RE: Nominee debate

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Nominee debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Nominee debate

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:00:06 AM

bipolarber

Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline

Your turn. What do you agree with McCain on?

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:02:15 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: nejisty

Did anyone else have a problem with a Presidential nominee debate going on in a Christian church hosted by a Pastor in front of a congregation?? Just curious. nejisty

Yes. It was inappropriate.

I disagree with my fridend Thadius about people trying to make the country more secular--quite the reverse is the case, and has been for a few decades. Diversity is, indeed, great---but this is Christian hegemony, not diversity, and it flies in the face of the principles that founded this country.

Best,

Tim

Morning Tim,

Do you realize where the biggest congregation met for church services during those founding days, and even after? One hint, it wasn't a church. I am not aware of any laws that prevent folks from practicing or not practicing a particular faith. I have noticed a huge ammount of lawsuits trying to remove any mention of religion, or expression of "faith" from numerous public places.

The diversity of faiths practiced in this country speaks volumes, about the freedom provided to do so. I also havent' seen anybody (except the occassional kid or hubby) being dragged to particular church services.

As always,
Thadius

Thadius,

None of that is in dispute. Nor is it relavant to the point. It DOES ignore a growing trend that yes, I find troubling.

At the last Republican Convention, we learned that "a vote for Bush is a vote for God!" We also had Catholic bishops refusing to serve John Kerry communion. We had political speeches from the pulpit, in direct violation of those churches' status as non-taxpaying entities.

So yes, this is religion forcing its will on politics. It's a way to control people--tell them they have to believe, that they'll go to hell if they don't toe the party line.

The founders of the Constitution were Deists, not Christian. They had seen all too well what happens when a country is defined by a religion. AFTER that, evangelicals persistantly pushed to make this a Christian nation--at first adding references to "In God We Trust" to currency, just for example. Today, there's lots of silliness--people "stealing" Christmas by using "Happy Holidays," for instance. Talk about weak faith!

Nor is the land quite as free as you portray. Suppose Obama actually WAS a muslim, as millions of Americans are. Do you think he'd have any shot? Or even worse----gasp-----an ATHEIST! We even swear in politicians and court testimony on a Bible. You don't get a choice.

Religious freedom is a wonderful thing. Mixing church and state is not.

Live well,

Tim

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/17/2008 7:08:50 AM >

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:03:22 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

1) getting the bulk of our troops out of Iraq in 16 to 20 months.
2) increased spending on alternative fuels. With programs to help decrease our need for fossil fuels
3) I'm in about 80% agreement with his 15 point health care proposal
4) no drilling in ANWAR, and little to none off the coasts without enviromental oversight.
5) a lower to middle class tax cut, while increasing taxes on those earing over a quarter of a million a year. (personal income tax, NOT taxes on corperations.)

The platforms for both candidates are still pretty much in flux, but I can already tell I'd prefer Obama over McCain's four more years of the same shit as we've had for the last eight. Oh, and the increased transparency to government would be a nice change too.

1) That is going to happen whether Obama is elected or not... pandering at best.
2) Is this going to be implemented like the mandate for ethanol?
3) A perfectly reasonable position.. I disagree with it, but can see where it is appealing.
4) Sending $700 billion overseas every year for oil is not my thought of good policy, clean drilling is everybody's position.
5) Most small businesses aren't incorporated, therefore all income made is considered personal.

Let's look at 2 hypothetical folks... X makes $230k a year and Y makes $250k a year. Currently with deductions they are both paying about 25-30% in federal income tax. With Obama's plan Y will be paying 35% and X will be paying less than the current. So just using the those figures, X will be keeping $161k or more (at 30%) and Y will be keeping $162k. Sounds like a wonderful way to encourage folks to try to make more money.

Glad to hear you have found a candidate that fits with your positions. Just curious about why he voted against the legislation that he and McCain co wrote, you know that ethics and transparency bill.... couldn't be that the party pulls more of his strings than folks want to admit?

