This tired whinning about Bush lied crap. Saddam had weapons, he used them against Iran and he used them against his own people. "Chemical" Ollie was condemned to death by Iraq recently because of that gas attack on their own people and the Jordanians foiled a planed chemical attack on their country in 2004. The captured al queda guys came out of Iraq and had enought chemicals to kill 20 to 80,000 people. Saddams generals told him that after the inspectors leave they can make more weapons.
Weird how Joy Behar seems convinced of a "dirty trick" played on America by the Bush administration but then when she tries to discuss details about it she cannot recall names or events. She's a useful idiot that forgot her talking points.
The Bush administration lied about WMD's in Iraq, so that was one of the dirty tricks. Rumsfeld and countless others in the administration, said that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Actually NO they did not. Apart from the Al Samoud and No Doung missiles, tonnage of castor beans (primary component for Ricin), missiles with VX and Mustard Gas, and 1.7 tons of enriched uranium, we also captured Gen. Sada head of iraq's air force who personally oversaw the transfer of WMD on Iraqi commercial airliners to Syria. So yes there were WMDs. Read the Kay and Dolfer reports you stooge.
sorry kid but there was no actual yellow cake uranium, enriched uranium, or nuclear weapons of any kind. The chemical weapons that saddam might have had that the US and France sold to them (of which over 95% were destroyed) were never used even when saddam was hiding in a dirt covered mound in the middle of nowhere. If he had any accessible enough to justify us going in, we had absolutely no proof. Our own CIA has said so many times there wasn't any proof. Only people assuming. Bush/Cheny lied.
ummmmmmm...we recovered centrifuges and almost 1.7 tons (that's TONS) of enriched uranium in Iraq...not to mention the Yellowcake Uranium hussein was seeking in Africa. I'd pretty much say that Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons.
Again...we captured tonnage of enriched uranium, centrifuges, and Iraqi intel was engaged in the purchase of Yellowcake Uranium from Niger. The administration said the Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons and they were. Crack a book or two.
crack a book of your own. Bush very explicitly said many times, in selling it to the american people, that saddam HAD(as in possessed) nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld also said those things to the UN to try to gain support. Our own CIA told them that they didn't have the proof, but Bush/Cheney were too set on going into Iraq in the first place.
WMDs were the topic of choice. And Nuclear Weapons are a type of WMD that were referred to several times to the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud".
And yes, Rumsfeld and others stood in front of the media and LIED time and time again.
Look up:
WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP
All clips are taken from media coverage, and does a good job showing just how fucked up that administration was, especially with the lies.
I agree for the most part. I do believe some basic tenets of religion, such as the Ten Commandments, represent a code of ethics which is generally acceptable to all, and we see this made true by their appearance in law, both ancient and modern.
To me, Christianity is more about personal behavior and a way of life and dealing with others than it is about miracles and converting people. It's too bad the evangelical types have so many people turned against people of faith, moderate or not.
The Ten Commandments are mostly NOT in laws. For those that are, they were in laws before religion felt the need to adopt them. The basic decisions not to murder each other or steal each other's stuff isn't exactly something religion invented.
And no, Christianity is VERY much about miracles and converting people. Otherwise you wouldn't have jesus being god, or a reason to even care about heaven or hell.
It's not the evangelicals that have turned peope against faith. It's faith itself.
@Proletariat12 Well see, this is the thing. What I feel or "need to feel" is not really germaine to the argument, however having seen this type of ad hominem attack before it was coming literally hundreds of times, I've tired of it and don't find that it necessarily warrants any mustered defense on my part.
What we have is a difference of opinion, and I'm fine with that, however if people having faith in something is what you take issue with, I'm afraid that's your hang up.
@revelinabandon If you are too afraid to defend your position, that's fine. Even though the bible explains that you must always be prepared to explain your faith. Bu whatever.
Also, it really surprises me how many people have no idea what an ad hominem attack is. Here's a hint, I didn't use that logical fallacy. Or if you think I did, please explain why. But before you do, actually look up the explanation of what an ad hominem is, THEN get back to me after you make a fool of yourself.
"You don't find it to be accurate because you most likely need to feel special following your own version of some religion."
Now that you got pwned, let me explain another thing to you.
When I preface a statement with "To me" it demonstrates the sharing of my personal approach and philosophy. It's what I emphasize in my practice of personal faith. Your observations on Christianity have no bearing on my interpretation and practice.
