This is the Reagan I remember: THE 8 YEARS REAGAN WAS IN OFFICE REPRESENTED ONE OF THE MOST BLOODY ERAS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AS WASHINGTON FUNNELED MONEY, WEAPONS AND OTHER SUPPLIES TO RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS. AND THE DEATH TOLL WAS STAGGERING–MORE THAN 70,000 POLITICAL KILLINGS IN EL SALVADOR, MORE THAN 100,000 IN GUATEMALA, 30,000 KILLED IN THE CONTRA WAR IN NICARAGUA. IN WASHINGTON, THE FORCES CARRYING OUT THE VIOLENCE WERE CALLED "FREEDOM FIGHTERS."
What you "remember" is leftist propaganda. The Democrat neo-communists were pissed that Reagan supported the anti-communist freedom fighters that were seeking to stop the communist dirtbags oppressing the people all over South America. The people of Nicargua still hold Reagan as a hero, and any reasonable person realizes the evil of communism and therefore the value in stopping it whereever it rears its filthy head.
@af18726 UNDER REAGAN, I remember faith, good will, AMERICAN prosperity, more jobs created than under any other American President a man who broke the Soviet Union, and the list goes on. Were there iffy situations sure but AMERICA was a winner under REAGAN!
The difference between then and what we have now is Truth , morals , Honesty , self worth , Dignity , Lies , Common Sense it was a different time not so long ago ....what has happened to this Country ..
Reagan's words express very well true Christian values. It is ironic that this excellent video was posted by someone who is devoid of those values and who is blind to the meaning behind Jesus' teachings and Reagan's words. Mulhollanddose personifies the hypocrisy that has infiltrated "Christianity" and those Republicans who claim an exclusive on Jesus. If they truly had Christian values, there would be no need for two parties and Americans could all work together toward a common goal.
There were during Jesus' time those opposed to Jesus, and those for Jesus. Nothing has changed and the liberals have taken the anti-Jesus stance. Republicans have embrassed the Lord...Democrats use Jesus as a prop, Republicans don't....Your analysis is that of a child.
President Reagan merely spoke truth.......he was the BEST president who served our country in my 50 years on this earth.......I look forward to seeing him in heaven! I hope those who listen to this hear God speaking through him (as He speaks through ALL of us when we quote His inspired Word - the Bible) & not make it anything more than it is.....a man speaking his heart.
Very beautiful tribute to Ronald Regan. Unfortunately its beauty was tarnished by the hateful us against them by the the person who posted this video. Liberalism is evil, but just as evil as conservatism. Other than that...beautiful video.
Liberalism is evil. Conservatism isn't...Those are their natures. It is what it is. Who advocates abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality and a perverted brand of Christianity that wraps up its corruption in falsified Christian theology that suggests the state taking from one person and giving to another person is what Jesus taught?...Jesus never taught stealing from one person to solve problems is the state's responsibility. Jesus NEVER taught forcing charity.
I watched this with goosebumps and teary eyes. What an honorable President Mr. Reagan was. I pray that we have another one in the running now. God knows we need it! Thank you for putting this memorial together.
Ronald Reagan, has always been my hero and was a mentor to me as fare as politics was concerned, I have always defended his presidency and conservatism and above all his legacy
Iran Contra was entirely righteous. It aided anti-communists and its intent was to release hostages held by savage scumbags...It was made into a scandal based on a liberal law and legislators that had a soft spot in their heart for totalitarian dictators.
@mulhollanddose Ok, as long as you admit that Reagan negotiated with terrorist behind Americans backs. Also, that he didn't have the courage to try and save the hostages unlike Carter. lol Also it was a liberal congressman that got the funding to undermine the USSR. Reagan was just a hollow shell with a silver tongue full of talking points.
@mulhollanddose ? lol How the hell did Carter do that? It was blow back from the CIA's assignation of their democratically elected leader. Again, Carter at least attempted two special forces military rescues of the hostages. Reagan cowardly gave in before he was sworn in. Reagan also sold weapons, and continued to sell weapons, to the terrorist who took the hostages. Reagan has nothing to stand on in this area.
Carter pulled support for the Shah of Iran. It paved the way for their version of an "Arab Spring", which has been nothing but an Arab nightmare...Is there any history revision that you haven't accepted as gospel?
@mulhollanddose Yea, he pulled support because the Shah was an immoral and violent despot. If you are ok with the US propping up a government over another group of sovereign people that they do not want, I hope you are not hypocritical by being against another nation that might want to do that to the US.
The Shah was infinitely better and more humane than Iran. It wasn't a Muslim caliphate during the Shah. There was a massive flight of Iranians to America after we pulled support for the Shah. So why would they run after the Shah if it was so bad? Answer: Because the Iranian people saw the writing on the wall, and the Ayatollah was going to bring oppression...Go talk to an Iranian refugee about it.
@mulhollanddose The Shah was better then there own democratically elected leader? The revolution was not bad till it was taken over by religious nut jobs. Almost similar to what could have happened in America if not for the founders winning the debate of secularism over religion in the Constitution
@mulhollanddose Again, that's the same Ayatollah that Reagan happily got in bed with. While I am no fan of Carter as a President, I can easily say that Reagan can't hold a candle to him morally and ethically.
You are too clever by half, I can defend it but I need more than the character limit youtube allows in order to do that, but you already know that, thats why you asked the question isn't it?
@gloriapatri100 I do think you can make an argument in defense of what he did. That of a shrewd politician willing to do or say whatever it took to give himself political points.
Ronald Reagan fought the evils of communism and turned around the economy from the destruction left behind from Jimmy Carter and his well-intentioned abysmal failure. He was truly a great man and that is why liberals hate him. Liberals despise good men and lionize corruption and failure as long as it is wrapped up in the Democrat party and the symbol that most exemplifies themselves -- the jackass.
@mulhollanddose Reagan was a fraud. He was the premier silver tongued politician. No single economist attributes the economic problem of those times to Carter. Carter was still working under the classical Presidential model that let Congress lead. Liberals and independents that have studied Reagan's Presidency and see the evident corruption and ineptitude that was his administration.
Nonsense. Reagan's economics is textbook economic theory. The opposing economic model (Marxism light) proposed by the Democrat party asserts that the government will stimulate the economy by rearranging taxes how they see fit, after they skim a significant portion off the top for administration...It is preposterous.
@mulhollanddose First, Reagan didn't know anything about economics. Second, his administrations economic record is a joke, even the people he had is his administration have come clean and admitted the harm they did. The Democrats don't propose anything close to Marxism. Get your head into some books, your knowledge in all of these areas is a joke.
Marxism is government control over nearly every aspect of economic life. That is what the Democrat party are all about. It fails whenever practiced, whereever.
Who helped you insert your head so far up your rectum? Let me guess? Liberal teachers or liberal parents? Or was it the liberal media?...Combination of all?
How I miss Ronald Reagan...How did we get here in the United States? How did we get to be an idol worshiping Country? By idol worship I mean the love of money, power, sex. Those seem to be the idols.
@FreeThinkersFTW I do not idol worship anyone sir but My GOD and you need to learn how to speak correctly and think before you put your foot into your mouth.
It isn't idol worship, it is celebration of a great man. Your incapacity to differentiate between the two only speaks to your malfunction. Deal with it, it is blinding your capacity for reason.
@mulhollanddose Well we can have a difference of opinion in that area. Liberals have a higher bar for greatness. Was Reagan an adequate president? sure
Difference of opinion is one thing. Being 100% wrong is another. You can have factually erroneous opinions. That doesn't make your opinion equal in any way to mine.
@mulhollanddose lol I agree. Nobody is entitled to their own facts. All you have is opinion. I have official records citing the Constitution as secular. It is because of the secular constitution that has helped to prevent the religious wars of Christianity on itself. “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
No, the express purpose of the 1st Amendment (nowhere in the Constitution is there mentioned the myth of a separation of church and state) is to prevent the government (be it secular or religious) from telling the church what they can or can't do...A secular government wasn't set up, just a government that didn't demand obedience to one religion.