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:05:00 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Your turn. What do you agree with McCain on?

McCain isn't my candidate.

However I do agree with his positions on the use of military forces, anti-torture, and taxes policies.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:12:41 AM

corysub

Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

1) getting the bulk of our troops out of Iraq in 16 to 20 months.
2) increased spending on alternative fuels. With programs to help decrease our need for fossil fuels
3) I'm in about 80% agreement with his 15 point health care proposal
4) no drilling in ANWAR, and little to none off the coasts without enviromental oversight.
5) a lower to middle class tax cut, while increasing taxes on those earing over a quarter of a million a year. (personal income tax, NOT taxes on corperations.)

The platforms for both candidates are still pretty much in flux, but I can already tell I'd prefer Obama over McCain's four more years of the same shit as we've had for the last eight. Oh, and the increased transparency to government would be a nice change too.

1. I think there has been enough public mention of the "fact" that the surge has worked, that there has been a significant decrease in the daily bombings that CNN and MSNBC so voratiously spewed out to the public, and the the government of Iraq is feeling secure enough to negotiate with the Bush administration with respect to U.S. troop withdrawals. And all of this has come about all the "sound and fury" of democrats like Pelosi and Reid call the war lost, get out of Iraq immediately, and leave in the disgrace they fostered on this country in Viet Nam. Where is John Murtha hiding these days? Shame on him and his party.

2. You have to be a total idiot to believe that windmills are going to replace fossil fuels. EVERY windmill farm needs back up generation since the wind thas been known to stop blowing. These back up generators take time to build up to capacity and, therefore, have to be kept running! Where is the savings here? Another stupid idea. Take a ride to the west coast and drive through Palm Springs. Look at the windmills...and tell me you are happy with that skyline? Sure we have to spend on other energy sources...but the myth is that they are "alternative"....Another dumb idea.
Nuclear generation powers the bulk of Chicago...France and Japan, among places on earth. Yet Pelosi and the gang ignore this cheap and potential source of energy that will truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As far as offshore drilling, again,
the most important spill was not from offshore rigs..even during Katrina, but from a drunken captain of a ship off Alaska.

3. My bet is tht 99% of the people in this country and reading this thread have no clue where ANWR, prior to going to google...and that we are only talking about drilling on about 2,000 acres out of millions! Who are we protecting? As far as the animals, the they actually love the Alaskan Pipeline which is heated and they stay close to it in harsh weather.

4. Apple pie and cofee...who is against a middle class tax cut. Another bribe for
a vote. Tax those that are successful and re-distribute the wealth. Shades of McGovern, Humphry and Mondale. Health care too...another disaster in the making.
85% of the people in this country are covered...yet, the democrats what the GOVERNMENT to take over healthcare. Are you serious..or delerious? What have they ever done right in Washington? They can't even protect our borders, protect our security with sound energy policy, regulate our financial institutions, and the democrat party is selling "Universal Health Care" as a top priority. Further, why do you think Euopeans are paying $9-10-12 a gallon for petrol. Too support the waste in their failed social programs. The best doctors/.dentists in Germany, for example, opt out of national service and work for "Euro's" on the table...Universal Health will mean that the 85% of us who work, who saved who struggle to make the payments for good health care are going to be penalized, taxed, and abused yet once again by "do gooder" liberals.

With the world in turbulance, the democrat party gives us a guy who has never run anything, has written two books, reads speeches well, and is probably best known for his vote on raising salaries for State SPCA people in Illinois, has no public track record of legislative achievment, and yet belives he can run the country. Really! Maybe he will start his negotiations with the President of Iran with a warm up rock group as he does for his big speeches to impress the Iranians... hey..you never know, it could work...(Jeeez) Wonder who the opening acts will be in the Colorado stadium to attract the 75,000 expected..."The Boss"...Barbara maybe?

