearnakedchoke
02-27-2009, 07:15 PM
I dont think so. The United States isnt like England or Canada. They still hold dear what is Sacred, and Belief in the Christian GOD is written into their consitution...half the people who call themselves Americans, probably arent by Constitutional Standards

People make three wrong assumptions. First they think because the United States has a Dis-established Church, that means noone in Government needs to be Religious. Well, the Government wouldnt need to have an established Church, when the founders set it up, they wanted to keep the spirituality IN, but minimize the power of the Instituional Church because their backgrounds was persecution by Churches as an established Institution

The Second Assumption is that the Founders were Deists. This is based on the fact that they were freemason, and that freemasonry now is considered more a cultic religion at worst, and a silly mens club at best. But Freemasonary Now is NOT how it was viewed at the Revolutionry period. Actually the most charasmatic Christians were Masons, because they were considered full Christians, but not really outspoken members of any one denomination. EXACTLY as planned.

Thirdly, people forget what paradigmn "Freedom" is to be viewed under. People say that America should allow anything and all things because it promoted Freedom. But America never intended to promote Anarchy. It was Freedom UNDER GOD.

Half the Americans these days believe their Nation gives them the right to believe and express what they want, when they want. Actually thats reading the constitution under the present Zeitgeist, with the ommission of GOD. The authors intention includes GOD and was penned under a different Zeitgeist.

You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian. They should only be pulling from that pool for their Leaders. Whilst their is "nothing wrong with that" when applied to Canada and England...it would fundementally go against the TRUE understanding of the Consitution of the United States...thus Ammending something that doesnt need changing. That would change what America really is. So many Americans, let alone others from different countries dont realize this about the United States.
that is fine .. so when they are swearing people in as Americans, they should also have it as a requirement to become a Christian .. if not, you don't get your citizenship ... since they haven't they cannot say, you cannot lead our country ... they should also have all Synogogues, Temples, and Mosques burned as they are non-American .. I know what you are saying, but you can't say, American's can only be Christian's and then not really enforce it...

Buzzard
02-27-2009, 07:23 PM
They still hold dear what is Sacred, and Belief in the Christian GOD is written into their consitution (sic)
You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian. Could you please copy/paste the part/s of the constitution that you are referencing?


EDIT: Zeitgeist

Speaking of Zeitgeist the movie, the first part is quite interesting showing how Christianity took much from the pagan beliefs and Egyptian beliefs and rolled them up to make their own.

Since this isn't the Christianity section, I felt it was ok to post about it since it was brought up by someone other than myseflf.

Crisco
02-27-2009, 07:55 PM
This whole forum is a Christian forum. Don't expect a warm welcome with a statement like that.

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 08:08 PM
that is fine .. so when they are swearing people in as Americans, they should also have it as a requirement to become a Christian .. if not, you don't get your citizenship ... since they haven't they cannot say, you cannot lead our country ... they should also have all Synogogues, Temples, and Mosques burned as they are non-American .. I know what you are saying, but you can't say, American's can only be Christian's and then not really enforce it...
Yes they can. Because its free will. They say what the values of America are, but you cant force people to become Christian...you cant fake it, because GOD knows the truth.

They wouldnt need to burn anything because they believe in free will. But when it comes down to the President, he must be Christian...You dont seem to realize that certain obvious things shouldnt need to be said. IF the President makes an oath to serve America, he will already understand what America is....thus its the pledge is synomous with a creed, it comes as a fully comprehensive package. :laugh:

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 08:16 PM
1)Could you please copy/paste the part/s of the constitution that you are referencing?

2)
EDIT: Zeitgeist

Speaking of Zeitgeist the movie, the first part is quite interesting showing how Christianity took much from the pagan beliefs and Egyptian beliefs and rolled them up to make their own.

3) Since this isn't the Christianity section, I felt it was ok to post about it since it was brought up by someone other than myseflf.

1) No, look it up yourself. Consider it a challenge, it will be good for you
2) When I mention the German word Zeitgeist, I mean "Spirit of the time" its kinda like the predominant Paradigmn. A paradigmn is a viewpoint on the world, a particular way of viewing the word from a particular angle, with particular things in mind.