@revelinabandon insulting you isn't a logical fallacy. And using the word pwn only makes you look even more foolish after you make a statement that is still wrong.
It would take you two seconds to actually look up the definition instead of putting your foot in your mouth time and again.
@Proletariat12 I know quite well what a logical fallacy is, and if you cannot recognize that you made one with that statement, then it's you who needs a review of the definition of ad hominem.
You make a "this because that" proclamation, without the "that" part having any relevance to the "this" part.
Your reading comprehension is soooooo bad. You come off as semi-intelligent, but as soon as we arrive at a need for critical and creative thought I recognize that you're just a regurgitator.
6 of the 10 Commandments bear themes that are reflected in modern law. Whether the origin of the concepts predated Christianity is irrelevant. They are still a cornerstone of the religious philosophy.
There isn't a law for obeying parents. There isn't a law to honor the sabbath. There isn't a law against adultery. There isn't a law against lying.
Only two are actually reflected in our legal system, and those are fundamental needs of a successful society that have existed before any form of organized religion.
@revelinabandon We need to make some clarifications because you don't seem to understand. I understand why you don't, it's because of your bias to defend your faith. That's alright. We can clear this up. You said that the ten commandments were reflected in modern law. So the key words you need to justify are modern, law, and ten commandments.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand. I'm not espousing my faith nor proselytizing here, so making me out as an illogical zealot isn't going to fly here.
You need to go back and read what I wrote again and apply some critical thinking to it.
The Commandments, a cornerstone of the Christian faith, are reflected in law, ancient and modern. It doesn't matter if the law or the faith came first, they share ideas in common and are still very relevant today.
The problem is that you are limiting your view to just America or whatever other countries fit into your perfect mold. Yu ignore ALL other nations in the world that don't have laws that reflect the ten commandments. Saying don't steal or kill isn't really a reflection of the TEN commandments, is it?
Even in the US though, only two (three depending on your interpretation) are actually reflected in law. The others are only reflected in social customs by the 80% christian majority. Not law at all.
Who says I have to make it stick for all the world? That's your stipulation. You continually change the context to suit your needs. The problem is you can't seem to interpret what I write, be it poor reading, willful ignorance, desire to spin, or cognitive frailty.
6 of 10 commandments relate to, bear on, and affect American law or the outcome of legal decision. Religion and law share concepts. If you can't take the other side and figure this out, then I can't help you, for you are a dunce.
"I do believe some basic tenets of religion, such as the Ten Commandments, represent a code of ethics which is generally acceptable to all, and we see this made true by their appearance in law, both ancient and modern."
That's my original statement. You said that MOST of the commandments were absent.
6 of the 10, I contest, are relevant to modern law. They aren't in there verbatim with Moses crackin his staff over your head, but they're in there if you look with an honest eye.
Sorry to hijack a thread, but I just spoke to my attorney. Adultery has no legal relevance on assets and custody.
I think this is one of those myths, like "A cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask." Nope. It FEELS like it should work that way, out of our natural sense of fairness, but it doesn't.
Assets are divided by statute. As for custody, 90+% of the time primary custody goes to the parent who stays with the kids in the original home, typically the mother.
@neestle Thank you, nesstle. It's true there are many myths prevelant that people hold onto for personal reasons, or for simply not thinking critically about them. The cop is a good example, and the ten commandments in modern law, this nation being built on christian principles, all funny myths that people love to hold onto because it makes them feel better.
That's nonsense. The reason people say, and know, this nation was built on Christian principles is because the founders and the populace who shed blood, sweat and tears to erect such a state were Christian.
What is a myth, is the commonly touted battlecry of the left wing that there must be seperation of church and state. While I am fine with secular governance, the design of the statement was to keep govt out of religion, not religion out of govt.
@revelinabandon haha if you actually think our founding fathers were christians, then you need to actually do some research and not accept whatever has been told to you.
Also, it doesn't matter even if they were, which most weren't. What matters is they erected a system of government that EXCLUDED religious law or influence. All religions are able to practice freely, which means the government taking sides in one religion over another is oppressing to others.
Haha yourself, if you, a veritable infant, have drunk the atheist kool aid of selective evidence. At the very best you can only paint some of them, and certainly not most, as Deists, which is to say that believed in a sovereign Creator through whom man's rights are granted.