@mulhollanddose When has the government told a church what they can or cannot do that didn't involve them unconstitutionally acting against others? Sorry to break this to you, while you may not think the Separation of church and State real, the leading statesmen behind the creation of the constitution did. Because of his and other written options of the founders, the Supreme Court has ruled constantly that the "no establishment" clause = separation of church as state
@mulhollanddose When has the government told a church what they can or cannot do that didn't involve them unconstitutionally acting against others? Sorry to break this to you, while you may not think the Separation of church and State real, the leading statesmen behind the creation of the constitution did. Because of his and other written options of the founders, the Supreme Court has ruled constantly that the "no establishment" clause = separation of church as state
Mullhollandose does NOT GET IT! Thinkers are conservatives - those who realize that the laws of nature are not revokable but....MAN'S laws are. and KNOW the difference. Liberals fight evil...prarie-shit....they are evil because EVERYTHING can be explazined away....NO IT CAN'T! Lucky for liberals, Jesus loves ALL his Father's children...yes, even the wankers that spit on His church....
I would never say God does not love ALL his children. Nor am I foolish enough to ignore that liberals, by-and-large, are hostile to God and attack, ridicule and lie about Christians and Christianity on a regular basis...The parallels between liberals contempt for Christianity, and communist/fascist contempt for Christianity, is apparent.
@mulhollanddose Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, not necessarily their followers, supports slavery, sexism, racism, rape, murder, and genocide. So I am happy that you agree liberals are against such things. Not saying that liberals seek to ban such beliefs, but at least in the court of public opinion, expose these bronze age religions for what they really are.
Christianity and Judaism don't support slavery. They actually have long long long long ago jettisoned such beliefs. Christianity NEVER sanctioned slavery, but it gave advice to the slave and the slave holder (if that was the secular system they lived under) to be kind and generous and not do harm...Islam condones slavery today, not to mention mass murder.
Liberalism is wickedness in disguise. It has done nothing for the world except enslave one way or another
@mulhollanddose "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
@mulhollanddose If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. - Continued
@mulhollanddose "If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. -Continued
@mulhollanddose When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. -Continued
@mulhollanddose -If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
@mulhollanddose When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
@mulhollanddose Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) -Jesus
@mulhollanddose So can I accept that as you conceding that slavery is indeed a christian institution? Not saying they were all administered the same but at least the bible offers its own condition on how to buy, sell, and manage ones slaves. Also, that you admit the founding fathers, including Adams as president, officially declared that the US federal government was not a christian government? If so, congratulations on new step towards being better informed in this area.
Your claim that Christianity justifies slavery is nuked by the reality that it was Christians, including the Framers, that sought to eradicate slavery. Do some research.
@mulhollanddose How is it nuked? Clearly you did not find any biblical passages, not even from Jesus, that undermines the bibles support for slavery. Before somebody is a Christian, they are a human being that can, obviously not always, feel empathy for others. It was the proponents of slavery, even as late as the Confederacy, that offered biblical quotes to support their cause. So, liberal Americans sough to end Slavery, Conservatives sought to preserve and expand it.
Liberals were the KKK. I'd tell you to ask Robert Byrd, but he is in Hell now...Lyndon Johnson who was forced to sign the Civil Rights laws pushed by Republicans didn't have a very high opinion of black people...He just thought passing civil rights laws would help the Democrat party...He said "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years"
@mulhollanddose the conservative party of the day, Democrats, supported slavery and the KKK. Political parties change philosophies over time. That's why its easy to easy to see the leading liberal party of the day in the 1860's was Republicans and those who wanted to let slavery continue, the conservatives that made up the Democrat's.
No, the political parties did not "change over time." The only thing that changed from the Democrat KKK days and today is that today they have realized that fanning the flames of racism and keeping black people in ghettos is an effective political strategy.
How can I cite evidence that doesn't exist? You may be able to point out one Democrat congressman that became a Republican, but the vast majority of Dixiecrats stayed Democrats until their final days in office. Including Democrat KKK member Robert Byrd, and all ex-KKK members that later became Democrat.
Lyndon Johnson (credited with passing Civil Rights laws put forth by REPUBLICANS) said: ""I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
Name me a socialist economy that has worked without either direct support from America, or by capitalism? The less capitalistic, the less successful they are.
Reagan inherited an interest rate of 20.5, Obama 3.25. Reagan inherited an inflation rate of 11.8, Obama 0.3. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 which he reduced to 5.3. Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3 which increased to over 9% After spending a huge stimulus. Reagan solved problems, Obama makes excuses.
@mulhollanddose Both Reagan and Obama took office when unemployment was considered fairly high. In February, 1981, Reagan’s first full month as president, unemployment was at 7.4% and was slowly improving. It dropped down to 7.2% by April, his third month in office. In February, 2009, Obama’s first full month in office, unemployment was at 8.2% and rising rapidly. The economy was already losing 750,000 jobs per month before Obama was sworn in.----
@mulhollanddose Look closely at what happened during each president’s first 2 years in office. By October, 2009, Obama’s 9th month in office, unemployment peaked at 10.1%. After that, we started to see job growth and the unemployment rate declined over the next 2 years. The longer his policies were in effect, the more the economy improved.Compare that to what happened during Reagan’s first two years. Although unemployment was stable when he first took office, after about 7 months, it started---
@mulhollanddose --rising. After his first full year, unemployment climbed to 8.5% and it continued to rise throughout his 2nd year. Nearly two full years after Reagan took office, unemployment was at 10.8%, higher than it ever reached under Obama. It wasn’t until nearly 2 ½ years into Reagan’s presidency that unemployment finally dropped below 10%.There is a stark contrast between what happened with Reagan and what happened with Obama.
@mulhollanddose --Under Obama, unemployment briefly topped 10% during his first year and then began to go down. Under Reagan, unemployment remained above 10% for the better part of a year. Most of the job losses that occurred during Obama’s presidency happened during the first few months as a result of the deep recession that began a year before he took office. Less than a year into his term, the economy showed steady improvement. ---
@mulhollanddose --By contrast, the job losses under Reagan didn’t begin until about six months after he became president and continued to get worse for the next 18 months. The severity of the economic crisis that Obama inherited cannot be over-emphasized. Not since the Great Depression had we seen such massive job losses as were occurring at the time Obama was sworn in. It would be difficult to find any other time in our country’s history when 750,000 jobs were lost in a single month.---
@mulhollanddose --Economists predicted that we would have 20% unemployment within a year. It is remarkable that unemployment peaked at only 10.1% and that the economy began improving as quickly as it did. Obama clearly inherited a far worse economic situation than Reagan did. Yet he managed to turn around the economy in less than half the time it took Reagan. ---
Unemployment numbers are far higher than the falsified numbers the Obama administration are pumping out. Mostly due to Obama's policies that are creating market contraction in the economy, and skyrocketing debt.
@mulhollanddose You can't attack Obama for the underemployment numbers unless you also attack Reagan for his numbers. Also, it's not Obama's polices adding the most debt, it's the fixed spending which is a majority of the budget. Also, in a recession, job creation is more important the the debt but the GOP don't care about that.
If Obama is elected as a "change" agent that is the bringer of "hope", and promises to half Bush's 300 billion dollar deficit, and decrease debt, and decrease unemployment, and then puts forth an agenda that strangles business, strangles the consumers, and spends more money than any President on a redistribution of taxpayer revenues scheme, he certainly bears a great responsibility...The collapse was a result of Democrat policies (Community Reinvestment Act).
@mulhollanddose - I've read everything that I can find about you and you seem smug and incredibly right - why? You call everyone stupid except of course yourself.