What the early Roman Catholics would do upon conquring a nation would be an attempt to convert the country. Often this meant adapting Christian Festivals to coincide with the pagen callendar, so that conversion was more easy, they could still celebrate something at the same time in the year like they were used to. The Roman Catholics would also take symbols from these other faiths and pervert them, by endowing them with evil values to put people off from the old faiths....why do you think the Devil is constantly depicted with Horns?? Thats not Biblical! When the Romans got to England they found a lot of pagens worshiping a "Horned Goddess" who looked over aspects of love and fertility. They took the symbology and turned it Luciferian. Suddenly, the same symbols and portraits were representing something else. This is fine, because symbols in themselves have no meaning except for what we put into them. Symbols point like Ikons to something greater then their physicality. All Symbols...not just religious ones.

3) Christianity effects everything a Christian Does, its not just for sundays, nor should it just be confined to one section of the forum.

rearnakedchoke
02-27-2009, 08:20 PM
1) No, look it up yourself. Consider it a challenge, it will be good for you
2) When I mention the German word Zeitgeist, I mean "Spirit of the time" its kinda like the predominant Paradigmn. A paradigmn is a viewpoint on the world, a particular way of viewing the word from a particular angle, with particular things in mind.

What the early Roman Catholics would do upon conquring a nation would be an attempt to convert the country. Often this meant adapting Christian Festivals to coincide with the pagen callendar, so that conversion was more easy, they could still celebrate something at the same time in the year like they were used to. The Roman Catholics would also take symbols from these other faiths and pervert them, by endowing them with evil values to put people off from the old faiths....why do you think the Devil is constantly depicted with Horns?? Thats not Biblical! When the Romans got to England they found a lot of pagens worshiping a "Horned Goddess" who looked over aspects of love and fertility. They took the symbology and turned it Luciferian. Suddenly, the same symbols and portraits were representing something else. This is fine, because symbols in themselves have no meaning except for what we put into them. Symbols point like Ikons to something greater then their physicality. All Symbols...not just religious ones.

3) Christianity effects everything a Christian Does, its not just for sundays, nor should it just be confined to one section of the forum.

Is it the RC church who also depicted Jesus as white?

Crisco
02-27-2009, 08:21 PM
Is it the RC church who also depicted Jesus as white?

That is an artists rendition Malcolm X relax. Any smart Christian knows he had to have been some sort of dark complected.

rearnakedchoke
02-27-2009, 08:26 PM
That is an artists rendition Malcolm X relax. Any smart Christian knows he had to have been some sort of dark complected.

who is Malcolm X? I really don't care what colour Jesus was, if he was white as rice or black as tar, it is irrelevent .. i was just asking if the RC church was the first to paint Jesus as white, as Dave seems very knowledgeable on this subject ... so you relax son

J.B.
02-27-2009, 08:31 PM
I wish Mccain had won...

Just no Palin. Sorry just can't get behind her dontcha know.

:rolleyes:

Crisco
02-27-2009, 08:32 PM
who is Malcolm X? I really don't care what colour Jesus was, if he was white as rice or black as tar, it is irrelevent .. i was just asking if the RC church was the first to paint Jesus as white, as Dave seems very knowledgeable on this subject ... so you relax son

i'll stop there

Crisco
02-27-2009, 08:33 PM
:rolleyes:

Lol had a dirty joke from that one I'll bite the tongue there too

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 08:49 PM
Is it the RC church who also depicted Jesus as white?
The Roman Church invented a scheme to help illiterate people. Remember, the nations they converted were very poor, and didnt speak latin, so they needed easy ways of remembring things

Part of a MASSIVE symbological intervention, the Roman Catholics formed a Liturgical Cycle. In England the Cycle actually takes three years to cover absolutely everything. They split the year into Seasons, so that all the important things of Christianity could be compartmentalized for teaching. As they wouldnt teach the language, they used pictures. Pictures appeared in stained glass, on fabrics, all around the church building. NOTHING in a church is accidental...its just now that we are literate, we have forgotten how to read the symbols.