If you truly believe our nation was not founded on Christian principles, you are hardly fit to call yourself an American, and many like me would prefer you didn't, as you're an insidious blight, rotting the nation's heart.
lol you begin by saying explicitly that our founders were christians, now you back down and admit many were deists (more than you would admit I expect).
Then you go into an assertion based on an insult.
Founded on christian principles? don't make me laugh. It was founded as a secular government and very openly admitted by the founders as not influenced by christianity. You are desperately clinging to that as if it validates your belief. A shame.
Don't pretend to balk at insults buddy, since you leveling them at me is how we got into this conversation.
What's it matter to you if they were Deists or Christians anyway? To you it's all crazy man in the sky talk. Even if they were Deists, they adopted the ethical philosophies of Christianity and dispensed with the miracles, which was more or less my original point.
Read some historical documents.The Mayflower Pact, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The Declaration of Independence.
It's surprising that you so openly make that huge jump from them being deists, to them accepting the ethical philosophies of christianity. Since the government system they created doesn't reflect that.
and since when did I balk at an insult? I only explained that you are basing your assertion ON an insult, rather than...oh I don't know... logic?
You keep trying to make it about me and my beliefs. No matter how much you attempt to discredit me, you cannot win this argument because you are just plain wrong.
Trust me, if the nation wasn't founded by religious people using religious principles, most of which were Christian or some variation thereof, then there wouldn't be a rabid minority going around trying to scrub all traces of it from our money, govt grounds, and schools, like the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
Yes I do make it about your beliefs. Because it is. You believe our government was founded on christianity. That's the point.
And no I won't "trust you" I will base my beliefs on actual facts and evidence. Which you have none of.
Also it's laughable that you try to compare seperation of church and state advocates to the taliban blowing things up. It's obvious where you are getting your ideas from, and it boils down to your religious beliefs.
@d00df00d I mopped the floor with this kid 2 mths ago, but it was a winnable argument. It's fun, but after 100 arguments with 27 yr old sophomore bandwagon antitheists like yourself, I know that neither of us can produce a provable answer. I will engage you briefly enough to return the favor of advice. Firmly believing in your point of view does not make it so. Antitheists mispend their lives in such a hypocritical way, trying to convince others their beliefs are superior. Dogma of the damned ;)
@revelinabandon You couldn't have proved my point more vividly than with that response. You have made up your mind about me and my arguments before we've even started. Kool aid? Sophomoric? Hypocritical? Convinced of superiority? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
@d00df00d You cast the first stone here friend, which was a pretty broad condemnation and typical of your ilk. Antitheists are such victims when it comes to alleged persecution by people of religion, constantly accosted by zealots at every turn, and unable to live a peaceful existence. They never miss a chance to attack and try to break down someone else's belief system and insert their own. That is hypocrisy and dogma. You're unworthy of my attention if you can't grasp and acknowledge that.
@revelinabandon So many words used to say so little on your part. So I'll limit my response to one of your rambling, nonsensical points. "Antitheists mispend their lives in such a hypocritical way, trying to convince others their beliefs are superior." Not once has an atheist ever darkened my doorway in an effort to change my way of thinking as so many so-called Christians have, despite being told I'm uninterested time and time again. If anyone is hypocritical here, it is you.
Seriously if you want to live in a theocracy go live in Saudi Arabia. Don't want to live under Muslim law? Well people don't want to live under Christian law either. And our government protects their right to live without your silly faith.
I guess your reading problems cropped up again where I wrote "While I am fine with secular governance".
Again attacking my belief system, when time and again I've said that I'm not trying to impose my faith on anyone, merely demonstrating that articles of religion are common with those of law.
I love how people say "liberals" as if all liberal people have the same beliefs about everything. For example: i have very left wing beliefs, so you must think I'm pro-government and pro-abortion, right? You'd be wrong on both accounts.
I was just making the point that all liberals don't believe the same thing, and it gets annoying to always hear them being talked about by people like Coulter, Hannnity, etc., like they do.
Ok I watched it through to the end - PERFECT ending - Joy (like most people who insult and whine and cry) is too bored to understand what REALLY happened because it is far too convenient and amusing to call people names & slander people and make up fun stories about deception and lies and "dirty tricks"
If Karl Rove is a "moron" what does that make you? My guess would be a reatard. Seriously the man is a political genius numbnuts. Cheney is a moron too? I'm sure your far more intelligent. LOL
If Ann can be friends with Joy, I'm interested.