I've done my homework. Its not smugness you note, it is an exacting loyalty to the truth that betrays those stupid enough to accept prevailing thought that is simply well packaged lies. I have no tolerance of such lies, or such people that are so easily manipulated to believe them.
@mulhollanddose 0k good for you - I'm a retired biochemistry college prof. I believe in truth as well as it can be discerned. The truth sometimes, however, is hidden, misshaped by those who can't bare it, and of course changed. I believe that the leftist media is responsible for trying to change the truth to fit their needs. Goldwater would have been a fabulous president but the media chewed him up and spit him out in unfair power grabs to suit themselves and we got Johnson.
@Godzillafan93 The technical truth is you can't, at least not with economic models. To prove it without any doubt would require an knowledge of the firms finances and projected finances, and what the company's leadership was thinking. To be fair, every president and their opposition use such modeling to tout their own horn and attack their rivals. The congressional budget office put out that in the third quarter of 2010, Obama's stimulus programs was responsible for 1.4 to 3.6 million jobs
@mulhollanddose --Obama’s policies resulted in a measurable improvement within a year of taking office, while Reagan’s policies resulted in a worsening of the unemployment situation for two years. In reviewing Obama’s accomplishment, there are other factors that need to be considered in this comparison. When Reagan was president, Democrats in the House of Representatives who opposed him were willing to make compromises and to work with him in creating jobs.--
@mulhollanddose ---They didn’t see their role as simply to obstruct everything he did. The Republicans who oppose President Obama have tried to prevent anything from getting done at all with regard to the economy. During the first 2 years, Republicans in the Senate filibustered virtually everything they could; including bills they previously supported, in order to prevent any legislation from coming up for a vote.---
Your Obama theory requires me to accept that Obama's policies would unquestionably improve the economy, and that Republicans are standing in the way of his unquestionably holy policies...This is a logical fallacy...What is Obama's track record of governance?...The Chicago shithole that he crawled out of with one of the most corrupt Democrat political machines in the U.S., and some of the highest crime rates in the country?
@mulhollanddose The logical fallacy is you trying to pin the blame of all that's wrong with Chicago on a single legislature. I never said Obama's policies would unquestionably improve the economy, merely that they have so far helped renew growth, and that the GOP have put party before country.
When was the last time Chicago was truly controlled by a conservative policy? Fifty years?...Democrats have had a stranglehold on Chicago, and every failed ghetto, for decades...It is a logical reality that there is a correlation between Democrats and the corrupt failed regions they run like monopolies.
@mulhollanddose The conservative Governor before Blagojevich ended up in jail as well. Obama as a state senator never even had the time to get into bed with the corrupt political sector of Chicago unlike say, Chris Christie, who did go through the corrupt new jersey political sector. The only correlation that exist between governorship politics and the ghettos is bad leadership, not failed ideology.
Illinois has been run by Democrats for decades. A moderate Republican as the Governor means nothing in the larger picture of Illinois politics. Look at their Senators. Look at Chicago politics...Chicago politics isn't renowned for anything close to conservative governance. It is renowned for being a leftist shithole and the most corrupt Democrat machine in America.
@mulhollanddose I was agreeing with you till you said "leftist" because it has nothing to do with liberal ideology, but with failed leadership in the state. And trying to pin that all on a lowly state senator speaks to your week political analytic abilities. I also agree with you saying that its the most corrupt democratic state. Why? Because the corrupting facing democrats is largely isolated compared to the entirely corrupt leadership of the whole republican party.
@mulhollanddose --After gaining control of the House of Representatives, Republicans refused to pass any job creation bills at all, even rejecting proposals that they had supported in previous years. Despite Republican attempts to stifle job creation, President Obama has managed to have far greater success at pulling the country out of a recession than the sainted Ronald Reagan did during his first 3 years in office.
@nchomespector lol ohhh I get it...you're talking about my head being stuck in books since I know so much about why Ronald Reagan was a terrible leader and you worry that I need to socialize more. I appreciate you looking out like that. Thanks :)
yes, thank you, your head must have been in the same book all this time and still don't know what is going on, please socialize more and try another book
@nchomespector But really I do read a lot, and the facts on the ground are pretty damning about Reagan's presidency. This is why its so funny when prominent conservative republicans speak about him and how there should be a Reagan litmus test for all conservatives. This is funny because one of the rules will always be a promise to never raise taxes, only that Reagan did indeed raise taxes. Another might be to never negotiate with terrorist, which Reagan did. You can see the problem I am sure.
I have heard it said that history is interpretation of the facts. If someone changes something that goes against our worldview we normally say that person has "caused damage". On the other hand, If someone makes progress to promote our worldview, we say that person is "revolutionary". I encourage my sons to read both sides of each story to see which best ties to morality and truth. Hopefully I can encourage others here to do the same.
"Obama has managed to pull the country out of recession"...That is Democrat spin. It is absolutely unsubstantiated. The economy is worse since the Democrats took Congress in 2006, and even worse since Obama took the Presidency in 2008...Those are facts. Claiming it would have been worse if Obama didn't increase the debt by 5 trillion dollars, and run a consistent trillion dollar deficit is the epitome of contortion.
5 trillion IS OBAMA'S (and Democrats) fault. He claimed Bush's raise of the debt ceiling "was a failure of leadership" and "unpatriotic." Clearly that was simply campaigning BS, demonstrated by his spending habits after he had the office of Presidency bought for him...Either he was an idiot before he got elected, or a liar, but either way he packaged himself as the opposite of Bush, and better than Bush, but got in and has been 4x worse than Bush fiscally.
@mulhollanddose Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.
@mulhollanddose The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.
@mulhollanddose The reason Obama's attack on Bush for raising the debt ceiling still stands is due to basic macroeconomics. Under the Bush admin and a sympathetic republican congress, he continued to raise debt and deficit spend during an economic expansion. He even introduced massive tax cuts during huge military campaigns rather then raise taxes to pay for it. During expansions, you are supposed to lower debt, raise taxes, increase interest rates, for two main reasons.--
@mulhollanddose --First, so the economy does not overheat and send inflation up, and second, so that you have fiscal and monetary tools available during a recession. For Obama, Bush had doubled the debt to 10 trillion, interest rates were already at zero, and taxes were very low. This primary left two venues open, deficit spend and add more debt, and raise taxes on those who could afford to spend more and were not adding money into the economy anyway.
@mulhollanddose IF you wanted to cite some evidence, all you need to do is get some quotes of party leaders from different decades of party leaders, at the very least the Presidential nominees. IF what you were arguing was true, they would have remained the same. Sadly for you, that not what is shown. The Republicans, especially under Lincoln, started out as a nationalist party that wanted what was best for the Union and argued the federal government should have an active role in leading it.
@mulhollanddose -While the Democrats around that same time were firmly for States Rights, against federal internal improvements, and were against expansive views of federal powers in the constitution. You should be able to see a clear connection to the Democrats of the past and the Republicans of today.
I'm not positing that Democrats were as socialist as they are today. Clearly the communist influence in the Democrat party has made a whore of the Democrat party. On that Reagan was absolutely correct...What I am saying is that there was no 180degree shift in the parties. The claim that there was is simply rewritten history intended to conceal the facts...The facts are Republicans in the past are just like they are today, and Democrats are far more socialist.
What is not in question is the fact that the Democrat party shape-shifted for political expediency and have found their racial agitation platform of today as politically profitable as their slavery advocacy. Both were economic policy decisions, and both were/are fought for by the Democrat party.
You are lying. Socialist liberals have contributed nothing to humanity except oppression, slavery, servitude, poverty and death...Christianity fought to liberate slavery, and they still do fight to end poverty, slavery and oppression throughout the world...All liberals do is protect and defend oppressors and tyrants.
@mulhollanddose liberal Christians played a part in freeing the slaves, but Christianity certainly did not. How about you actually just google what liberalism means and the history of liberalism.