Colours was one way of signifying the status, or character of a person. White/Silver/Gold/Yellow are all used in various forms to show someone Holy, or a Holy Season. White is often used if the emphasis is on purity. Like Christ being the perfectly pure Sacrifice (he's sometimes depicted as a lamb) Or perhaps Holy as in powerful, thus he might be depicted as a Lion, with a golden maine. Gold, Also a Holy colour.

This is the absolute tip of the iceberg in symbology it ranges from changing the Altar Frontals to depict the colour of the seasons, to The Building of the Giant Courtyard infront of Saint Peter Basillica. You'll notice that in the centre is an obelisk, and that the courtyard is circular. To celebrate GOD in creation, they tried to bring his power to the people with demonstrations of astronomy in architexture. The shape of all major churches for example will be a big Cross, all Churches lie on an east/west faceing, the Altars will always be at the East...Saint Peters Basillica Courtyard tells the season, by acting as a gigantic sundial. Also if You looked at it from above but East to west rather then west to east, and included the courtyard to the steps, does it not look like a gigantic Lock? like the type a large KEY might go into? Saint Peter is represented often by Two crossed Keys because of a passage where Jesus gives him the keys to the Kingdom...its no accident this is built into the monument...no accident at all!

Its about alchemy and mysticism...two denominations of Catholicism that died out with the contemplatives and the Monastic Era during the reformation....So sad :sad:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3014/pietro.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

rearnakedchoke
02-27-2009, 08:52 PM
The Roman Church invented a scheme to help illiterate people. Remember, the nations they converted were very poor, and didnt speak latin, so they needed easy ways of remembring things

Part of a MASSIVE symbological intervention, the Roman Catholics formed a Liturgical Cycle. In England the Cycle actually takes three years to cover absolutely everything. They split the year into Seasons, so that all the important things of Christianity could be compartmentalized for teaching. As they wouldnt teach the language, they used pictures. Pictures appeared in stained glass, on fabrics, all around the church building. NOTHING in a church is accidental...its just now that we are literate, we have forgotten how to read the symbols.

Colours was one way of signifying the status, or character of a person. White/Silver/Gold/Yellow are all used in various forms to show someone Holy, or a Holy Season. White is often used if the emphasis is on purity. Like Christ being the perfectly pure Sacrifice (he's sometimes depicted as a lamb) Or perhaps Holy as in powerful, thus he might be depicted as a Lion, with a golden maine. Gold, Also a Holy colour.

This is the absolute tip of the iceberg in symbology it ranges from changing the Altar Frontals to depict the colour of the seasons, to The Building of the Giant Courtyard infront of Saint Peter Basillica. You'll notice that in the centre is an obelisk, and that the courtyard is circular. To celebrate GOD in creation, they tried to bring his power to the people with demonstrations of astronomy in architexture. The shape of all major churches for example will be a big Cross, all Churches lie on an east/west faceing, the Altars will always be at the East...Saint Peters Basillica Courtyard tells the season, by acting as a gigantic sundial. Its about alchemy and mysticism...two denominations of Catholicism that died out with the contemplatives and the Monastic Era during the reformation....So sad :sad:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3014/pietro.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Thank you!

Buzzard
02-27-2009, 08:59 PM
1) No, look it up yourself. Consider it a challenge, it will be good for you
2) When I mention the German word Zeitgeist, I mean "Spirit of the time" its kinda like the predominant Paradigmn. A paradigmn is a viewpoint on the world, a particular way of viewing the word from a particular angle, with particular things in mind.

What the early Roman Catholics would do upon conquring a nation would be an attempt to convert the country. Often this meant adapting Christian Festivals to coincide with the pagen callendar, so that conversion was more easy, they could still celebrate something at the same time in the year like they were used to. The Roman Catholics would also take symbols from these other faiths and pervert them, by endowing them with evil values to put people off from the old faiths....why do you think the Devil is constantly depicted with Horns?? Thats not Biblical! When the Romans got to England they found a lot of pagens worshiping a "Horned Goddess" who looked over aspects of love and fertility. They took the symbology and turned it Luciferian. Suddenly, the same symbols and portraits were representing something else. This is fine, because symbols in themselves have no meaning except for what we put into them. Symbols point like Ikons to something greater then their physicality. All Symbols...not just religious ones.

3) Christianity effects everything a Christian Does, its not just for sundays, nor should it just be confined to one section of the forum.