Holdenon3 1 year ago
Joy is a traitor!
GilbertHaponski 1 year ago
She tries to piss people off on purpose....HAs no one tried assassinating this woman?
xBloodXGusherx 1 year ago
Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married. You see why?
alertcitizen 1 year ago
This tired whinning about Bush lied crap. Saddam had weapons, he used them against Iran and he used them against his own people. "Chemical" Ollie was condemned to death by Iraq recently because of that gas attack on their own people and the Jordanians foiled a planed chemical attack on their country in 2004. The captured al queda guys came out of Iraq and had enought chemicals to kill 20 to 80,000 people. Saddams generals told him that after the inspectors leave they can make more weapons.
joskemom 1 year ago
Why is this yenta still on tv? The View doesn't give her enough room to be a dumbass?
pwoznic 2 years ago
She's a fucking cunt.
loonmaniac 2 years ago
I really wanted to see the sharp mind of Ann Coulter rip Behar to bits. Musta deemed her too soft a target.
revelinabandon 2 years ago
nice (adams apple) ann
"shes a man baby"
too tall to be gaga.
mrshutupASSHOLE1 2 years ago
Weird how Joy Behar seems convinced of a "dirty trick" played on America by the Bush administration but then when she tries to discuss details about it she cannot recall names or events. She's a useful idiot that forgot her talking points.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
The Bush administration lied about WMD's in Iraq, so that was one of the dirty tricks. Rumsfeld and countless others in the administration, said that there were WMD's in Iraq.
clevebrowns3 2 years ago
Actually NO they did not. Apart from the Al Samoud and No Doung missiles, tonnage of castor beans (primary component for Ricin), missiles with VX and Mustard Gas, and 1.7 tons of enriched uranium, we also captured Gen. Sada head of iraq's air force who personally oversaw the transfer of WMD on Iraqi commercial airliners to Syria. So yes there were WMDs. Read the Kay and Dolfer reports you stooge.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
sorry kid but there was no actual yellow cake uranium, enriched uranium, or nuclear weapons of any kind. The chemical weapons that saddam might have had that the US and France sold to them (of which over 95% were destroyed) were never used even when saddam was hiding in a dirt covered mound in the middle of nowhere. If he had any accessible enough to justify us going in, we had absolutely no proof. Our own CIA has said so many times there wasn't any proof. Only people assuming. Bush/Cheny lied.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
that WHAT? Saddam had NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Nobody ever EVER said that.
It's funny how bad a memory some people have, but that's what the leftist propaganda machine, of which Behar's show is typical, counts on.
raymundogard 2 years ago
ummmmmmm...we recovered centrifuges and almost 1.7 tons (that's TONS) of enriched uranium in Iraq...not to mention the Yellowcake Uranium hussein was seeking in Africa. I'd pretty much say that Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
The administration lied about Hussein having nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld and countless other in the administration, said Hussein had nuclear weapons.
clevebrowns3 2 years ago
Again...we captured tonnage of enriched uranium, centrifuges, and Iraqi intel was engaged in the purchase of Yellowcake Uranium from Niger. The administration said the Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons and they were. Crack a book or two.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
crack a book of your own. Bush very explicitly said many times, in selling it to the american people, that saddam HAD(as in possessed) nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld also said those things to the UN to try to gain support. Our own CIA told them that they didn't have the proof, but Bush/Cheney were too set on going into Iraq in the first place.
It was a war of revenge built on lies.
We simply didn't have the proof.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The administration lied about Hussein having nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld and countless other in the administration, said Hussein had nuclear weapons.
clevebrowns3 2 years ago
Iraq was invaded because they were believed to have WMD's. nuclear weapons are types of wmd's
raidergunz 2 years ago
"Nobody ever EVER said that."
WMDs were the topic of choice. And Nuclear Weapons are a type of WMD that were referred to several times to the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud".
And yes, Rumsfeld and others stood in front of the media and LIED time and time again.
Look up:
WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP
All clips are taken from media coverage, and does a good job showing just how fucked up that administration was, especially with the lies.
LordBLB 2 years ago
Joy Behar has her own show? God help us.
bennyvega100 2 years ago
Liberals don't believe in God. They believe in government. And lots of it.
revelinabandon 2 years ago
I know liberals who believe in God, and I know conservatives who are atheists, so there goes that presumption.
bennyvega100 2 years ago
It was a joke. At least the first part.
revelinabandon 2 years ago
@bennyvega100 same
Chslosers 2 years ago
there should never be any relationship between the 2 .