I see what your malfunction is now. You have a misunderstood definition of the term "liberal." The definition of liberal that you are proposing is different from today's definition. The Founding Fathers were liberal, or more accurately "classical liberal"...It is the very opposite of today's definition of liberal. The original defintion of liberal is what you lefties now call extreme right wing -- small government/maximum freedom.
@mulhollanddose you fail to recognize that this is nation founded on Liberal ideology and the two predominant political parties of every year exemplify this. The problem with trying to emulate the size and role of government of the founders is that: one, they were all amateurs in government building: two, they didn't appreciate the hypocrisy of the system they created that espoused freedom yet mandated the federal government to hunt down escaped slaves and return them to their masters
Quote for me one Founding Father or principle that was "liberal" in the modern definition of the word. Don't confuse the old definition with the perverted modern definition.
The Civil War was a product of the Republican party. The Democrat party of that day were against abolition of slavery. They later developed the KKK to terrorize black people because they voted Republican. Once that failed they decided the violent approach to intimidating blacks to vote Democrat wouldn't work, so they began buying off black people with welfare. Democrats have controlled every ghetto in America ever since.
@mulhollanddose How was the Civil War a product of the Republican party? I agree with the rest of what you said up till the part about welfare. That was a liberal Republican creation. You can't expect to free millions of slaves, most of whom did not speak English nor were trained in skilled labor, and think they could just mold into communities that were just enslaving them. Does all welfare work? nobody says such things, but you can't be dumb enough to think that welfare never works
Welfare works? Yes, until the minute that you stop it. Then what is being kept artificially suspended falls like a house of cards. Welfare doesn't work.
FDR introduced the real shift to a welfare state. The Democrats went a step further and made sure the social security fund was easily robbed. Now it is bankrupt.
@mulhollanddose ...lol, Slavery is still a biblical institution. Its destruction in America is due to those pesky liberals hellbent of securing freedom and rights for all Americans. Also, Washington didn't even free his slaves before he died, nor Jefferson, nor Adams.
Socialism is a human institution, completely separate from Christianity. Christianity teaches nothing about enslaving people; nothing whatsoever...Liberals had nothing to do with freeing the slaves or fighting for equal rights. That was all Christians, and all absolutely conservative. Freedom and liberty is central to conservativism, not to liberalism. Liberals fought to secure slavery and fought against civil rights legislation..Democrats.
@mulhollanddose Every institution is a human institution. If you can't handle the truth about whats in the bible that's your problem. You could be one of the few Christians that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the bible and that it has been corrupted over time. The rest of what you wrote it total bs.
@mulhollanddose Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)-Jesus
@mulhollanddose Christianity never rejected such beliefs, its still treated as divine text my most people who call themselves Christians. Christians as least in the western world with the help of a secular government forcing them to stop, such as the U.S., have discontinued the practice. I agree about Islam in the non western world who don't have a secular humanist government to compel them to stop.
Your premise is fundamentally false. Christians didn't get help from a secular government. Christians created a system that created freedom of religion. The spirit of that move was to prevent the infiltration of the church by the state. Secularists, or other religions or ideologies, had no part in the development of the system. It was Christians. Their point was not the fear of Christianity, on the contrary, just the opposite.
@mulhollanddose ...No fear of Christianity? Before the creation of US, each state was its own theocracy, imposing its specific christian denomination on all who lived their. So yea, most of the founders were Christians, but a few of the key ones were Deist and Atheist. They deliberately created a SECULAR federal government. No part in the system? So Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and other key framers did not support a secular system? lol
What secularisits have done is perverted the original intent of the Founders. The result has been precisely what the Founders sought to prevent. Now the state, much like under communism and fascism, has decided to violate the constitution by imposing its will on the church and punishing Christianity in a desire to impose more control over the people...Secularist statists are the problem, just like under King Henry.
@mulhollanddose I just showed you a direct quote telling you the founders did not create a christian government. Are you so week that you can't admit you're wrong? Will your entire view of America and your support for it collapse? Only ignorant Christians seek to undermine the founders by Christianizing the government. Its actually unconstitutional to create special consideration to allow religious employers to deny that coverage. If they want to pay higher premiums, I am sure we will look away.
I can provide you a mountain of quotes of the Founding Fathers that leave no doubt that the Founders were Christian, had a high regard for Christianity, and sought to make a country free for Christians to worship Jesus Christ.
"To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christianity." -- Washington
@mulhollanddose ...lol That didn't refute anything I said. They didn't want to just make it a great place Christians, but all religions, at least on a federal level. Ehhh the core group did not have a high regard for Christianity. All of this is moot because it does not undermine that treaty, which again was one of the three times ever, the US Senate ever unanimously voted to approve something.
The Founders in no way thought about other religions. They thought only about Christianity and practicing it any way the public wanted without government intervention. They weren't in the least concerned with any other religion. It didn't cross their minds. If you wanted to worship, or not, the choice was the public's, but we would remain a Christian nation founded by Christians and on Christianity..."We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"
@mulhollanddose "We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"-This was drafted by a theocratic continental congress attached to a theocratic government, UK. What was ultimately put in place by the framers was a SECULAR constitution, that did not mention God or Christianity unlike many of the colony constitutions.
@mulhollanddose “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
The "separation of church and state" theory is to be nowhere found in the Constitition. It doesn't exist. The 1st Amendment was intended to protect the church FROM the state.
@mulhollanddose “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
That is a fraudulent quote you provide ("The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”)
If it wasn't for lies you leftists wouldn't have an argument.
@mulhollanddose "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"-and you still can't escape this can you? Did some of the framers believe a god, even the christian god, help or influence the founding of the country? Sure. But, on official record they kept the constitution secular and unanimously declared, on record, that the US was not founded based on Christianity or even to support Christianity.
""God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever" -- Jefferson
@mulhollanddose lol Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
Jefferson was conflicted, but a Christian. Even if he wasn't, he would be of a very small minority of the Founders who were not, and he wasn't selected to speak for his own beliefs but for the will of the predominantly Christian population.
"He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
"Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:16-17
How many make this their purpose in life? Let our budgets speak the truth.
This is the Reagan I remember: THE 8 YEARS REAGAN WAS IN OFFICE REPRESENTED ONE OF THE MOST BLOODY ERAS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AS WASHINGTON FUNNELED MONEY, WEAPONS AND OTHER SUPPLIES TO RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS. AND THE DEATH TOLL WAS STAGGERING–MORE THAN 70,000 POLITICAL KILLINGS IN EL SALVADOR, MORE THAN 100,000 IN GUATEMALA, 30,000 KILLED IN THE CONTRA WAR IN NICARAGUA. IN WASHINGTON, THE FORCES CARRYING OUT THE VIOLENCE WERE CALLED "FREEDOM FIGHTERS."
af18726 15 hours ago
@af18726,
What you "remember" is leftist propaganda. The Democrat neo-communists were pissed that Reagan supported the anti-communist freedom fighters that were seeking to stop the communist dirtbags oppressing the people all over South America. The people of Nicargua still hold Reagan as a hero, and any reasonable person realizes the evil of communism and therefore the value in stopping it whereever it rears its filthy head.
mulhollanddose 9 hours ago
@af18726 UNDER REAGAN, I remember faith, good will, AMERICAN prosperity, more jobs created than under any other American President a man who broke the Soviet Union, and the list goes on. Were there iffy situations sure but AMERICA was a winner under REAGAN!
neflacom 2 hours ago
The difference between then and what we have now is Truth , morals , Honesty , self worth , Dignity , Lies , Common Sense it was a different time not so long ago ....what has happened to this Country ..
bliz2912 20 hours ago
Ecclesiastes 10:2 “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”
cloggingdad 1 day ago
Reagan's words express very well true Christian values. It is ironic that this excellent video was posted by someone who is devoid of those values and who is blind to the meaning behind Jesus' teachings and Reagan's words. Mulhollanddose personifies the hypocrisy that has infiltrated "Christianity" and those Republicans who claim an exclusive on Jesus. If they truly had Christian values, there would be no need for two parties and Americans could all work together toward a common goal.
kuau77 1 day ago
@kuau77,
There were during Jesus' time those opposed to Jesus, and those for Jesus. Nothing has changed and the liberals have taken the anti-Jesus stance. Republicans have embrassed the Lord...Democrats use Jesus as a prop, Republicans don't....Your analysis is that of a child.
mulhollanddose 1 day ago
@mulhollanddose I agree with you.