I figured since you made the claim, you would provide the evidence. That is usually the way it works. I don't need you telling me what is good for me. I'll just take it that you can't prove your position.

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 08:59 PM
Thank you!
:blink: we might have our wires crossed...

I thought you meant why is Christ often shown to be wearing/dressed in White (He's also depicted in Red and Purple..Christ can be almost anything but Green and Blue hahahaha)...Not what Colour Skin has Christ got...LOL...Christ would have looked like a normal Israelite Jew.

I think that Christ has always been personalized by the culutre that adopts him...:unsure-1:

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 09:04 PM
I figured since you made the claim, you would provide the evidence. That is usually the way it works. I don't need you telling me what is good for me. I'll just take it that you can't prove your position.
You wanna dispute my claim, your welcome to proove me wrong. or you could be quiet and read. You might learn more the latter way. But heaven forbid I suggest what might be good for you :rolleyes:

Buzzard
02-27-2009, 09:18 PM
You wanna dispute my claim, your welcome to proove me wrong. or you could be quiet and read. You might learn more the latter way. But heaven forbid I suggest what might be good for you :rolleyes:

Again, you made the claim. If you can't back it up I understand.

J.B.
02-27-2009, 09:36 PM
Again, you made the claim. If you can't back it up I understand.

He doesn't need to back it up, it's common knowledge.

Our founding fathers were most certainly Christians and their beliefs in God were most certainly reflected in our constitution. You are trying to pigeon hole Dave into posting a specific quote so you can spin it and continue arguing, but it is not ONE specific quote that proves his point.

Tyburn
02-27-2009, 11:38 PM
Again, you made the claim. If you can't back it up I understand.
Again, you made the Complaint, YOU back it up.

I dont need to justify myself to you, if you can read, and have a copy of the Constitution I have told you how to read it. The document IS the proof.

Besides...do I even look or sound American to you :mellow:

Now I do however own a Verrrrra nice American Standard, even if I've stuck so many things over/onto it, that you can hardly see oat but the stars :unsure-1: I bought it in Wal-Mart in 2007, when I visited Nathan Rosario :w00t:

Buzzard
02-28-2009, 12:49 AM
He doesn't need to back it up, it's common knowledge.

Our founding fathers were most certainly Christians and their beliefs in God were most certainly reflected in our constitution. You are trying to pigeon hole Dave into posting a specific quote so you can spin it and continue arguing, but it is not ONE specific quote that proves his point.

I guess you can't show me where in the constitution it states that "You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian" either. If I made a claim, I sure as hell would back it up with the facts. Otherwise, failing to back up the statement with proof is akin to acknowledging that the stated claim is false and was pulled from an orifice. Humor me and show me where it states that so I can learn from it.

Tyburn
02-28-2009, 12:23 PM
I guess you can't show me where in the constitution it states that "You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian" either. If I made a claim, I sure as hell would back it up with the facts. Otherwise, failing to back up the statement with proof is akin to acknowledging that the stated claim is false and was pulled from an orifice. Humor me and show me where it states that so I can learn from it.
You dont want to learn. You just want to argue. If I thought you were serious, I would show you evidence, but since you are not, I wont be bothered to humour you. I have better things to do with my time. :) and so does JB :laugh:

Tyburn
02-28-2009, 01:01 PM
But I WILL let you listen to the sort of Hymns and Folk songs of America that stem from its foundation...pay special attention to the words...and tell me they are not CHRISTIAN Hymns???

Your Countries Battle Hymn for heavens sake (pardon the pun) is more about GOD then it is about American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mmFPyDK_8

Let me guess...your from the South :huh: :laugh: alright, well then how about some Hymns that apply to the Whole of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LSarhZpnMs (its an invokation that has again more to do with GOD then America)

Finally...you can find all the truth you need by looking on your one dollar bill "In GOD we Trust" Really? If you arent Christian you arent trusting in GOD are you?? what about One Nation under GOD?? Its not under GOD if those in it are not Christian is it???