TheMEGYBEAR 2 years ago
I agree for the most part. I do believe some basic tenets of religion, such as the Ten Commandments, represent a code of ethics which is generally acceptable to all, and we see this made true by their appearance in law, both ancient and modern.
To me, Christianity is more about personal behavior and a way of life and dealing with others than it is about miracles and converting people. It's too bad the evangelical types have so many people turned against people of faith, moderate or not.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
The Ten Commandments are mostly NOT in laws. For those that are, they were in laws before religion felt the need to adopt them. The basic decisions not to murder each other or steal each other's stuff isn't exactly something religion invented.
And no, Christianity is VERY much about miracles and converting people. Otherwise you wouldn't have jesus being god, or a reason to even care about heaven or hell.
It's not the evangelicals that have turned peope against faith. It's faith itself.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
That's your interpretation. I don't find it to be terribly accurate. I have a different view.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon You don't find it to be accurate because you most likely need to feel special following your own version of some religion.
It's funny though that you don't even try to defend your position, you just say you don't agree.
It's like you don't even really have an adequate response.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12 Well see, this is the thing. What I feel or "need to feel" is not really germaine to the argument, however having seen this type of ad hominem attack before it was coming literally hundreds of times, I've tired of it and don't find that it necessarily warrants any mustered defense on my part.
What we have is a difference of opinion, and I'm fine with that, however if people having faith in something is what you take issue with, I'm afraid that's your hang up.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon If you are too afraid to defend your position, that's fine. Even though the bible explains that you must always be prepared to explain your faith. Bu whatever.
Also, it really surprises me how many people have no idea what an ad hominem attack is. Here's a hint, I didn't use that logical fallacy. Or if you think I did, please explain why. But before you do, actually look up the explanation of what an ad hominem is, THEN get back to me after you make a fool of yourself.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
This is a logical fallacy, or ad hominem:
"You don't find it to be accurate because you most likely need to feel special following your own version of some religion."
Now that you got pwned, let me explain another thing to you.
When I preface a statement with "To me" it demonstrates the sharing of my personal approach and philosophy. It's what I emphasize in my practice of personal faith. Your observations on Christianity have no bearing on my interpretation and practice.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon insulting you isn't a logical fallacy. And using the word pwn only makes you look even more foolish after you make a statement that is still wrong.
It would take you two seconds to actually look up the definition instead of putting your foot in your mouth time and again.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12 I know quite well what a logical fallacy is, and if you cannot recognize that you made one with that statement, then it's you who needs a review of the definition of ad hominem.
You make a "this because that" proclamation, without the "that" part having any relevance to the "this" part.
Your reading comprehension is soooooo bad. You come off as semi-intelligent, but as soon as we arrive at a need for critical and creative thought I recognize that you're just a regurgitator.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
6 of the 10 Commandments bear themes that are reflected in modern law. Whether the origin of the concepts predated Christianity is irrelevant. They are still a cornerstone of the religious philosophy.
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Obey parents.
Honor the Sabbath.
Don't commit adultery.
Don't bear false witness.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
There isn't a law for obeying parents. There isn't a law to honor the sabbath. There isn't a law against adultery. There isn't a law against lying.
Only two are actually reflected in our legal system, and those are fundamental needs of a successful society that have existed before any form of organized religion.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
You're failing again.
Parents are the legal wards of their children up to an age determined by the state.
Blue laws are common in many states, limiting gambling, the sale of alchohol, and other vices. Many businesses also close on Sunday.
Ask an attorney in divorce court if adultery has no legal relevance on assets and custody.
You've never heard of perjury?
Reiterating as a favor to you; the origin of these need not be in Christianity for them to be an important part of it.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon We need to make some clarifications because you don't seem to understand. I understand why you don't, it's because of your bias to defend your faith. That's alright. We can clear this up. You said that the ten commandments were reflected in modern law. So the key words you need to justify are modern, law, and ten commandments.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
I think you're the one who doesn't understand. I'm not espousing my faith nor proselytizing here, so making me out as an illogical zealot isn't going to fly here.
You need to go back and read what I wrote again and apply some critical thinking to it.