535echo 1 day ago
@kuau77,
Liberals use Jesus as a tool. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Christian about liberals. Nothing whatsoever.
mulhollanddose 1 day ago
God? What God? Listen to yourselves.Think about it. There is no God.
nataleragemusic 2 days ago
President Reagan merely spoke truth.......he was the BEST president who served our country in my 50 years on this earth.......I look forward to seeing him in heaven! I hope those who listen to this hear God speaking through him (as He speaks through ALL of us when we quote His inspired Word - the Bible) & not make it anything more than it is.....a man speaking his heart.
DoneDealDave 2 days ago
Very beautiful tribute to Ronald Regan. Unfortunately its beauty was tarnished by the hateful us against them by the the person who posted this video. Liberalism is evil, but just as evil as conservatism. Other than that...beautiful video.
saintcatherine 3 days ago
@saintcatherine,
Liberalism is evil. Conservatism isn't...Those are their natures. It is what it is. Who advocates abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality and a perverted brand of Christianity that wraps up its corruption in falsified Christian theology that suggests the state taking from one person and giving to another person is what Jesus taught?...Jesus never taught stealing from one person to solve problems is the state's responsibility. Jesus NEVER taught forcing charity.
mulhollanddose 17 hours ago
I watched this with goosebumps and teary eyes. What an honorable President Mr. Reagan was. I pray that we have another one in the running now. God knows we need it! Thank you for putting this memorial together.
mlgm1971 4 days ago
An inspired man!
teresabrower1 6 days ago
This is what we need MORE of!!!!!
777goldberg 1 week ago
“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from The Savior of the world is communicated to us through this Book.”
― Abraham Lincoln
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
Ronald Reagan, has always been my hero and was a mentor to me as fare as politics was concerned, I have always defended his presidency and conservatism and above all his legacy
May God♥ Bless him
gloriapatri100 1 week ago 2
@gloriapatri100 How have you defended his actions of negotiating with terrorist to release the hostages in exchange were weapons?
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Iran Contra was entirely righteous. It aided anti-communists and its intent was to release hostages held by savage scumbags...It was made into a scandal based on a liberal law and legislators that had a soft spot in their heart for totalitarian dictators.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Ok, as long as you admit that Reagan negotiated with terrorist behind Americans backs. Also, that he didn't have the courage to try and save the hostages unlike Carter. lol Also it was a liberal congressman that got the funding to undermine the USSR. Reagan was just a hollow shell with a silver tongue full of talking points.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Carter turned Iran into a Muslim terrorist theocracy.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose ? lol How the hell did Carter do that? It was blow back from the CIA's assignation of their democratically elected leader. Again, Carter at least attempted two special forces military rescues of the hostages. Reagan cowardly gave in before he was sworn in. Reagan also sold weapons, and continued to sell weapons, to the terrorist who took the hostages. Reagan has nothing to stand on in this area.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Carter pulled support for the Shah of Iran. It paved the way for their version of an "Arab Spring", which has been nothing but an Arab nightmare...Is there any history revision that you haven't accepted as gospel?
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Yea, he pulled support because the Shah was an immoral and violent despot. If you are ok with the US propping up a government over another group of sovereign people that they do not want, I hope you are not hypocritical by being against another nation that might want to do that to the US.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
The Shah was infinitely better and more humane than Iran. It wasn't a Muslim caliphate during the Shah. There was a massive flight of Iranians to America after we pulled support for the Shah. So why would they run after the Shah if it was so bad? Answer: Because the Iranian people saw the writing on the wall, and the Ayatollah was going to bring oppression...Go talk to an Iranian refugee about it.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose The Shah was better then there own democratically elected leader? The revolution was not bad till it was taken over by religious nut jobs. Almost similar to what could have happened in America if not for the founders winning the debate of secularism over religion in the Constitution
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Also, who militarily supported that "Arab nightmare"? Oh yea, it was Reagan, for YEARS.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Carter pulled support for the Shah, precipitating the rise of the Aytatollah. It has been Hell there ever since.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Again, that's the same Ayatollah that Reagan happily got in bed with. While I am no fan of Carter as a President, I can easily say that Reagan can't hold a candle to him morally and ethically.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Reagan never got in bed with the Ayatollah. That was Carter's bed. He lays in it and still coddles and cherishes the Islamic devil.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW
You are too clever by half, I can defend it but I need more than the character limit youtube allows in order to do that, but you already know that, thats why you asked the question isn't it?
gloriapatri100 1 week ago
@gloriapatri100 I do think you can make an argument in defense of what he did. That of a shrewd politician willing to do or say whatever it took to give himself political points.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Ronald Reagan fought the evils of communism and turned around the economy from the destruction left behind from Jimmy Carter and his well-intentioned abysmal failure. He was truly a great man and that is why liberals hate him. Liberals despise good men and lionize corruption and failure as long as it is wrapped up in the Democrat party and the symbol that most exemplifies themselves -- the jackass.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Reagan was a fraud. He was the premier silver tongued politician. No single economist attributes the economic problem of those times to Carter. Carter was still working under the classical Presidential model that let Congress lead. Liberals and independents that have studied Reagan's Presidency and see the evident corruption and ineptitude that was his administration.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Nonsense. Reagan's economics is textbook economic theory. The opposing economic model (Marxism light) proposed by the Democrat party asserts that the government will stimulate the economy by rearranging taxes how they see fit, after they skim a significant portion off the top for administration...It is preposterous.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose First, Reagan didn't know anything about economics. Second, his administrations economic record is a joke, even the people he had is his administration have come clean and admitted the harm they did. The Democrats don't propose anything close to Marxism. Get your head into some books, your knowledge in all of these areas is a joke.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Marxism is government control over nearly every aspect of economic life. That is what the Democrat party are all about. It fails whenever practiced, whereever.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Who helped you insert your head so far up your rectum? Let me guess? Liberal teachers or liberal parents? Or was it the liberal media?...Combination of all?
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Why were Reagan's economic policies rejected when they look just like John F. Kennedy's?
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
GOD heal our country, have mercy. My GOD I believe I adore I hope I love you I beg pardon for those who do Not believe, adore, hope and love you!!
MsDi333 1 week ago
How I miss Ronald Reagan...How did we get here in the United States? How did we get to be an idol worshiping Country? By idol worship I mean the love of money, power, sex. Those seem to be the idols.
MsDi333 1 week ago
@MsDi333 lol You wonder how we go here while you continue to idol worship Reagan?
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW I do not idol worship anyone sir but My GOD and you need to learn how to speak correctly and think before you put your foot into your mouth.
MsDi333 1 week ago
@MsDi333 You idolize Reagan, no?