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:19:04 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

No problem here, with the location or moderator. The comments about the candidates personal relationship with Jesus isn't going to play a role in my decision. I did appreciate that they did the invocation prior to going live on CNN.

I also happen to think the 'faith-based' social programs do some amazingly good work, and we should look to expanding the model.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to nejisty)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:23:52 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Thadius,

None of that is in dispute. Nor is it relavant to the point. It DOES ignore a growing trend that yes, I find troubling.

At the last Republican Convention, we learned that "a vote for Bush is a vote for God!" We also had Catholic bishops refusing to serve John Kerry communion. We had political speeches from the pulpit, in direct violation of those churches' status as non-taxpaying entities.

So yes, this is religion forcing its will on politics. It's a way to control people--tell them they have to believe, that they'll go to hell if they don't toe the party line.

The foiunders of the Constitution were Deists, not Christian. They had seen all too well what happens when a country is defined by a religion.

Nor is the land quite as free as you portray. Suppose Obama actually WAS a muslim, as millions of Americans are. Do you think he'd have any shot? Or even worse----gasp-----an ATHEIST!

Religious freedom is a wonderful thing. Mixing church and state is not.

Live well,

Tim

It is relevant, it is the founding of this country... which I might add has done pretty damn well. Not until the Supreme Court ruled on it, was there any doubt as to what the establishment clause meant.

I don't remember hearing the quote you suggest, but I will take your word for it. The opposite argument was being made in Missouri, saying a vote for Bush was a vote for cross lighting, and church burning. The religious zealots on both sides are, not an accurate representation of either side. I have been refused communion at my old parish, because I am divorced... I won't get into the irony of it any deeper than to say that some churches believe that some "sins" aren't forgiveable.

I personally have issues with preventing any discussion of politics in a place of worship, by threatening their tax exempt status. That however is another debate. The discussion last night was not funded by the government, and both candidates chose to accept. Why are certain not for profits extended the rights that we don't allow churches?

I think the only faith based thing I would hold against a candidate is if his practice required human sacrifice, other than that it is a personal issue, and doesn't enter into the picture, at least for me. Just like I don't care if a candidate is holding orgies every third night, and intense play parties on the days that start with T and S. It is their personal business, until it enters into a court of law.

I agree that there is much to do towards gaining true religious freedom, part of which is not to restrict the practices unless they violate other laws.

I wish you well,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:26:29 AM

bestbabync

Posts: 1061
Joined: 7/25/2007
Status: offline

corysub...u rock!!!!
u said it all!

i absolutely had no problem with the church & pastor being the host for this forum (not debate). i am a christian and i totally found that both candidates made points i agree and disagree with. i will place my vote for the candidate, not the party he represents. less government is best!

_____________________________

"A woman is the only thing I am afraid of that I know will not hurt me" Abraham Lincoln
"Choose Life, your mother did!"
www.howobamagotelected.com
http://www.lp.org/platform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

(in reply to corysub)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:46:23 AM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Your turn. What do you agree with McCain on?

If he is so anto torture why did he vote to make ot legal?

McCain isn't my candidate.

However I do agree with his positions on the use of military forces, anti-torture, and taxes policies.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 7:54:26 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

If he is so anto torture why did he vote to make ot legal?

Did you read the bill that he voted against? It wasn't a bill about making torture legal or illegal, it was a bill defining exactly what could be done. I know the spin machines have tried to make it sound like it was an anti-torture bill, it wasn't. It was more or less an instruction manual for how things would be done, wouldn't this be the same as locking in all of our military tactics in advance, allowing the future (potential) enemies to use that against us?

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:00:48 AM

NeedingMore220

Posts: 615
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline

I have no problem with the location of last night's event ...

Edited to stay on topic ..

< Message edited by NeedingMore220 -- 8/17/2008 8:04:58 AM >

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:02:24 AM

bestbabync

Posts: 1061
Joined: 7/25/2007
Status: offline

thank you Thad!

great posts!