The Commandments, a cornerstone of the Christian faith, are reflected in law, ancient and modern. It doesn't matter if the law or the faith came first, they share ideas in common and are still very relevant today.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
The problem is that you are limiting your view to just America or whatever other countries fit into your perfect mold. Yu ignore ALL other nations in the world that don't have laws that reflect the ten commandments. Saying don't steal or kill isn't really a reflection of the TEN commandments, is it?
Even in the US though, only two (three depending on your interpretation) are actually reflected in law. The others are only reflected in social customs by the 80% christian majority. Not law at all.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Who says I have to make it stick for all the world? That's your stipulation. You continually change the context to suit your needs. The problem is you can't seem to interpret what I write, be it poor reading, willful ignorance, desire to spin, or cognitive frailty.
6 of 10 commandments relate to, bear on, and affect American law or the outcome of legal decision. Religion and law share concepts. If you can't take the other side and figure this out, then I can't help you, for you are a dunce.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
"I do believe some basic tenets of religion, such as the Ten Commandments, represent a code of ethics which is generally acceptable to all, and we see this made true by their appearance in law, both ancient and modern."
That's my original statement. You said that MOST of the commandments were absent.
6 of the 10, I contest, are relevant to modern law. They aren't in there verbatim with Moses crackin his staff over your head, but they're in there if you look with an honest eye.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
Sorry to hijack a thread, but I just spoke to my attorney. Adultery has no legal relevance on assets and custody.
I think this is one of those myths, like "A cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask." Nope. It FEELS like it should work that way, out of our natural sense of fairness, but it doesn't.
Assets are divided by statute. As for custody, 90+% of the time primary custody goes to the parent who stays with the kids in the original home, typically the mother.
neestle 1 year ago
@neestle Thank you, nesstle. It's true there are many myths prevelant that people hold onto for personal reasons, or for simply not thinking critically about them. The cop is a good example, and the ten commandments in modern law, this nation being built on christian principles, all funny myths that people love to hold onto because it makes them feel better.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
That's nonsense. The reason people say, and know, this nation was built on Christian principles is because the founders and the populace who shed blood, sweat and tears to erect such a state were Christian.
What is a myth, is the commonly touted battlecry of the left wing that there must be seperation of church and state. While I am fine with secular governance, the design of the statement was to keep govt out of religion, not religion out of govt.
It's why we came here to begin with. Idiot!
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon haha if you actually think our founding fathers were christians, then you need to actually do some research and not accept whatever has been told to you.
Also, it doesn't matter even if they were, which most weren't. What matters is they erected a system of government that EXCLUDED religious law or influence. All religions are able to practice freely, which means the government taking sides in one religion over another is oppressing to others.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Haha yourself, if you, a veritable infant, have drunk the atheist kool aid of selective evidence. At the very best you can only paint some of them, and certainly not most, as Deists, which is to say that believed in a sovereign Creator through whom man's rights are granted.
If you truly believe our nation was not founded on Christian principles, you are hardly fit to call yourself an American, and many like me would prefer you didn't, as you're an insidious blight, rotting the nation's heart.
revelinabandon 1 year ago 2
lol you begin by saying explicitly that our founders were christians, now you back down and admit many were deists (more than you would admit I expect).
Then you go into an assertion based on an insult.
Founded on christian principles? don't make me laugh. It was founded as a secular government and very openly admitted by the founders as not influenced by christianity. You are desperately clinging to that as if it validates your belief. A shame.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Don't pretend to balk at insults buddy, since you leveling them at me is how we got into this conversation.
What's it matter to you if they were Deists or Christians anyway? To you it's all crazy man in the sky talk. Even if they were Deists, they adopted the ethical philosophies of Christianity and dispensed with the miracles, which was more or less my original point.
Read some historical documents.The Mayflower Pact, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The Declaration of Independence.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
It's surprising that you so openly make that huge jump from them being deists, to them accepting the ethical philosophies of christianity. Since the government system they created doesn't reflect that.
and since when did I balk at an insult? I only explained that you are basing your assertion ON an insult, rather than...oh I don't know... logic?
Proletariat12 1 year ago
You keep trying to make it about me and my beliefs. No matter how much you attempt to discredit me, you cannot win this argument because you are just plain wrong.
Trust me, if the nation wasn't founded by religious people using religious principles, most of which were Christian or some variation thereof, then there wouldn't be a rabid minority going around trying to scrub all traces of it from our money, govt grounds, and schools, like the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
Yes I do make it about your beliefs. Because it is. You believe our government was founded on christianity. That's the point.
And no I won't "trust you" I will base my beliefs on actual facts and evidence. Which you have none of.
Also it's laughable that you try to compare seperation of church and state advocates to the taliban blowing things up. It's obvious where you are getting your ideas from, and it boils down to your religious beliefs.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
You also apparently need to read up on what a deist is... It's not christian. You seem to be having troubles about that.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
you keep jumping back and forth flip flopping lke a trout between topics. Was your brain addled by drugs in your earlier life or something?
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@revelinabandon Quick piece of advice: "kool aid" is a pretty weak accusation coming from a religious person. ;)
d00df00d 1 year ago
@d00df00d I mopped the floor with this kid 2 mths ago, but it was a winnable argument. It's fun, but after 100 arguments with 27 yr old sophomore bandwagon antitheists like yourself, I know that neither of us can produce a provable answer. I will engage you briefly enough to return the favor of advice. Firmly believing in your point of view does not make it so. Antitheists mispend their lives in such a hypocritical way, trying to convince others their beliefs are superior. Dogma of the damned ;)
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon You couldn't have proved my point more vividly than with that response. You have made up your mind about me and my arguments before we've even started. Kool aid? Sophomoric? Hypocritical? Convinced of superiority? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
d00df00d 1 year ago
@d00df00d You cast the first stone here friend, which was a pretty broad condemnation and typical of your ilk. Antitheists are such victims when it comes to alleged persecution by people of religion, constantly accosted by zealots at every turn, and unable to live a peaceful existence. They never miss a chance to attack and try to break down someone else's belief system and insert their own. That is hypocrisy and dogma. You're unworthy of my attention if you can't grasp and acknowledge that.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
@revelinabandon So many words used to say so little on your part. So I'll limit my response to one of your rambling, nonsensical points. "Antitheists mispend their lives in such a hypocritical way, trying to convince others their beliefs are superior." Not once has an atheist ever darkened my doorway in an effort to change my way of thinking as so many so-called Christians have, despite being told I'm uninterested time and time again. If anyone is hypocritical here, it is you.
brunettesmurfette72 1 year ago
@revelinabandon
Seriously if you want to live in a theocracy go live in Saudi Arabia. Don't want to live under Muslim law? Well people don't want to live under Christian law either. And our government protects their right to live without your silly faith.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
I guess your reading problems cropped up again where I wrote "While I am fine with secular governance".
Again attacking my belief system, when time and again I've said that I'm not trying to impose my faith on anyone, merely demonstrating that articles of religion are common with those of law.
Brother are you dense...
revelinabandon 1 year ago
Your understanding of our history and law is as vapid as your belief system. It's so surprising that you actually continue to speak.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Coming from someone just entering their sophomore season of life, I'll take that as a true compliment. Thank you! =D
revelinabandon 1 year ago
I love how people say "liberals" as if all liberal people have the same beliefs about everything. For example: i have very left wing beliefs, so you must think I'm pro-government and pro-abortion, right? You'd be wrong on both accounts.
ElectricMayhem87 1 year ago
Well I'm the same way. I would never toe a party line. I'm more of a line item veto kind of guy.
It's funny though that you refute assumptions about yourself, by making assumptions of your own.
revelinabandon 1 year ago
I was just making the point that all liberals don't believe the same thing, and it gets annoying to always hear them being talked about by people like Coulter, Hannnity, etc., like they do.
ElectricMayhem87 1 year ago
I failed grammar btw. ***Retard, You're***
emmteez1 2 years ago
Ok I watched it through to the end - PERFECT ending - Joy (like most people who insult and whine and cry) is too bored to understand what REALLY happened because it is far too convenient and amusing to call people names & slander people and make up fun stories about deception and lies and "dirty tricks"
morganie25 2 years ago
I'd like to play a game with these comments - let's see if we can count how many of them do not contain ad hominem (illogical) attacks?
morganie25 2 years ago
ad hominem is not a pseudonym for illogical you moron.
And no, that was not an ad hominem. It was only an insult following the response.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Karl Rove sleeps with Cheney, both liars and morons with issues.
onenewshoe 2 years ago
If Karl Rove is a "moron" what does that make you? My guess would be a reatard. Seriously the man is a political genius numbnuts. Cheney is a moron too? I'm sure your far more intelligent. LOL
emmteez1 2 years ago