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
It isn't idol worship, it is celebration of a great man. Your incapacity to differentiate between the two only speaks to your malfunction. Deal with it, it is blinding your capacity for reason.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Well we can have a difference of opinion in that area. Liberals have a higher bar for greatness. Was Reagan an adequate president? sure
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Difference of opinion is one thing. Being 100% wrong is another. You can have factually erroneous opinions. That doesn't make your opinion equal in any way to mine.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose lol I agree. Nobody is entitled to their own facts. All you have is opinion. I have official records citing the Constitution as secular. It is because of the secular constitution that has helped to prevent the religious wars of Christianity on itself. “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
No, the express purpose of the 1st Amendment (nowhere in the Constitution is there mentioned the myth of a separation of church and state) is to prevent the government (be it secular or religious) from telling the church what they can or can't do...A secular government wasn't set up, just a government that didn't demand obedience to one religion.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose When has the government told a church what they can or cannot do that didn't involve them unconstitutionally acting against others? Sorry to break this to you, while you may not think the Separation of church and State real, the leading statesmen behind the creation of the constitution did. Because of his and other written options of the founders, the Supreme Court has ruled constantly that the "no establishment" clause = separation of church as state
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulhollanddose When has the government told a church what they can or cannot do that didn't involve them unconstitutionally acting against others? Sorry to break this to you, while you may not think the Separation of church and State real, the leading statesmen behind the creation of the constitution did. Because of his and other written options of the founders, the Supreme Court has ruled constantly that the "no establishment" clause = separation of church as state
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
Mullhollandose does NOT GET IT! Thinkers are conservatives - those who realize that the laws of nature are not revokable but....MAN'S laws are. and KNOW the difference. Liberals fight evil...prarie-shit....they are evil because EVERYTHING can be explazined away....NO IT CAN'T! Lucky for liberals, Jesus loves ALL his Father's children...yes, even the wankers that spit on His church....
MrHansAryan 1 week ago
@MrHansAryan,
I would never say God does not love ALL his children. Nor am I foolish enough to ignore that liberals, by-and-large, are hostile to God and attack, ridicule and lie about Christians and Christianity on a regular basis...The parallels between liberals contempt for Christianity, and communist/fascist contempt for Christianity, is apparent.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, not necessarily their followers, supports slavery, sexism, racism, rape, murder, and genocide. So I am happy that you agree liberals are against such things. Not saying that liberals seek to ban such beliefs, but at least in the court of public opinion, expose these bronze age religions for what they really are.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Christianity and Judaism don't support slavery. They actually have long long long long ago jettisoned such beliefs. Christianity NEVER sanctioned slavery, but it gave advice to the slave and the slave holder (if that was the secular system they lived under) to be kind and generous and not do harm...Islam condones slavery today, not to mention mass murder.
Liberalism is wickedness in disguise. It has done nothing for the world except enslave one way or another
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. - Continued
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose "If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. -Continued
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose -After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. -Continued
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose -If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) -Jesus
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
European slavery was probably the best thing to ever happen to Africans in their long history of mass murder and self slavery.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose So can I accept that as you conceding that slavery is indeed a christian institution? Not saying they were all administered the same but at least the bible offers its own condition on how to buy, sell, and manage ones slaves. Also, that you admit the founding fathers, including Adams as president, officially declared that the US federal government was not a christian government? If so, congratulations on new step towards being better informed in this area.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Your claim that Christianity justifies slavery is nuked by the reality that it was Christians, including the Framers, that sought to eradicate slavery. Do some research.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose How is it nuked? Clearly you did not find any biblical passages, not even from Jesus, that undermines the bibles support for slavery. Before somebody is a Christian, they are a human being that can, obviously not always, feel empathy for others. It was the proponents of slavery, even as late as the Confederacy, that offered biblical quotes to support their cause. So, liberal Americans sough to end Slavery, Conservatives sought to preserve and expand it.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Liberals were the KKK. I'd tell you to ask Robert Byrd, but he is in Hell now...Lyndon Johnson who was forced to sign the Civil Rights laws pushed by Republicans didn't have a very high opinion of black people...He just thought passing civil rights laws would help the Democrat party...He said "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years"
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose the conservative party of the day, Democrats, supported slavery and the KKK. Political parties change philosophies over time. That's why its easy to easy to see the leading liberal party of the day in the 1860's was Republicans and those who wanted to let slavery continue, the conservatives that made up the Democrat's.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
No, the political parties did not "change over time." The only thing that changed from the Democrat KKK days and today is that today they have realized that fanning the flames of racism and keeping black people in ghettos is an effective political strategy.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose IF you don't think the parties of changed ideologies over time, cite some evidence to the contrary.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
How can I cite evidence that doesn't exist? You may be able to point out one Democrat congressman that became a Republican, but the vast majority of Dixiecrats stayed Democrats until their final days in office. Including Democrat KKK member Robert Byrd, and all ex-KKK members that later became Democrat.
Lyndon Johnson (credited with passing Civil Rights laws put forth by REPUBLICANS) said: ""I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose I agree, you have no evidence of what you say!!! FINALLY, we agree on something :)
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Name me a socialist economy that has worked without either direct support from America, or by capitalism? The less capitalistic, the less successful they are.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Reagan inherited an interest rate of 20.5, Obama 3.25. Reagan inherited an inflation rate of 11.8, Obama 0.3. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 which he reduced to 5.3. Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3 which increased to over 9% After spending a huge stimulus. Reagan solved problems, Obama makes excuses.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
Comment removed
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulhollanddose Both Reagan and Obama took office when unemployment was considered fairly high. In February, 1981, Reagan’s first full month as president, unemployment was at 7.4% and was slowly improving. It dropped down to 7.2% by April, his third month in office. In February, 2009, Obama’s first full month in office, unemployment was at 8.2% and rising rapidly. The economy was already losing 750,000 jobs per month before Obama was sworn in.----
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Look closely at what happened during each president’s first 2 years in office. By October, 2009, Obama’s 9th month in office, unemployment peaked at 10.1%. After that, we started to see job growth and the unemployment rate declined over the next 2 years. The longer his policies were in effect, the more the economy improved.Compare that to what happened during Reagan’s first two years. Although unemployment was stable when he first took office, after about 7 months, it started---
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose --rising. After his first full year, unemployment climbed to 8.5% and it continued to rise throughout his 2nd year. Nearly two full years after Reagan took office, unemployment was at 10.8%, higher than it ever reached under Obama. It wasn’t until nearly 2 ½ years into Reagan’s presidency that unemployment finally dropped below 10%.There is a stark contrast between what happened with Reagan and what happened with Obama.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose --Under Obama, unemployment briefly topped 10% during his first year and then began to go down. Under Reagan, unemployment remained above 10% for the better part of a year. Most of the job losses that occurred during Obama’s presidency happened during the first few months as a result of the deep recession that began a year before he took office. Less than a year into his term, the economy showed steady improvement. ---
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose --By contrast, the job losses under Reagan didn’t begin until about six months after he became president and continued to get worse for the next 18 months. The severity of the economic crisis that Obama inherited cannot be over-emphasized. Not since the Great Depression had we seen such massive job losses as were occurring at the time Obama was sworn in. It would be difficult to find any other time in our country’s history when 750,000 jobs were lost in a single month.---
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose --Economists predicted that we would have 20% unemployment within a year. It is remarkable that unemployment peaked at only 10.1% and that the economy began improving as quickly as it did. Obama clearly inherited a far worse economic situation than Reagan did. Yet he managed to turn around the economy in less than half the time it took Reagan. ---
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Unemployment numbers are far higher than the falsified numbers the Obama administration are pumping out. Mostly due to Obama's policies that are creating market contraction in the economy, and skyrocketing debt.
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@mulhollanddose You can't attack Obama for the underemployment numbers unless you also attack Reagan for his numbers. Also, it's not Obama's polices adding the most debt, it's the fixed spending which is a majority of the budget. Also, in a recession, job creation is more important the the debt but the GOP don't care about that.
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
If Obama is elected as a "change" agent that is the bringer of "hope", and promises to half Bush's 300 billion dollar deficit, and decrease debt, and decrease unemployment, and then puts forth an agenda that strangles business, strangles the consumers, and spends more money than any President on a redistribution of taxpayer revenues scheme, he certainly bears a great responsibility...The collapse was a result of Democrat policies (Community Reinvestment Act).