Its Even mentioned in your National Anthem. :rolleyes: please forgive the English origins...we were once like you :unsure-1: :sad: :cry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYPN-1Yjt0

(An American Lecturered on American National Identity by a European...may GOD forgive me :frantics: :laugh: )

I assume you are American? as in...born or live there :huh:


All these things are part and parcell of American National Identity :w00t:

Buzzard
02-28-2009, 05:26 PM
But I WILL let you listen to the sort of Hymns and Folk songs of America that stem from its foundation...pay special attention to the words...and tell me they are not CHRISTIAN Hymns???

Your Countries Battle Hymn for heavens sake (pardon the pun) is more about GOD then it is about American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mmFPyDK_8

Let me guess...your from the South :huh: :laugh: alright, well then how about some Hymns that apply to the Whole of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LSarhZpnMs (its an invokation that has again more to do with GOD then America)

Finally...you can find all the truth you need by looking on your one dollar bill "In GOD we Trust" Really? If you arent Christian you arent trusting in GOD are you?? what about One Nation under GOD?? Its not under GOD if those in it are not Christian is it???

Its Even mentioned in your National Anthem. :rolleyes: please forgive the English origins...we were once like you :unsure-1: :sad: :cry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYPN-1Yjt0

(An American Lecturered on American National Identity by a European...may GOD forgive me :frantics: :laugh: )

I assume you are American? as in...born or live there :huh:


All these things are part and parcell of American National Identity :w00t:

Again, you can't back up your claim. You can't prove squat. I understand how it is hard to admit that you aren't able to back your claim up trying instead to deflect the issue now to songs. What a cop out.

The "under god" part wasn't always in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe it was added in the 1950's. That is just a red herring that you are throwing in to again deflect from the issue of you proving your statement about the Constitution.

J.B.
02-28-2009, 06:56 PM
I guess you can't show me where in the constitution it states that "You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian" either. If I made a claim, I sure as hell would back it up with the facts. Otherwise, failing to back up the statement with proof is akin to acknowledging that the stated claim is false and was pulled from an orifice. Humor me and show me where it states that so I can learn from it.


I guess you have trouble with reading comprehension since I clearly stated that it is not one single quote that sums up the point Dave made about the constitution. You don't need to be a Christian to be an American, but you should acknowledge the impact that Christianity has had on shaping our nation, and our constitution. If you unable to do that without somebody on a message forum posting a myriad of links and references then you are simply inept.

The amount of evidence to support that our founding fathers built this nation on a solid foundation of Christian values is staggering. There are plenty of books and articles out there on the subject if you truly care about enlightening yourself. The best part about it is, all the people who have done the research, and written the books, and the articles, all have ONE source in common; The United States Constitution. :wink:

Tyburn
03-01-2009, 12:18 AM
Again, you can't back up your claim. You can't prove squat. I understand how it is hard to admit that you aren't able to back your claim up trying instead to deflect the issue now to songs. What a cop out.

The "under god" part wasn't always in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe it was added in the 1950's. That is just a red herring that you are throwing in to again deflect from the issue of you proving your statement about the Constitution.
and the rest of it? your National Anthem? is THAT a red herring? and your Union Battle Hymn...is THAT a red herring...those things are enough to show you the true definition of GOD considered by your forefathers, you must re-read your constitution in light of THAT wisdom, and you will see that the entireity ASSUMES that one is OBVIOUSLY Christian

Anywhooo...you dont need to thank me for bringing you the music or anything :mellow: but when you have words like that second verse in the National Anthem, then is bloody OBVIOUS what your supposed to believe if you are American...if you dont believe it...on what basis do you believe that you actually are American...at least in the way your forefathers believed...and if you think you are an ammendment on that...then you have no right to claim other parts of their creation as your own...this isnt a pick and choose identity...you cant sware alligence to HALF the flag :rolleyes:

"O Thus be it ever
when Free men shall stand
Between their loved homes
and the wars dessolation
Blest with Victory and peace
may the Heavens rescued land
praise the power that hath made
and presurved us a Nation
then conqure we must
when our cuase it is just
and this be our Motto
in GOD is our Trust"

You have all the proof that you need. Now...YOU proove that the Nation that has THAT in its National Anthem doesnt assume its Citizens are Christian. Tell me how many heathern "praise the power that hath made and presrved (you) a Nation" from a "Heaven Rescued Land" Honnestly, what appauls me about the post-modern world is their ability to not bother to take stock of what it is they sing or place their trust in. America is supposed to be a Nation of Christians who live in Freedom under GOD, and fight for Justice and Peace...what is so difficult to understand about that based on all your folk songs, your battle hymns, your constitution, your currency, the history of your founders...