_____________________________

"A woman is the only thing I am afraid of that I know will not hurt me" Abraham Lincoln
"Choose Life, your mother did!"
www.howobamagotelected.com
http://www.lp.org/platform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:03:39 AM

bipolarber

Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline

Well, let's see... if you allow political speech in church, and the church is allowed to collect money for those casues, yet is a tax-exempt institution.... well, you can see where that can lead to possible abuses.

How about this? Churches CAN have political speech in their sanctuaries... IF they give up their tax exempt status, and declare all their donations to political parties publicly? (Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen...)

Secondly, if tax money is going to be doled out to religions, then ALL religions must qualify. That means the pagans as well as the Christians get a crack at being federally funded. Maybe even the Satanists.

The thing about this debate, when people say, "oh, we were founded as a Christian Nation" it just makes me want to bitch slap them! America was NOT founded by a bunch of religious people crossing the Atlantic to build churches. It was founded by a bunch of people who got on a boat TO GET THE FUCK AWAY from a church that wanted to dictate to them how they should be worshiping God. (The Puritans)

As such, we have always kept it in the back of our minds that we never wanted to become what we started out escaping from.

You want to check your brain at the door and pray to a "big invisible guy who will make your "afterlife" a Playboy mansion blowout?" Fine go for it. But I don't have to give you money. And I don't want my tax money going to support that kind of insane belief system... (or, any such belief system.)

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:15:16 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I personally have issues with preventing any discussion of politics in a place of worship, by threatening their tax exempt status. That however is another debate. The discussion last night was not funded by the government, and both candidates chose to accept. Why are certain not for profits extended the rights that we don't allow churches?

Hi Thadius,

The tax exempt point is important because candidates and parties could simply "buy" the pulpit by making or withholding megadonations to the church. Further, the church's "charitable" undertakings would then fall under scrutiny, just as a politician who awards no-bid contracts would.

I would think churches would want to avoid that. The last pastor I worked for whom I respected (yes, I used to be a church musician), while certainly both patriotic and aware (originally a political science major before the seminary) maintained "We aren't here to worship America; we're here to celebrate God."

You'd think churches would want to focus on that--unless they want to manipulate secular opinion too. Therein lies the problem.

I doubt the spiritual work of the churches, mosques, synagoges, temples, whatever has progressed so far and so well that their congregations have nothing to do but turn to the secular world.

It's political manipulation, my friend, not religion, and it's been steadily increasing since the late 70s.

And it's neither good politics nor good spiritual practice--of any stripe.

Live well,

Tim

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/17/2008 8:19:06 AM >

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:21:22 AM

nejisty

Posts: 59
Joined: 7/11/2006
Status: offline

Hello Thadius:
   If you will notice the last sentence of this paragraph.
   Separation of Church and State: Is it in the Constitution?
It is true that the phrase ‘separation of church and state‘ does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

More on Christianity and the Constitution
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/Church_State_in_the_Constitution_What_Does_the_Constitution_Say.htm

    Also the last statement in this one:
The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

    And this one

The Court wrote:
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

   nejisty

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:27:18 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

Instead of dividing this up I am going to use red to add my replies...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Well, let's see... if you allow political speech in church, and the church is allowed to collect money for those casues, yet is a tax-exempt institution.... well, you can see where that can lead to possible abuses.
There are many organizations that collect public funds, and use it to further a particular agenda.

How about this? Churches CAN have political speech in their sanctuaries... IF they give up their tax exempt status, and declare all their donations to political parties publicly? (Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen...)
Why is there no call for tax exempt non profits to do the same? Why should their tax status depend on not being able to discuss current events or the differences in political policies? Sounds rather draconian to me. Censorship by mandate, glad you are in favor of it.

Secondly, if tax money is going to be doled out to religions, then ALL religions must qualify. That means the pagans as well as the Christians get a crack at being federally funded. Maybe even the Satanists.
I think all organizations should be able to qualify for such funding, as long as the program is something that is a benefit to society, homeless shelters, food pantries, drug rehab, etc...

