Challenge for Democrats

[JUGGERNAUT]

I do not like the direction the wheels are turning under GOP leadership of America.

And I blame the Democrats.

 

Apparently homeland security is not as much about protecting American's from the threat of explosive terrorists as it is about protecting America from the "so-called" evils of society. When I hear O'Reilly suggest that a child molester should get no less than 25 yrs for a first offense I shake my head. Yes I am religious & yes I feel such an act is heinous & evil but I am not nieve like O'Reily to suggest that every offense is a legitimate one & that such a subjectively driven concept is wrought with potential for abuse.

 

Why do I keep reading about homeland security being considered with porn, kiddy-porn, drugs, video games, night clubs, strip joints, internet porn sites, raising taxes through "security fees", & basically other "so-called" social ills in America? Why am I not reading about their efforts in tracking & prevention of explosive terrorist acts both abroad & overseas?

 

Do you see where this is leading? Why do I keep thinking "witch hunt" when I read about how homeland security & the FBI are doing their best to thwart media piracy & porn? What does that have to do with combating religiously minded explosive terrorists that feel binge drinking is a mortal sin?

 

How many criminal cases in America would be iron-clad? Meaning the evidence was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable shadow of doubt? Very few. Yet here is O'Reilly advocating that a first offense child molester should receive no less than 25 yrs. What's next? Will O'Reilly's version of homeland security start arresting Americans & locking them up for no less than 10 yrs simply because they have pornographic images of people that look underage?

 

So who do I blame? Democrats.

They spent more time, effort, & resources defending atheism in this country than they have jobs or liberty. The two party system worked in America because the Republicans were devoted to the rich & wealthy & the Democrats were devoted to the unions & the common man. That's the tradition behind the two parties.

 

Yet in the midst of civil rights in defense of blacks during the Korean & Vietnam wars

that tradition has been replaced with Democrats being devoted to furthering the cause of atheism & Republicans devoted to furthering the cause of Biblically inspired faiths.

 

While this battle has waged now for more than 50 yrs the Democrats have evolved to were they too are now devoted to the rich & wealthy. There is no party with any hope of gaining strength that supports the unions & common man any more.

 

My challenge to Democrats is to abandon your crusade of atheism, stand as a voice of liberty while embracing God, & get turn your devotion back to the unions & the common man. No one thinks of atheism as being progressive any more. Even the Chinese are embracing religion so long as they can control. Spiritually/religious driven people in the world are rising in numbers. They make up the bulk of new immigrants in America. Atheism is a dying cause. Stop calling people stupid or insinuating people are dumb because they are loyal to a faith you have no capacity to understand. Not just in it's dogma but also in terms of what it means to their everyday lifes. Dump atheism & embrace liberty.

 

Liberty means the government shouldn't give a rat's ass about what serves as entertainment for the average American. Period. The government has an obligation of defining what is considered as unreasonable & punishable by law in as narrow a vision as possible so as to not curtail liberty.

 

There is nothing to be gained by clinging to atheism accept more lost seats in the House & growing weaker in the Senate. If you were to start vocally supporting school vouchers & school prayer initiatives do you really think atheists would start voting republican? So you are essentially pissing off 10's of millions of voters to appease a few million that are going to vote for you anyways. Stupid.

 

If Americans could start thinking of Democrats a party that likes God & religion again then maybe the important ideals like unions, worker benefits, subsidies, regulation, re-vamping anti-trust laws, & the multitude of other economic problems facing our nation could be debated again. Maybe the Democrats would forgo their ties to the rich & wealthy to once again support the economic viability of unions & the common man.

 

It's just a thought.

[Rex Kickass]

John Kerry never missed a mass during his campaign for President.

Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, is a practicing Christian.

Joe Lieberman is a practicing conservative Jew.

There are lots of examples of people of faith working deep within the party's leadership.

 

But that isn't the point. Coming out against a particular religion wanting to grab more than they are entitled to is not promoting atheism. Speaking out on behalf of people who are forced to accept religious teachings in their every day life that aren't their own is not promoting atheism.

 

That is simply protecting freedom.

 

And frankly, I don't understand how democrats pander to the rich when they run millionaires who basically say - I think tax cuts for my class is wrong - because frankly, I don't feel that my economic class sacrifices enough to make this country great. I don't understand how trying to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage for the first time in ten years is pandering to the rich. I don't understand how that's pandering to the rich. Maybe you could explain it to me.

 

Are there Democrats in office who have been bought off by the rich? Absolutely. Take for example Senator Biden of the Great State of Bank Of America who helped put through a bankruptcy law that will hurt those people who can't seem to ever catch up on emergency bills - while giving a pass to credit card companies who charge insane rates of interest after offering credit to people who couldn't afford it in the first place.

 

Sadly, there are Democrats who don't understand that you can have faith and not be a wackjob. Just as there are Republicans who don't understand that you don't have to be Christian to have faith. Or you don't have to be zealous about your faith and still have it.

 

There are too many people in this world who don't understand that there is a middle ground between black and white on most issues. Most of them that are in government use that knowledge to maintain a grip on power that enrichens them and few others.

 

And others blame the Democrats. Or Republicans.

[Cerbaho-WG]

This....can't really put into words how f***ing moronic this thread is. I need a few drinks.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Cerbaho-WG

[JUGGERNAUT]

This....can't really put into words how f***ing moronic this thread is. I need a few drinks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would delete this utterly useless, non-intelligent, & utter-wise stupid beyond belief post if I could. But SOXTALK doesn't give thread authors editorial control.

 

 

quote: winodj

You're kind of thinking is what has marginalized the Democratic party which is the whole point of my thread. I emphatically disagree with your views on religion & the role government should play in it. But that is not the point either. The point is the strategy doesn't work & it's never going to work.

 

And only in your warped mind does a form of censorhip equal protecting freedom.

 

As for the pandering to the rich what have Democrats said about the mega mergers of the past 20 yrs which include two terms under Clinton & terms in which the Dems were in control that has led to the displacement of millions of America jobs? What have the Democrats said about a retailer who made it's way in the retail sector by emphasizing "made in America" but now can barely find shelf space for such products? What have the Democrats said about tax policies that allow for American companies to setup show overseas & then "exchange" workers & job descriptions to undercut wages in America? What's the point of arguing that the minimum wage needs to be increased when you're not willing to lift a finger to protect American jobs?

 

Tax cuts for the rich? What a crock of crap! In the time that Bush's so called tax cut has been in place just look at the rise of other taxes & fee hikes. One has just been offset by the others.

 

And the Democrats are to be blamed because these were the core principles of the party until wackjobs took it over. See the quote above. Dumber than a box of rocks.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I do not like the direction the wheels are turning under GOP leadership of America.

And I blame the Democrats.

 

Apparently homeland security is not as much about protecting American's from the threat of explosive terrorists as it is about protecting America from the "so-called" evils of society.  When I hear O'Reilly suggest that a child molester should get no less than 25 yrs for a first offense I shake my head. Yes I am religious & yes I feel such an act is heinous & evil but I am not nieve like O'Reily to suggest that every offense is a legitimate one & that such a subjectively driven concept is wrought with potential for abuse. 

 

Why do I keep reading about homeland security being considered with porn, kiddy-porn, drugs, video games, night clubs, strip joints, internet porn sites, raising taxes through "security fees", & basically other "so-called" social ills in America?  Why am I not reading about their efforts in tracking & prevention of explosive terrorist acts both abroad & overseas?

 

Do you see where this is leading?  Why do I keep thinking "witch hunt" when I read about how homeland security & the FBI are doing their best to thwart media piracy & porn?  What does that have to do with combating religiously minded explosive terrorists that feel binge drinking is a mortal sin? 

 

How many criminal cases in America would be iron-clad?  Meaning the evidence was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable shadow of doubt?  Very few.  Yet here is O'Reilly advocating that a first offense child molester should receive no less than 25 yrs. What's next?  Will O'Reilly's version of homeland security start arresting Americans & locking them up for no less than 10 yrs simply because they have pornographic images of people that look underage?

 

So who do I blame?  Democrats.

They spent more time, effort, & resources defending atheism in this country than they have jobs or liberty. The two party system worked in America because the Republicans were devoted to the rich & wealthy & the Democrats were devoted to the unions & the common man.  That's the tradition behind the two parties.

 

Yet in the midst of civil rights in defense of blacks during the Korean & Vietnam wars

that tradition has been replaced with Democrats being devoted to furthering the cause of atheism & Republicans devoted to furthering the cause of Biblically inspired faiths.

 

While this battle has waged now for more than 50 yrs the Democrats have evolved to were they too are now devoted to the rich & wealthy.  There is no party with any hope of gaining strength that supports the unions & common man any more.

 

My challenge to Democrats is to abandon your crusade of atheism, stand as a voice of liberty while embracing God, & get turn your devotion back to the unions & the common man.  No one thinks of atheism as being progressive any more.  Even the Chinese are embracing religion so long as they can control.  Spiritually/religious driven people in the world are rising in numbers.  They make up the bulk of new immigrants in America.  Atheism is a dying cause.  Stop calling people stupid or insinuating people are dumb because they are loyal to a faith you have no capacity to understand.  Not just in it's dogma but also in terms of what it means to their everyday lifes.  Dump atheism & embrace liberty.

 

Liberty means the government shouldn't give a rat's ass about what serves as entertainment for the average American. Period.  The government has an obligation of defining what is considered as unreasonable & punishable by law in as narrow a vision as possible so as to not curtail liberty. 

 

There is nothing to be gained by clinging to atheism accept more lost seats in the House & growing weaker in the Senate. If you were to start vocally supporting school vouchers & school prayer initiatives do you really think atheists would start voting republican?  So you are essentially pissing off 10's of millions of voters to appease a few million that are going to vote for you anyways.  Stupid.

 

If Americans could start thinking of Democrats a party that likes God & religion again then maybe the important ideals like unions, worker benefits, subsidies, regulation, re-vamping anti-trust laws, & the multitude of other economic problems facing our nation could be debated again.  Maybe the Democrats would forgo their ties to the rich & wealthy to once again support the economic viability of unions & the common man.

 

It's just a thought.

 

Only in your stat controlled, acronym developing mind would the problems of Congress be blamed on just one party.

 

And I haven't seen s*** as to the Democrats promoting atheism. But it would be factual since the Founders were not Christian. Take the Treaty of Tripoli stating that the United States is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion -- written under the Washington administration and approved by the Senate under John Adams. t was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

 

Some Democrats like religion but do not feel like there needs to be a merger of such as the current administrations have been doing. You're nothing more than a partisan hack -- if you don't like the way the GOP is going, here's a novel f***ing idea. Blame the GOP.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Only in your stat controlled, acronym developing mind would the problems of Congress be blamed on just one party.

 

And I haven't seen s*** as to the Democrats promoting atheism.  But it would be factual since the Founders were not Christian.  Take the Treaty of Tripoli stating that the United States is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion -- written under the Washington administration and approved by the Senate under John Adams.  t was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

 

Some Democrats like religion but do not feel like there needs to be a merger of such as the current administrations have been doing.  You're nothing more than a partisan hack -- if you don't like the way the GOP is going, here's a novel f***ing idea.  Blame the GOP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This post is extremely dense. Do you have any idea what this thread is about?

Obviously not. I can sit here & debate you endlessly with fact after fact suggesting the founders did understand the importance of religious freedom in this nation but that would be ignorant of the point of the thread.

 

This thread is NOT about your narrow-minded ideological view. It's about what is & what is NOT a losing cause for a major political party & the impact that cause has had to undermine the important traditional beliefs of that party. That is why they are to blame.

 

The point of the thread is that the more the Democrats marginalize their party around this single losing cause the weaker their voice becomes on all causes. That's why they are to blame. The Republicans are steadfast in support of their traditional free-market profit based viewpoints. You would expect them to pounce on the Democrats by exploiting their losing cause. you don't blame a party that is simply living up to expectations.

Edited July 24, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[CrimsonWeltall]

I don't understand your post, Juggernaut.

 

You're complaining about the government involving itself with bulls*** like videogames, porn, and regulation of 'social ills'.

 

Your solution is for the Democrats to change. Instead of supporting the growing numbers of secular/nonreligious people in the US who tend to be socially libertarian, they should match the Republicans and cater to the fundamentalist religious people in the US who are usually the ones who want regulation on social issues.

 

They spent more time, effort, & resources defending atheism in this country than they have jobs or liberty.

 

Uh...when? A large group of Americans say they won't even vote for an atheist, regardless of how qualified he/she may be. Democratic politicians are still overwhelmingly Christian, just maybe not as hardcore as Republican ones.

 

Democrats can't "dump" atheism because they never supported it in the first place. It sound more like you want them to dump liberal Christianity, which is supportive of Church-State Separation and not interested in legislating Christianity, and adopt fundamentalist Christianity.

 

If Americans could start thinking of Democrats a party that likes God & religion again then maybe the important ideals like unions, worker benefits, subsidies, regulation, re-vamping anti-trust laws, & the multitude of other economic problems facing our nation could be debated again.  Maybe the Democrats would forgo their ties to the rich & wealthy to once again support the economic viability of unions & the common man.

 

OK, so you want Democrats to be more religious solely to gain back power. At that point, they can have more influence over economic issues on which you don't agree with Republicans.

 

...but then don't we have 2 socially conservative parties legislating morality like you complained about in the first paragraphs?

[JUGGERNAUT]

OK, so you want Democrats to be more religious solely to gain back power.  At that point, they can have more influence over economic issues on which you don't agree with Republicans.

 

...but then don't we have 2 socially conservative parties legislating morality like you complained about in the first paragraphs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. There is a BIG difference. The religious zealots in the GOP don't give a crap about liberty or freedom. They have an ideological sense of good & evil (sin) & they seek to legislate that into law playing on the fears & anxieties of average Americans.

 

The Democrats can be more religious so as to EXPAND liberty & freedom. School vouchers & prayer initiatives are SAFE issues that can start to pare away the religious voters from the GOP. They can likewise link that liberty & freedom to what some in the GOP would call evil media & entertainment. Thus you appease both groups. With more support they might then be heard when they talk about how global trade practices hurt America. Which in my opinion is the MOST important issue facing America today.

Edited July 24, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[KipWellsFan]

My challenge to Democrats is to abandon your crusade of atheism

 

 

So you think Democrats aren't winning because they aren't religious enough? But they should pretend to be more religious as to get more of the religious vote. Then they could use their power to end the Orwellian acts of the Republicans? So basically the 2 parties would become even more similar and Americans would have an even less democratic vote? The only thing this is going to do is give more power to the small parties because America doesn't want 2 religion obsessed parties.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No.  There is a BIG difference.  The religious zealots in the GOP don't give a crap about liberty or freedom.  They have an ideological sense of good & evil (sin) & they seek to legislate that into law playing on the fears & anxieties of average Americans. 

 

The Democrats can be more religious so as to EXPAND liberty & freedom. School vouchers & prayer initiatives are SAFE issues that can start to pare away the religious voters from the GOP.  They can likewise link that liberty & freedom to what some in the GOP would call evil media & entertainment.  Thus you appease both groups.  With more support they might then be heard when they talk about how global trade practices hurt America. Which in my opinion is the MOST important issue facing America today.

 

I'm sick of hearing about religous zealots in the GOP. That is a product of the leftist media trying to portray our party as a bunch of bible-thumping crackpots and it's just not true. I will grant you that the GOP does have a fairly strong religous wing and yes they do have a lot of influence but not everybody subscribes to that.

 

Using myself as an example, I'm as hard core a Republican as they come but I haven't seen the inside of a church in forever and Id rather preach personal responsibility than someone's pre-concieved notion of morality.

 

 

On to this post........Your "safe" issues as you described them are not at all safe for Democrats.

 

They can't embrace school vouchers because the (teachers) unions that you want them to turn back to ( which is a huge source of money for them ) would rip them to shreds.

 

They can't support prayer initiatives because the ACLUites who control their every move would balk and that would be that.

 

The Democrats are probably going to have to get used to being the minority party because they can't go anymore to the left without alienating crucial swing voters and can't go more to the right without alienating their base.

 

2ND Edit. I need to talk about the trade part you mentioned as well. I have seen the Democrats answer to the trade imbalance and you know what it is? Protectionism. Senator Schumer's answer to the trade decifit was a bill laden with protectionist initiatives which got him labeled as Senator "Smoot" Schumer on CNBC. I laughed. The Democrats solution would start a global trade war and if you think the economy is being hurt by global trade practices now just wait till you see the damage done by protectionism. That's why nobody listens to them. Their policies come straight from their union puppetmasters who know more about street fighting than economics.

Edited July 25, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[JUGGERNAUT]

I disagree. School vouchers are winning wide spread support across the nation. Every poll & media survey suggests Americans are in favor of the idea. The fact that Daley (a Dem mayor) is one of the more outspoken supporters of extending it to parochial schools means it's already an issue local democrats are linking into.

 

The teachers unions are facing much greater pressure from private education companies than vouchers. Vouchers would likely keep the kids in school rather than continue the growth of home schooling. Did you know you can educate your kids K-12 now with Stanford University? It's true.

 

As for school prayer inititiative I agree bucking up against the ACLU is not without peril for Democrats but this doesn't have to come right away. It would be better for Dems to support the vouchers for several years so that some test results can be compared. That would give them a solid argument on whether spi helps or hinders the process. Assuming it helps that would weaken the strength of the ACLU on the issue.

 

Today it was just announced that the Teamsters & services workers unions are breaking away from the AFL-CIO. That's a clear sign they are fed up with status-quo. This might be a wakeup call to the Dems they better start listening.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I disagree.  School vouchers are winning wide spread support across the nation.  Every poll & media survey suggests Americans are in favor of the idea.  The fact that Daley (a Dem mayor) is one of the more outspoken supporters of extending it to parochial schools means it's already an issue local democrats are linking into.

 

The teachers unions are facing much greater pressure from private education companies than vouchers.  Vouchers would likely keep the kids in school rather than continue the growth of home schooling.  Did you know you can educate your kids K-12 now with Stanford University?  It's true.

 

As for school prayer inititiative I agree bucking up against the ACLU is not without peril for Democrats but this doesn't have to come right away.  It would be better for Dems to support the vouchers for several years so that some test results can be compared.  That would give them a solid argument on whether spi helps or hinders the process.  Assuming it helps that would weaken the strength of the ACLU on the issue.

 

Today it was just announced that the Teamsters & services workers unions are breaking away from the AFL-CIO.  That's a clear sign they are fed up with status-quo.  This might be a wakeup call to the Dems they better start listening.

 

 

Unions in America are in shambles. Their membership is hemmoraging, their money is drying up and nobody listens to them anymore ( think of all the millions they spent to unseat Bush ). The final nail in their coffin is coming in the form of a law that would force Unions to seek the consent of their members before spending money on political activism. That would serve to silence them once and for all politically because nobody wants their union dues going to support politicians.

 

As for school vouchers I agree that they are gaining political support but Democrats and their puppetmasters in "Big Education" as I call it ( teachers unions ) will never EVER support it.

[Rex Kickass]

And the Democrats are to be blamed because these were the core principles of the party until wackjobs took it over.  See the quote above.  Dumber than a box of rocks.

 

Sorry, I was trying to get this discussion beyond a point of partisan hackery. I understand that you'd just rather blame the Democrats.

 

My point is that there are men of action and men of character and good moral standing within both parties. And there are asshats in both parties. One party does not hold a monopoly on either.

 

But you obviously can't see that because all you see is the need to blame someone. You parrot the talking points of the same people you claim to despise. It's all someone's fault. Why not blame the other political party?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Well I think the solution to the global trade practice problem is to start the reforms at home. There are many reforms that can be done domestically that have nothing to do with tariffs or other protectionist measures.

 

If such reforms were to catch on in other economies the world would be better for it.

[Nokona]

No.

 

I like hating God.

 

/conversation.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Nuke if you are right and unions are being marginalized that badly then our last hope is dying out. If you want to refer to them as a necc evil that's your choice. But we would not have the benefits we've had in this country without their blood, sweat & tears.

 

Already we see the shift of benefits occuring en-masse. Private pensions are coming to an end. Being replaced by 401K's with little to no company contributions. Will these so called medical savings accounts evolve the same way?

 

Yet the media is driven by the social divide between the two parties & that's what the average American hears the most. Who is to blame for that? Republicans? America is hearing the message they want them to hear. Can you say the same about Democrats?

[Wong & Owens]

When I hear O'Reilly suggest that a child molester should get no less than 25 yrs for a first offense I shake my head.

 

Your entire post makes want to erupt and proclaim my desire to have you run over by a steam engine, but I'll try a more civilized approach.

 

How many criminal cases in America would be iron-clad? Meaning the evidence was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable shadow of doubt? Very few. Yet here is O'Reilly advocating that a first offense child molester should receive no less than 25 yrs. What's next? Will O'Reilly's version of homeland security start arresting Americans & locking them up for no less than 10 yrs simply because they have pornographic images of people that look underage?

 

In short, the answer is yes. O'Reilly, like other repressed morons throughout history, think all the world's problems are caused by over-sexed people(no, this is not in any way a supportive statement for sex with minors). He, like EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN HISTORY THAT'S EVER HELD THE SAME VIEW, in time will be deemed a laughable cartoon character.

 

So who do I blame? Democrats.

They spent more time, effort, & resources defending atheism in this country than they have jobs or liberty.

 

Good, because when atheism becomes the norm and not the exception, there won't be as many threats to liberty in the first place--and that's a fact.

 

The two party system worked in America because the Republicans were devoted to the rich & wealthy & the Democrats were devoted to the unions & the common man. That's the tradition behind the two parties.

 

Here's a typical juggernaut falsehood, positioned as some kind of fact. The FACT is, that in early American history, Republicans were the common man party, and the Democrats were the choice of the rich. Here's an excerpt from a Republican Party website:

 

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin.

 

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

 

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

 

During the Civil War, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

 

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

 

Yeah, because anti-slavery was the choice of the wealthy at the time, right Juggs?

 

 

While this battle has waged now for more than 50 yrs the Democrats have evolved to were they too are now devoted to the rich & wealthy.

 

Thank you, Master of the Obvious. Are you just figuring it out now that ALL politicians are in it for themselves and a select few others, and only toss enough bones to the people to keep themselves in office? And it hasn't been only in the last 50 years, it's been that way since the beginning of time, with of course the occasional exception.

 

 

My challenge to Democrats is to abandon your crusade of atheism, stand as a voice of liberty while embracing God, & get turn your devotion back to the unions & the common man.

 

How bout the Republicans ditch the god crap, and focus on doing something, anything to help ANYONE apart from oil barons, communication company magnates and other assorted billionaires?

 

No one thinks of atheism as being progressive any more.

 

Just shut up. Seriously.

 

Even the Chinese are embracing religion so long as they can control.

 

Well, that's certainly a glowing endorsement for religion, isn't it?

 

Spiritually/religious driven people in the world are rising in numbers.

 

No they're not, you jackass. Stop spewing this agending-pushing trash and post some real facts. Atheism is growing faster, worldwide, than any religion. Have you been to a church in Europe lately, you idiot? Immigrants coming into AMERICA are largely hispanic, which means they are coming from countries that were already heavily religious to begin with. Moving "believers" from one country to another does not mean religious driven people are rising in numbers. In fact, the FACTS state that the opposite is true, so again, I implore you, shut up.: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

 

They make up the bulk of new immigrants in America. Atheism is a dying cause.

 

Another blatant lie, http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_478.html

 

Stop calling people stupid or insinuating people are dumb because they are loyal to a faith you have no capacity to understand.

 

I have every capacity to understand it, you pompous ass, and anytime you want to get together and debate the topic, I'll drill you into the ground. As Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does." So, as I certainly don't consider all relgious people stupid, I do consider ones that label opinion as fact and ones that misrepresent facts to be quite stupid.

 

 

Dump atheism & embrace liberty.

 

No Gods, No Masters. Can't think of a more liberating statement than that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Good, because when atheism becomes the norm and not the exception, there won't be as many threats to liberty in the first place--and that's a fact.

 

Has to be one of the absolute dumbest & ignorant thinks a SOXTALK poster has ever written. You should stop there. Your ignorance challenges a rock. Seriously.

 

For those who have more intelligence than that consider today's news:

Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is expected to introduce the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005 this week. This ACT will add a sin tax on all adult site transactions.

 

So much for keeping the WWW tax-free. A Democrat never met a tax s/he didn't like.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I'm sorry but I have to respond to that propaganda bulls*** he quoted on the birth of the Republican party.

 

Do you honestly believe the Republican party was built on the backs of the abolitionists? I suppose you think the civil war was fought over slavery. I guess you're the product of public education Like a mindless drone you accept the crap they feed you as gospel truth. Thank God the spiritual revival around the world will marginalize wack jobs like yourself. When atheism is the norm? Man are you stupid!

 

Do yourself a favor & take a walk to the library & check out some books on the subject of economics in the civil war. Like all wars the people who controlled the power fought it over economics. Not slavery. That was simply a cause to gain support amongst the masses. That strategy has existed throughout the history of mankind.

 

The civil war was powered by the northern industrialists wanting to expand

into the south at the expense of the plantation owners. Go learn about it.

They didn't give a rat's arse about slavery except for what it meant economically to the south.

Edited July 25, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Soxy]

I guess your the product of public education

People in glass houses. . .

 

EDIT: This post is not meant to rip on Public schools. I have went to a Public school and turned out well-educated (imho), thank you very much.

Edited July 25, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[JUGGERNAUT]

People in glass houses. . .

 

EDIT: This post is not meant to rip on Public schools.  I have went to a Public school and turned out well-educated (imho), thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have went ... I expect you will proof-read & edit what you wrote the same as I have. On a message board mistakes are bound to happen. We don't get paid for these posts so you shouldn't expect people to have time to proof re-read them.

 

I attended a public school .............. would be more appropriate

[Soxy]

I have went ... I expect you will proof-read & edit what you wrote the same as I have.  On a message board mistakes are bound to happen.  We don't get paid for these posts so you shouldn't expect people to have time to proof re-read them. 

 

I attended a public school        ..............  would be more appropriate

But when you're talking about how ignorant and stupid someone is--I would say that making your argument correctly grammatically correct will add credence to your claim and not reveal your own ignorance.

[CanOfCorn]

Juggs...c'mon buddy. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. If you look at that, there is belief. The absence of belief is a belief.

 

I believe the founding fathers wanted a separation of Church and State...not a holy jihad against non-Christian believers.

 

I'm not going to get into the whole Dems vs. GOPs with you because you are obviously well read on the subject, but I will tell you this...until we get a Representative that puts his work ahead of his job, we aren't going to get much done in this country.

 

Again, I say we should bring back "Profiles in Courage" from the Kennedy administration. About representatives and others who would stand up to their party if it meant harm to their constituents.

 

It's people like you and Nuke that make it difficult for the rest of us to accept politics in this country...left wing media? C'mon...that nut has been cracked...you can't tell me that there aren't as many right wing based media outlets as there are left wing. Taxes? Both parties are guilty of this. Trade deficits...see taxes. Sorry, but you can't put an overarching statement about either party without looking completely ignorant. As someone else recently said...there are good people in both parties and their are asshats in both parties.

[CanOfCorn]

I have went ... I expect you will proof-read & edit what you wrote the same as I have.  On a message board mistakes are bound to happen.  We don't get paid for these posts so you shouldn't expect people to have time to proof re-read them. 

 

I attended a public school        ..............  would be more appropriate

 

Where you go to school doesn't matter. As I've gotten older, I've realized that the true point of going to school is to learn how to learn. You can do that at any school if you put some energy into it. From CVS to New Trier to Exeter...there are just as many John Benders as there are Brian Johnsons.

[Wong & Owens]

Do you honestly believe the Republican party was built on the backs of the abolitionists?

 

Well, I got that info from a REPUBLICAN PARTY website. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you numbskulls can't even agree on your own foundations

 

I guess you're the product of public education

 

Actually, over 15 years of catholic schooling, i should have been so lucky to not have had to suffer through that baseless trash.

 

Like a mindless drone you accept the crap they feed you as gospel truth.

 

This coming from someone who draws truth from a 2000 year old compliation of fairy tales. Laughable.

 

Thank God the spiritual revival around the world will marginalize wack jobs like yourself. When atheism is the norm? Man are you stupid!

 

Do yourself a favor & take a walk to the library & check out some books on the subject of economics in the civil war. Like all wars the people who controlled the power fought it over economics. Not slavery. That was simply a cause to gain support amongst the masses. That strategy has existed throughout the history of mankind.

 

Not interested, it's irrelevant to the incorrect claims of fact you made in your ridiculous original post.

 

The civil war was powered by the northern industrialists wanting to expand

into the south at the expense of the plantation owners. Go learn about it.

They didn't give a rat's arse about slavery except for what it meant economically to the south.

 

Again, don't care, still however waiting for a response to your moronic claims that atheism is dead and that religion is somehow sweeping the galaxy. Where's your backup for that?