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW I'm just curious. Obama keeps claiming he creates and saves jobs. How do you prove you saved a job?
Godzillafan93 5 days ago
@Godzillafan93,
You don't. If you can't prove it you are lying.
mulhollanddose 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose - I've read everything that I can find about you and you seem smug and incredibly right - why? You call everyone stupid except of course yourself.
sciteach10195 4 days ago
@sciteach10195,
I've done my homework. Its not smugness you note, it is an exacting loyalty to the truth that betrays those stupid enough to accept prevailing thought that is simply well packaged lies. I have no tolerance of such lies, or such people that are so easily manipulated to believe them.
mulhollanddose 4 days ago
@mulhollanddose 0k good for you - I'm a retired biochemistry college prof. I believe in truth as well as it can be discerned. The truth sometimes, however, is hidden, misshaped by those who can't bare it, and of course changed. I believe that the leftist media is responsible for trying to change the truth to fit their needs. Goldwater would have been a fabulous president but the media chewed him up and spit him out in unfair power grabs to suit themselves and we got Johnson.
sciteach10195 4 days ago
@Godzillafan93 The technical truth is you can't, at least not with economic models. To prove it without any doubt would require an knowledge of the firms finances and projected finances, and what the company's leadership was thinking. To be fair, every president and their opposition use such modeling to tout their own horn and attack their rivals. The congressional budget office put out that in the third quarter of 2010, Obama's stimulus programs was responsible for 1.4 to 3.6 million jobs
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose --Obama’s policies resulted in a measurable improvement within a year of taking office, while Reagan’s policies resulted in a worsening of the unemployment situation for two years. In reviewing Obama’s accomplishment, there are other factors that need to be considered in this comparison. When Reagan was president, Democrats in the House of Representatives who opposed him were willing to make compromises and to work with him in creating jobs.--
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose ---They didn’t see their role as simply to obstruct everything he did. The Republicans who oppose President Obama have tried to prevent anything from getting done at all with regard to the economy. During the first 2 years, Republicans in the Senate filibustered virtually everything they could; including bills they previously supported, in order to prevent any legislation from coming up for a vote.---
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Your Obama theory requires me to accept that Obama's policies would unquestionably improve the economy, and that Republicans are standing in the way of his unquestionably holy policies...This is a logical fallacy...What is Obama's track record of governance?...The Chicago shithole that he crawled out of with one of the most corrupt Democrat political machines in the U.S., and some of the highest crime rates in the country?
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@mulhollanddose The logical fallacy is you trying to pin the blame of all that's wrong with Chicago on a single legislature. I never said Obama's policies would unquestionably improve the economy, merely that they have so far helped renew growth, and that the GOP have put party before country.
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
When was the last time Chicago was truly controlled by a conservative policy? Fifty years?...Democrats have had a stranglehold on Chicago, and every failed ghetto, for decades...It is a logical reality that there is a correlation between Democrats and the corrupt failed regions they run like monopolies.
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@mulhollanddose The conservative Governor before Blagojevich ended up in jail as well. Obama as a state senator never even had the time to get into bed with the corrupt political sector of Chicago unlike say, Chris Christie, who did go through the corrupt new jersey political sector. The only correlation that exist between governorship politics and the ghettos is bad leadership, not failed ideology.
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Illinois has been run by Democrats for decades. A moderate Republican as the Governor means nothing in the larger picture of Illinois politics. Look at their Senators. Look at Chicago politics...Chicago politics isn't renowned for anything close to conservative governance. It is renowned for being a leftist shithole and the most corrupt Democrat machine in America.
mulhollanddose 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose I was agreeing with you till you said "leftist" because it has nothing to do with liberal ideology, but with failed leadership in the state. And trying to pin that all on a lowly state senator speaks to your week political analytic abilities. I also agree with you saying that its the most corrupt democratic state. Why? Because the corrupting facing democrats is largely isolated compared to the entirely corrupt leadership of the whole republican party.
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose --After gaining control of the House of Representatives, Republicans refused to pass any job creation bills at all, even rejecting proposals that they had supported in previous years. Despite Republican attempts to stifle job creation, President Obama has managed to have far greater success at pulling the country out of a recession than the sainted Ronald Reagan did during his first 3 years in office.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW
too bad your head is stuck somewhere nobody can see your face....I will pray for you
nchomespector 1 week ago
@nchomespector lol ohhh I get it...you're talking about my head being stuck in books since I know so much about why Ronald Reagan was a terrible leader and you worry that I need to socialize more. I appreciate you looking out like that. Thanks :)
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW
yes, thank you, your head must have been in the same book all this time and still don't know what is going on, please socialize more and try another book
nchomespector 6 days ago
Comment removed
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nchomespector But really I do read a lot, and the facts on the ground are pretty damning about Reagan's presidency. This is why its so funny when prominent conservative republicans speak about him and how there should be a Reagan litmus test for all conservatives. This is funny because one of the rules will always be a promise to never raise taxes, only that Reagan did indeed raise taxes. Another might be to never negotiate with terrorist, which Reagan did. You can see the problem I am sure.
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
Comment removed
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
I have heard it said that history is interpretation of the facts. If someone changes something that goes against our worldview we normally say that person has "caused damage". On the other hand, If someone makes progress to promote our worldview, we say that person is "revolutionary". I encourage my sons to read both sides of each story to see which best ties to morality and truth. Hopefully I can encourage others here to do the same.
dukestuff 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Shit in, shit out...This is the story of what you read and what you regurgitate.
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
"Obama has managed to pull the country out of recession"...That is Democrat spin. It is absolutely unsubstantiated. The economy is worse since the Democrats took Congress in 2006, and even worse since Obama took the Presidency in 2008...Those are facts. Claiming it would have been worse if Obama didn't increase the debt by 5 trillion dollars, and run a consistent trillion dollar deficit is the epitome of contortion.
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@mulhollanddose lol if you think that 5 trillion is all his fault you must not understand the budgetary process at all.
FreeThinkersFTW 6 days ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
5 trillion IS OBAMA'S (and Democrats) fault. He claimed Bush's raise of the debt ceiling "was a failure of leadership" and "unpatriotic." Clearly that was simply campaigning BS, demonstrated by his spending habits after he had the office of Presidency bought for him...Either he was an idiot before he got elected, or a liar, but either way he packaged himself as the opposite of Bush, and better than Bush, but got in and has been 4x worse than Bush fiscally.
mulhollanddose 6 days ago
@mulhollanddose Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose The reason Obama's attack on Bush for raising the debt ceiling still stands is due to basic macroeconomics. Under the Bush admin and a sympathetic republican congress, he continued to raise debt and deficit spend during an economic expansion. He even introduced massive tax cuts during huge military campaigns rather then raise taxes to pay for it. During expansions, you are supposed to lower debt, raise taxes, increase interest rates, for two main reasons.--
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose --First, so the economy does not overheat and send inflation up, and second, so that you have fiscal and monetary tools available during a recession. For Obama, Bush had doubled the debt to 10 trillion, interest rates were already at zero, and taxes were very low. This primary left two venues open, deficit spend and add more debt, and raise taxes on those who could afford to spend more and were not adding money into the economy anyway.
FreeThinkersFTW 5 days ago
@mulhollanddose IF you wanted to cite some evidence, all you need to do is get some quotes of party leaders from different decades of party leaders, at the very least the Presidential nominees. IF what you were arguing was true, they would have remained the same. Sadly for you, that not what is shown. The Republicans, especially under Lincoln, started out as a nationalist party that wanted what was best for the Union and argued the federal government should have an active role in leading it.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose -While the Democrats around that same time were firmly for States Rights, against federal internal improvements, and were against expansive views of federal powers in the constitution. You should be able to see a clear connection to the Democrats of the past and the Republicans of today.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
I'm not positing that Democrats were as socialist as they are today. Clearly the communist influence in the Democrat party has made a whore of the Democrat party. On that Reagan was absolutely correct...What I am saying is that there was no 180degree shift in the parties. The claim that there was is simply rewritten history intended to conceal the facts...The facts are Republicans in the past are just like they are today, and Democrats are far more socialist.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
What is not in question is the fact that the Democrat party shape-shifted for political expediency and have found their racial agitation platform of today as politically profitable as their slavery advocacy. Both were economic policy decisions, and both were/are fought for by the Democrat party.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
You are lying. Socialist liberals have contributed nothing to humanity except oppression, slavery, servitude, poverty and death...Christianity fought to liberate slavery, and they still do fight to end poverty, slavery and oppression throughout the world...All liberals do is protect and defend oppressors and tyrants.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose liberal Christians played a part in freeing the slaves, but Christianity certainly did not. How about you actually just google what liberalism means and the history of liberalism.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
I see what your malfunction is now. You have a misunderstood definition of the term "liberal." The definition of liberal that you are proposing is different from today's definition. The Founding Fathers were liberal, or more accurately "classical liberal"...It is the very opposite of today's definition of liberal. The original defintion of liberal is what you lefties now call extreme right wing -- small government/maximum freedom.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose you fail to recognize that this is nation founded on Liberal ideology and the two predominant political parties of every year exemplify this. The problem with trying to emulate the size and role of government of the founders is that: one, they were all amateurs in government building: two, they didn't appreciate the hypocrisy of the system they created that espoused freedom yet mandated the federal government to hunt down escaped slaves and return them to their masters
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Quote for me one Founding Father or principle that was "liberal" in the modern definition of the word. Don't confuse the old definition with the perverted modern definition.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose three, that system collapsed into civil war and a newer/clearer federalist system emerged.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
The Civil War was a product of the Republican party. The Democrat party of that day were against abolition of slavery. They later developed the KKK to terrorize black people because they voted Republican. Once that failed they decided the violent approach to intimidating blacks to vote Democrat wouldn't work, so they began buying off black people with welfare. Democrats have controlled every ghetto in America ever since.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose How was the Civil War a product of the Republican party? I agree with the rest of what you said up till the part about welfare. That was a liberal Republican creation. You can't expect to free millions of slaves, most of whom did not speak English nor were trained in skilled labor, and think they could just mold into communities that were just enslaving them. Does all welfare work? nobody says such things, but you can't be dumb enough to think that welfare never works
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Welfare works? Yes, until the minute that you stop it. Then what is being kept artificially suspended falls like a house of cards. Welfare doesn't work.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
FDR introduced the real shift to a welfare state. The Democrats went a step further and made sure the social security fund was easily robbed. Now it is bankrupt.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose ...lol, Slavery is still a biblical institution. Its destruction in America is due to those pesky liberals hellbent of securing freedom and rights for all Americans. Also, Washington didn't even free his slaves before he died, nor Jefferson, nor Adams.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Socialism is a human institution, completely separate from Christianity. Christianity teaches nothing about enslaving people; nothing whatsoever...Liberals had nothing to do with freeing the slaves or fighting for equal rights. That was all Christians, and all absolutely conservative. Freedom and liberty is central to conservativism, not to liberalism. Liberals fought to secure slavery and fought against civil rights legislation..Democrats.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Every institution is a human institution. If you can't handle the truth about whats in the bible that's your problem. You could be one of the few Christians that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the bible and that it has been corrupted over time. The rest of what you wrote it total bs.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)-Jesus
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose Christianity never rejected such beliefs, its still treated as divine text my most people who call themselves Christians. Christians as least in the western world with the help of a secular government forcing them to stop, such as the U.S., have discontinued the practice. I agree about Islam in the non western world who don't have a secular humanist government to compel them to stop.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Your premise is fundamentally false. Christians didn't get help from a secular government. Christians created a system that created freedom of religion. The spirit of that move was to prevent the infiltration of the church by the state. Secularists, or other religions or ideologies, had no part in the development of the system. It was Christians. Their point was not the fear of Christianity, on the contrary, just the opposite.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose ...No fear of Christianity? Before the creation of US, each state was its own theocracy, imposing its specific christian denomination on all who lived their. So yea, most of the founders were Christians, but a few of the key ones were Deist and Atheist. They deliberately created a SECULAR federal government. No part in the system? So Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and other key framers did not support a secular system? lol
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
What secularisits have done is perverted the original intent of the Founders. The result has been precisely what the Founders sought to prevent. Now the state, much like under communism and fascism, has decided to violate the constitution by imposing its will on the church and punishing Christianity in a desire to impose more control over the people...Secularist statists are the problem, just like under King Henry.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose I just showed you a direct quote telling you the founders did not create a christian government. Are you so week that you can't admit you're wrong? Will your entire view of America and your support for it collapse? Only ignorant Christians seek to undermine the founders by Christianizing the government. Its actually unconstitutional to create special consideration to allow religious employers to deny that coverage. If they want to pay higher premiums, I am sure we will look away.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
I can provide you a mountain of quotes of the Founding Fathers that leave no doubt that the Founders were Christian, had a high regard for Christianity, and sought to make a country free for Christians to worship Jesus Christ.
"To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christianity." -- Washington
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose ...lol That didn't refute anything I said. They didn't want to just make it a great place Christians, but all religions, at least on a federal level. Ehhh the core group did not have a high regard for Christianity. All of this is moot because it does not undermine that treaty, which again was one of the three times ever, the US Senate ever unanimously voted to approve something.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkers,
The Founders in no way thought about other religions. They thought only about Christianity and practicing it any way the public wanted without government intervention. They weren't in the least concerned with any other religion. It didn't cross their minds. If you wanted to worship, or not, the choice was the public's, but we would remain a Christian nation founded by Christians and on Christianity..."We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose "We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"-This was drafted by a theocratic continental congress attached to a theocratic government, UK. What was ultimately put in place by the framers was a SECULAR constitution, that did not mention God or Christianity unlike many of the colony constitutions.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
The "separation of church and state" theory is to be nowhere found in the Constitition. It doesn't exist. The 1st Amendment was intended to protect the church FROM the state.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
That is a fraudulent quote you provide ("The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”)
If it wasn't for lies you leftists wouldn't have an argument.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"-and you still can't escape this can you? Did some of the framers believe a god, even the christian god, help or influence the founding of the country? Sure. But, on official record they kept the constitution secular and unanimously declared, on record, that the US was not founded based on Christianity or even to support Christianity.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
"The core group did not have a high regard for Christianity"?...You are full of shit. Typical liberal.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulhollanddose "You are full of shit. Typical liberal."
“A Firehouse is more useful than a church.”
~Benjamin Franklin
“In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
~James Madison
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
""God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever" -- Jefferson
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
@mulhollanddose lol Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
FreeThinkersFTW 1 week ago
@FreeThinkersFTW,
Jefferson was conflicted, but a Christian. Even if he wasn't, he would be of a very small minority of the Founders who were not, and he wasn't selected to speak for his own beliefs but for the will of the predominantly Christian population.
mulhollanddose 1 week ago
Ronald Reagan is the greatest President I've had the pleasure to follow in my short lifetime.
DanielSweetMusician 1 week ago
a main thing liberals cannot understand SADLY is, LOVE, COMMITMENT or FAITH
beyondalohas 1 week ago
RIP Mr. President. May today's so-called leaders embrace your words and lead with integrity.
quickce 1 week ago
"He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
"Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:16-17
How many make this their purpose in life? Let our budgets speak the truth.
davidpmays 1 week ago
Sincerely held belief, beautifully delivered. A great US president! God bless his soul.
TheISACSM 1 week ago
RIP MR President! Wish this country could find another one like you.
Blmchale 2 weeks ago
there is no 4:47
taylord188 2 weeks ago