The thing about this debate, when people say, "oh, we were founded as a Christian Nation" it just makes me want to bitch slap them! America was NOT founded by a bunch of religious people crossing the Atlantic to build churches. It was founded by a bunch of people who got on a boat TO GET THE FUCK AWAY from a church that wanted to dictate to them how they should be worshiping God. (The Puritans)
They wanted to get away from a church run state (or in the reverse a state run church), try looking at what the capital building was used for on Saturdays and Sundays.... Kind of interesting that folks want to ignore that.

As such, we have always kept it in the back of our minds that we never wanted to become what we started out escaping from.
See above, and do some research. I am still waiting for an enlightened person to show me where the Constitution says "seperation of church and state".

You want to check your brain at the door and pray to a "big invisible guy who will make your "afterlife" a Playboy mansion blowout?" Fine go for it. But I don't have to give you money. And I don't want my tax money going to support that kind of insane belief system... (or, any such belief system.)
Ah so your position is based on you disagreeing with folks that have a belief in a deity. Whether you believe in it or not, they have the right to believe and practice such beliefs. You don't want your money going for it, I can agree with that position, however do I get to pick what I don't want my tax dollars going for, because I don't want it supporting something I don't believe in??

Not very tolerant of you. I enjoy the insults that you like to hurl at those with different beliefs than you, keep up the good work.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:28:35 AM

TreasureKY

Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nejisty

Did anyone else have a problem with a Presidential nominee debate going on in a Christian church hosted by a Pastor in front of a congregation?? Just curious. nejisty

First, it was not a debate. But no... I had no problem with the candidates appearing in this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nejisty

It just seems to me the answers to some of the questions would be a given. What nominee, who by the way wants to be President, would want to say they are for abortion and same sex marriages in a church full of the congregation? Not sure if this plays into it or not but what about the seperation of church and Gov't.
Just seemed like a set up for the answers some people wanted to hear. nejisty

Did you even watch it? I'm guessing you didn't but are merely "knee-jerking" the idea based on your own pre-conceptions.

The forum was actually very good. Both candidates presented themselves very well... each being asked the same questions, ranging on a wide variety of topics, in a relaxed atmosphere in a non-confrontational manner. It was very civil and very informative, and actually both candidates came away looking pretty good.

As for "playing to the audience", what candidate doesn't... no matter what the venue? Would a candidate speak against labor at a union gathering? Would a candidate speak against corporate tax cuts in front of a business group? Would a candidate promote a government health program in front of a insurance or health care group? lol... Can you see a candidate going before a group of welfare recipients and pushing for cuts to welfare programs?

I don't think candidates are particularly known for saying what their audience doesn't want to hear... or for even choosing to speak in front of an audience that doesn't "match" their general platform.

(in reply to nejisty)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:30:53 AM

bestbabync

Posts: 1061
Joined: 7/25/2007
Status: offline

this maybe off topic, but to say you are saved and washed in the blood of Jesus Christ and then to say out the other side of your mouth that you are ok and support the murder of an unborn child is so very very revealing to me! i was really surprised that he made this statement, "below my pay grade"........OMGAWD! all that worries me!

_____________________________

"A woman is the only thing I am afraid of that I know will not hurt me" Abraham Lincoln
"Choose Life, your mother did!"
www.howobamagotelected.com
http://www.lp.org/platform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

(in reply to nejisty)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:31:14 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Nope,and it wasn`t a debate.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Nominee debate - 8/17/2008 8:34:05 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

America was NOT founded by a bunch of religious people crossing the Atlantic to build churches. It was founded by a bunch of people who got on a boat TO GET THE FUCK AWAY from a church that wanted to dictate to them how they should be worshiping God. (The Puritans)

You have this quite backwards, Bipo.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 40