..Should an American be any other way????...what?? you want to be like the British who composed the words and the lyrics before you adopted it...those who effectively abandoned GOD? Most of whom dont even know the words of the Second Verse of the National Anthem sinse its almost always missed out for first and third....you want to become like Britian? A nation of Pretence, Poltical Correctness, Health and Safety Kill Joys, Multicultural Tollerance, Secularism and Religious Expressionism for anything other then Jesus Christ??

These are not just idol or foolish words I present you with they are an ideal, a GODly philosophy that I fear even the post-modern Americans are slowly being BLINDED to. DONT lose what you have, DO NOT lose your love and cherisment for what is Sacred...or you will end up like us!!!

"O Lord, Our GOD arise
Scatter Her Enemies
and make them fall
Confound their politics
frustrate their knavish tricks
on thee Our Hopes we fix
GOD save us all...."

Though the tune originally had Seven Verses, THREE of which were invocations specifically to GOD...sadly, one called for a particular distruction of a Nation, now in our Union hahahaha, so we dont sing that one anymore...but here are the two other Defunct Verses

Not in this land alone
But be God's mercies known
From shore to shore
Lord make the nations see
That men should brothers be
And form one family
The wide world over

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush :laugh: (I can laugh, I'm only two generations removed from a Scot Patriach LOL)
God save the Queen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwziS2aE6Ww

Buzzard
03-01-2009, 11:05 PM
Yes Dave, using the National Anthem which wasn't written until well after the Constitution is a red herring in this argument. You keep deflecting from your original assertation and can't offer anything up. Here is one of your quotes I challenged you on.

"You cant be that constitutionally American if you arent a Christian"

You have yet to offer anything such as an article number, section, or amendment from the U.S. Constitution to back up your claim. You made the claim about the Constitution, not a song written many many many years after to Constitution was written.

Sorry friend, if you can't back up your claim, I shall let this die and not entertain your deflections any longer.

Buzzard
03-01-2009, 11:12 PM
I guess you have trouble with reading comprehension since I clearly stated that it is not one single quote that sums up the point Dave made about the constitution. You don't need to be a Christian to be an American, but you should acknowledge the impact that Christianity has had on shaping our nation, and our constitution. If you unable to do that without somebody on a message forum posting a myriad of links and references then you are simply inept.

The amount of evidence to support that our founding fathers built this nation on a solid foundation of Christian values is staggering. There are plenty of books and articles out there on the subject if you truly care about enlightening yourself. The best part about it is, all the people who have done the research, and written the books, and the articles, all have ONE source in common; The United States Constitution. :wink:

Friend, my reading comprehension is fine. Your defense of Dave is admirable though. The claim made wasn't about acknowledging the impact of Christianity. In fact, the word Christian or Christianity isn't even mentioned in the COTUS. Dave made a bold statement, and I am looking for him to back it up. If he can't, perhaps you could help him.

Tyburn
03-01-2009, 11:32 PM
Friend, my reading comprehension is fine. Your defense of Dave is admirable though. The claim made wasn't about acknowledging the impact of Christianity. In fact, the word Christian or Christianity isn't even mentioned in the COTUS. Dave made a bold statement, and I am looking for him to back it up. If he can't, perhaps you could help him.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Do you like playing devilsadvocate or something :ninja:

Buzzard
03-01-2009, 11:38 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Do you like playing devilsadvocate or something :ninja:

It surely would seem that way. I do enjoy learning, and hope to learn something from everything I do. Life is a big lesson. My replies are all with good intentions and in good spirits. Life is too short to let an internet debate lead to animosity.

Tyburn
03-01-2009, 11:40 PM
It surely would seem that way. I do enjoy learning, and hope to learn something from everything I do. Life is a big lesson. My replies are all with good intentions and in good spirits. Life is too short to let an internet debate lead to animosity.

Nice try, but noone is buying that. Your just playing devilsadvocate again :ninja: