NAACP Poised to Vote on Resolution Calling Tea Party 'Racist'

[DBruleU]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/

The NAACP is poised to vote Tuesday on a resolution to condemn the Tea Party movement as racist, despite claims from Tea Partiers that the measure is just a political ploy.

The nation's leading civil rights groups was taking up the language at its annual convention in Kansas City. The resolution was expected to say the NAACP would "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties" and stand against the movement's attempt to "push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

But the nearby St. Louis Tea Party had an all-hands-on-deck response to the NAACP's plan. The group has drafted a resolution of its own condemning the civil rights group for reducing itself to a "bigoted" and "partisan attack dog organization."

In a matter of hours, the St. Louis group fired off to the NAACP the statement demanding the organization withdraw its "bigoted, false and inflammatory" resolution. The missive accused the NAACP of resorting to political tactics and urged the IRS to reconsider whether it can continue to qualify for tax-exempt status.

Tea Party organizers routinely defend themselves against charges of racism, disavowing racially charged signs that appear in their protest crowds and provide fodder for Tea Party critics. The NAACP resolution, first reported by the Kansas City Star, was expected to make reference to an incident in March when Tea Party protesters allegedly hurled racial epithets at black lawmakers on Capitol Hill ahead of a health care vote. Tea Party members afterward challenged that account and no evidence was produced to show any racist attacks.

St. Louis Tea Party organizer Bill Hennessy wrote on the group's website Tuesday that the Tea Party stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, and accused the NAACP of abandoning black America.

"When you look at the crime and poverty and family breakdown of the African-American community ... you see a half-century of failure by the NAACP," he wrote. "None of those persistent problems was caused by the Tea Party movement, yet the principles of the Tea Party are exactly what's needed to wind down the multi-generational destruction in the African-American community.

"The NAACP was once a vital weapon in the war against segregation and oppression. All that's left is a bigoted and malicious shell that does far more harm than good for people who need a break," he wrote.

Fellow St. Louis Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch accused the NAACP of morphing into a political organization.

"They no longer prioritize civil rights," she told Fox News.

[El Guapo]

Straight up lunacy.

The left is using every avenue they have to vilify this movement to return our country back to its roots and what our founding fathers envisioned. Sad.

[bombay]

They may alarmed because that caucasion French dude ran a sub 10 second 100 meters.

[barryr]

The NAACP is just a political group that supports the DNC and that's been the case for years. If they want to find racists, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This just in...NAACP is inherently a racist organization.

[DBruleU]

I do find it ironic that the black community is more racist than their white counterparts these days. Jesse Jackson gets all bent out of shape over LeBron James and the Cavs owner, yet nothing is said about the New Black Panther case. Pathetic.

[TailgateNut]

If they would have said "racists in disguise" they woulld have been correct, and you girls wouldn't have to come in here to bitch and moan.

[barryr]

I do find it ironic that the black community is more racist than their white counterparts these days. Jesse Jackson gets all bent out of shape over LeBron James and the Cavs owner, yet nothing is said about the New Black Panther case. Pathetic.

Plus one can easily see how the NAACP is purely political since one can see the difference whenever democrats are caught saying racist remarks, it is treated much differently and they themselves offer excuses while even when a perceived racist remark is made by anybody else, not to mention one that is made they call for firings and condemnation.

[Rohirrim]

Straight up lunacy.

The left is using every avenue they have to vilify this movement to return our country back to its roots and what our founding fathers envisioned. Sad.

Believe me, if the Founders were alive today, they would join me in the opinion that the leadership of the so called "teabaggers" are certifiable whackos, fundamentalists and fanatics. The "tea bag movement" is nothing more than the most recent manifestation of American Puritanism that Ben Franklin was fighting against in his own day.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Believe me, if the Founders were alive today, they would join me in the opinion that the leadership of the so called "teabaggers" are certifiable whackos, fundamentalists and fanatics. The "tea bag movement" is nothing more than the most recent manifestation of American Puritanism that Ben Franklin was fighting against in his own day.

Wow.

Thats so far off base that its laughable.

The movement is almost strictly about individual rights vs. federal intrusion. Anything else is extraneous. It should be obvious why it gained so much popularity during economic downturn amidst an increasingly intrusive federal government. The fed is micromanaging peoples lives at the community level now, which at the modern degree is something new in this country and is EXACTLY what the founders fought against.

Honest historians (there arent many around these days...assuming that there will be an anti-revisionist movement to counter modern historians) will view this movement as an anti-federalist movement during a depression, and will view the cheap, divisive liberal opposition as an example of oppression through propaganda.

Youre on the wrong team, dude.

[cutthemdown]

If they would have said "racists in disguise" they woulld have been correct, and you girls wouldn't have to come in here to b**** and moan.

Obviously every political party will have some racists in it. The NAACP is crazy if they think all the white dems really see them as equal. Some racists just have realized you can't act on it overtly like that anymore and be successful.

So really its not about stomping out racism anyways. You can't stomp that out anymore then you can hate, love, happiness, sadness because they are emotions or feelings.

Trying to label a whole movement as racist seems pretty desperate to me. Like the left really starting to worry the Tea Party in the end will hurt them more then it will repubs who will just call themselves tea party. It doesn't really split the conservatives, only clouds the race.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Obviously every political party will have some racists in it. The NAACP is crazy if they think all the white dems really see them as equal. Some racists just have realized you can't act on it overtly like that anymore and be successful.

So really its not about stomping out racism anyways. You can't stomp that out anymore then you can hate, love, happiness, sadness because they are emotions or feelings.

Trying to label a whole movement as racist seems pretty desperate to me. Like the left really starting to worry the Tea Party in the end will hurt them more then it will repubs who will just call themselves tea party. It doesn't really split the conservatives, only clouds the race.

If anybody hasnt noticed, the current administration still thinks it can force its hand by labeling anything and everything as racist. And there is documented proof that some media members are working hand-in-hand with the Obama administration in terms of defining issues through talking points.

[Rohirrim]

Wow.

Thats so far off base that its laughable.

The movement is almost strictly about individual rights vs. federal intrusion. Anything else is extraneous. It should be obvious why it gained so much popularity during economic downturn amidst an increasingly intrusive federal government. The fed is micromanaging peoples lives at the community level now, which at the modern degree is something new in this country and is EXACTLY what the founders fought against.

Honest historians (there arent many around these days...assuming that there will be an anti-revisionist movement to counter modern historians) will view this movement as an anti-federalist movement during a depression, and will view the cheap, divisive liberal opposition as an example of oppression through propaganda.

Youre on the wrong team, dude.

The U.S. government is being slapped up one side and down the other by globalized big business, banksters and the Wall Street pirates while you tea baggers are marching in the streets calling the government a big, bad bully. Rent a clue. You are the tools of those who are doing the damage.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The U.S. government is being slapped up one side and down the other by big business, banksters and the Wall Street pirates while you tea baggers are marching in the streets calling the government a big, bad bully. Rent a clue. You are the tools of those who are doing the damage.

You have created so many monsters in so many closets there that Gaffney would be jealous.

[DBruleU]

Wow.

Thats so far off base that its laughable.

The movement is almost strictly about individual rights vs. federal intrusion. Anything else is extraneous. It should be obvious why it gained so much popularity during economic downturn amidst an increasingly intrusive federal government. The fed is micromanaging peoples lives at the community level now, which at the modern degree is something new in this country and is EXACTLY what the founders fought against.

Honest historians (there arent many around these days...assuming that there will be an anti-revisionist movement to counter modern historians) will view this movement as an anti-federalist movement during a depression, and will view the cheap, divisive liberal opposition as an example of oppression through propaganda.

Youre on the wrong team, dude.

Consider the source.

[Rohirrim]

You have created so many monsters in so many closets there that Gaffney would be jealous.

The U.S. government is a puppet. And you believe it is the monster. Who's deluded?

[epicSocialism4tw]

The U.S. government is a puppet. And you believe it is the monster. Who's deluded?

The US government is supposed to be a facilitator and a protector. Not a tyrant...which is apparently what the whacked out super leftists want, and unfortunately that is the wing of your party that has taken it over. They continue to push unpopular policy down the throats of our people. One after the next. They are part of an elitist political class that is completely removed from the realities of daily American life.

Meanwhile, the leftists have people in place in this government who have aided and befriended domestic terrorists (including our president) and an array of extremist communists.

I believe in the American people and their ability to run their own communities without the overarching control by a federalist opressor who fattens his pockets on the backs of the people.

[Rohirrim]

The US government is supposed to be a facilitator and a protector. Not a tyrant...which is apparently what the whacked out super leftists want, and unfortunately that is the wing of your party that has taken it over.

Meanwhile, the leftists have people in place in this government who have aided and befriended domestic terrorists (including our president) and an array of extremist communists.

I believe in the American people and their ability to run their own communities without the overarching control by a federalist opressor who fattens his pockets on the backs of the people.

Federalist oppressor? What a bunch of hyperbolic drivel. When Reagan came into office the banksters controlled 17% of America's GDP. They now control 63%. They just bankrupted the world and now five generations of Americans will be paying off the tab, including the bonuses they've been giving each other. And this last year, America created 19% more billionaires while unemployment went into the double digits. And you think government is the problem?

That's the problem with parrots. Once they learn a phrase it's impossible to get them to unlearn it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Federalist oppressor? What a bunch of hyperbolic drivel. When Reagan came into office the banksters controlled 17% of America's GDP. They now control 63%. They just bankrupted the world and now five generations of Americans will be paying off the tab, including the bonuses they've been giving each other. And this last year, America created 19% more billionaires while unemployment went into the double digits. And you think government is the problem?

That's the problem with parrots. Once they learn a phrase it's impossible to get them to unlearn it.

This is exactly the reason why conservatives turned on Bush and why Obama was elected to office.

You are so wrapped up in party propaganda that you are missing the story entirely. Wake up.

[barryr]

The Founding Fathers would be so prideful with what Obama is doing and what leftist groups tend to stand for though LOL

[Taco John]

And this last year, America created 19% more billionaires while unemployment went into the double digits. And you think government is the problem?

Yes, I absolutely do.

[Dukes]

The race card is usually pulled when they have no other argument. I consider it a compliment.

[El Guapo]

Yes, I absolutely do.

Yup, the bailouts put money right into those new billionaires pockets.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Obviously every political party will have some racists in it. The NAACP is crazy if they think all the white dems really see them as equal. Some racists just have realized you can't act on it overtly like that anymore and be successful.

So really its not about stomping out racism anyways. You can't stomp that out anymore then you can hate, love, happiness, sadness because they are emotions or feelings.

Trying to label a whole movement as racist seems pretty desperate to me. Like the left really starting to worry the Tea Party in the end will hurt them more then it will repubs who will just call themselves tea party. It doesn't really split the conservatives, only clouds the race.

Good post.

[Rigs11]

gotta love the the repubs spinning trying to defend the tea partiers.the majority of the tea party are repubs. Back when obama was running, they did a poll and 15% of repubs said that they were not voting for obama because he was black.do the math.


Many believed that the election of Barack Obama brought to a close the long, painful, and ugly history of race and racism in the United States. But as the incident with Henry Louis Gates last summer, and the more recent outbursts of the Tea Party activists suggest, racial divisions remain. Which is closer to the truth? A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.


http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

[cutthemdown]

gotta love the the repubs spinning trying to defend the tea partiers.the majority of the tea party are repubs. Back when obama was running, they did a poll and 15% of repubs said that they were not voting for obama because he was black.do the math.


Many believed that the election of Barack Obama brought to a close the long, painful, and ugly history of race and racism in the United States. But as the incident with Henry Louis Gates last summer, and the more recent outbursts of the Tea Party activists suggest, racial divisions remain. Which is closer to the truth? A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.


http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html


Did they ask Latinos and Blacks what they think of white people? Otherwise your numbers like you, are full of it.

Also things like same sex marriage if you put it to the country in a vote would have more blacks and latinos vote against it then whites. Blacks pretty much defeated that measure in calif voting against it in huge numbers.

So don't use numbers about homophobia in the same one with blacks and latinos because you are being one sided....as usual.

[Rigs11]

Did they ask Latinos and Blacks what they think of white people? Otherwise your numbers like you, are full of it.

Also things like same sex marriage if you put it to the country in a vote would have more blacks and latinos vote against it then whites. Blacks pretty much defeated that measure in calif voting against it in huge numbers.

So don't use numbers about homophobia in the same one with blacks and latinos because you are being one sided....as usual.

genius read the title of the thread. If you want to debate what latinos and blacks think of whites than start a new one. Also are you insinuating that the majority of tea partiers aren't white?:wave:

[DenverBrit]

There is no question that there is a racist thread that runs through the Tea Party.

Or do all the racist banners we see at their rallies belong to the Libertarians?

Of course, the NAACP also has a racist streak.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There is no question that there is a racist thread that runs through the Tea Party.

Or do all the racist banners we see at their rallies belong to the Libertarians?

Of course, the NAACP also has a racist streak.

Lets see them.

And no, the leftist plants that get run out of town at the tea party meetings dont count. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/15/crashers-they-came-they-saw-they-failed/

[Rohirrim]

Here's the basis for the tea party movement:

THERE'S A NIGRA IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Yikes!

[TailgateNut]

Here's the basis for the tea party movement:

THERE'S A NIGRA IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Yikes!


...but they want you to think they are genuinely concerned about the size of goverment...:spit:

They weren't concerned about waste and spending when their hero was in office, but all of a sudden, as soon as the first black president is elected they are up in arms over "spending". RIIIIIIIIGHT!

[JJJ]

The NAACP calling the Tea Party racist is like the pot calling the kettle.........well, black actually.

Race-baiting is what liberals always turn to when they totally have run out of ideas. Its the card of last resort and a sure sign of desperation. It literally is the liberal panick button.

There isn't a single solaritary thing on the Tea Party agenda that is even remotely racist. Other than many of the members are white there is not a single issue where this can reasonably be raised by an normal thinking person who has seen or listened to the Tea Party platform. These folks actually respect the constitution. Most of the members of the NAACP are black. BFD. Doesn't make them racists.

[DenverBrit]

Lets see them.

And no, the leftist plants that get run out of town at the tea party meetings dont count. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/15/crashers-they-came-they-saw-they-failed/

If we must. There are many, these are just a few and they are all Tea Party banners.
The Tea Party has a racist streak for all to see. Are you seriously denying it exists??

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn161/garykwf/racist_tea_party.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamakenya.jpg?w=225&h=300

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamassa.jpg?w=375&h=500

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamarxist.jpg?w=323&h=316

[DenverBrit]

The NAACP calling the Tea Party racist is like the pot calling the kettle.........well, black actually.

Race-baiting is what liberals always turn to when they totally have run out of ideas. Its the card of last resort and a sure sign of desperation. It literally is the liberal panick button.

There isn't a single solaritary thing on the Tea Party agenda that is even remotely racist. Other than many of the members are white there is not a single issue where this can reasonably be raised by an normal thinking person who has seen or listened to the Tea Party platform. These folks actually respect the constitution. Most of the members of the NAACP are black. BFD. Doesn't make them racists.

You must be blind. The 'agenda' is clearly advertised by the banners at Tea Party rallies. I'm not saying they are all racist, but they have a strong racist streak.
I can't believe anyone here is arguing otherwise.

[Bronco Yoda]

We had some house guests from TexArkana last week (Wifes side of the fam). It was real special. They were all loud and proud of their Libertarian tea bagging.

Never met a bunch of more ugly racist bunch in my life. It was disgusting. It was eye opening. It was disturbing.

They are never welcome in my home again.

[JJJ]

...but they want you to think they are genuinely concerned about the size of goverment...:spit:

They weren't concerned about waste and spending when their hero was in office, but all of a sudden, as soon as the first black president is elected they are up in arms over "spending". RIIIIIIIIGHT!

The leader of the republican national party is black. Bush had two black secretaries of state, a black secretary of HUD, black secretary of education, and on and on.

You guys are really stretching hard and your racist claims are completely laughable.

Almost as nut jobbish as trying to blame bankers for all the world's woes. Grow up guys, this is the real world.

[Play2win]

That's the problem with parrots. Once they learn a phrase it's impossible to get them to unlearn it.

That is a great name for TEA-WhatEverers-- or anyone else that listens to Fox News.

All they do is repeat what they hear... over and over and over and over and over AGAIN...

In the past, there have been people we would call Canaries and people we would call Pigeons... now we got people we call Parrots...

[Mr.Meanie]

If we must. There are many, these are just a few and they are all Tea Party banners.
The Tea Party has a racist streak for all to see. Are you seriously denying it exists??

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn161/garykwf/racist_tea_party.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamakenya.jpg?w=225&h=300

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamassa.jpg?w=375&h=500

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamarxist.jpg?w=323&h=316

liberal plants!

[TailgateNut]

liberal plants!


My ass!

You can't fake the stupid ass look on the "I love Glenn Beck" guys face. That's a classic repub-er-tea-partier.

[JJJ]

By far the most judgemental racist people on this board are lefties. Whether it is the guy that hates the jews, or the guys that hate anyone religious, or the guys shamelessly race baiting in this thread, they all seem to be from the left. Just saying.

Usually the one that leads with the racist card is the true racist. Just my experience.

[DBruleU]

By far the most judgemental racist people on this board are lefties. Whether it is the guy that hates the jews, or the guys that hate anyone religious, or the guys shamelessly race baiting in this thread, they all seem to be from the left. Just saying.

Usually the one that leads with the racist card is the true racist. Just my experience.

Yup.

There is definitely a trend with a certain group of posters around here.

People need to grow up and see reality.

[TailgateNut]

By far the most judgemental racist people on this board are lefties. Whether it is the guy that hates the jews, or the guys that hate anyone religious, or the guys shamelessly race baiting in this thread, they all seem to be from the left. Just saying.

Usually the one that leads with the racist card is the true racist. Just my experience.

Race baiting???

We're not the ones' carrying banners and signs which clearly show the true "colors" of the tea party. We're not upset that an African American is our president

BTW: I didn't know "religious people" are considered to be a "race", unless being gullible is a qualifier.

[DenverBrit]

liberal plants!

Yeah, like this Teabaging buffoon.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4iFEekZhx4/S6wIeuEiDtI/AAAAAAAAAm0/wplUUb-IXJQ/s1600/teaparty_robertson_racist_sign-682x1024.jpg

[TailgateNut]

Yup.

There is definitely a trend with a certain group of posters around here.

People need to grow up and see reality.

Why don't you pray for us to "grow up and see reality".

BTW: someone who believes in fairy tales telling others to "see reality" is ****ing hilarious.

[DBruleU]

Why don't you pray for us to "grow up and see reality".

BTW: someone who believes in fairy tales telling others to "see reality" is ****ing hilarious.

I guess you'll find out if they are fairy tales or not when you die.

[DenverBrit]

By far the most judgemental racist people on this board are lefties. Whether it is the guy that hates the jews, or the guys that hate anyone religious, or the guys shamelessly race baiting in this thread, they all seem to be from the left. Just saying.

Usually the one that leads with the racist card is the true racist. Just my experience.

You're trying too hard to cover up your own prejudice.

It's no coincidence that the Teabaggers are both racist and religious, and you defend them.

In your world, is it ok to be a racist as long as you declare yourself 'Christian?' It seems to work for the 'baggers.'

[Garcia Bronco]

By far the most judgemental racist people on this board are lefties. Whether it is the guy that hates the jews, or the guys that hate anyone religious, or the guys shamelessly race baiting in this thread, they all seem to be from the left. Just saying.

Usually the one that leads with the racist card is the true racist. Just my experience.

Indeed.

"Be careful when you point a figure at someone else; There will always be 3 point back at you."

[DBruleU]

Race baiting???

We're not the ones' carrying banners and signs which clearly show the true "colors" of the tea party. We're not upset that an African American is our president

BTW: I didn't know "religious people" are considered to be a "race", unless being gullible is a qualifier.

No ones upset that he's black genius...it's his politics, and his politics alone that upset me. Are there racists out there? Yes. Do they go to tea party gatherings? I'm sure they do. Do they represent what the tea party endorses? No.

In every movement, every group, there will always be those who take things to the extreme but are not what the movement is about. The ones carrying racist signs are not what the tea party movement is about...but they are the ones the media, and weak minded individuals such as yourself will focus on because it advances your goals of discrediting the Americans who are fed up with the oversized fed. government. There are plenty of black Americans who are speaking at tea party events and speaking against the NAACP. Do your homework before you call the tea party movement racist. You look ignorant and small.

[Garcia Bronco]

In every movement, every group, there will always be those who take things to the extreme but are not what the movement is about. The ones carrying racist signs are not what the tea party movement is about...but they are the ones the media, and weak minded individuals such as yourself will focus on because it advances your goals of discrediting the Americans who are fed up with the oversized fed. government. There are plenty of black Americans who are speaking at tea party events and speaking against the NAACP. Do your homework before you call the tea party movement racist. You look ignorant and small.

The Nazi's are a great example. They started as socialists like Obama, then itler came to the party, gained power, and ultimately destroyed Germany.

[JJJ]

Race baiting???

We're not the ones' carrying banners and signs which clearly show the true "colors" of the tea party. We're not upset that an African American is our president

BTW: I didn't know "religious people" are considered to be a "race", unless being gullible is a qualifier.

No but you are the one projecting ridiculous accusations based on a few wing nuts onto an entire movement.

I would bet 100% of the Black Panthers are democrats. I bet many of them hated Bush being president because he was white. Does that make the vast majority of the democratic party racist?

Everyone of you know 99% of the Tea Party is made up of normal everyday folks worried about the direction of their country and nothing more. It is impossible to argue against the base platform of the Tea Party so you have to label them racists to discredit them. Pretty much everyone sees through that nonsense.

[DBruleU]

The Nazi's are a great example. They started as socialists like Obama, then itler came to the party, gained power, and ultimately destroyed Germany.

...and explains why Americans in large numbers are becoming afraid of what's happening around them. Obama is in every part of himself a socialist. That's what he aligns himself with. But you can't say that or you're a racist. Hence this thread....

[DenverBrit]

I guess you'll find out if they are fairy tales or not when you die.

If there is a God, I'm pretty sure he won't want a bunch of bigoted, racist, intolerant a-holes hanging around him just because they said they were Christian.

They'll be hanging out with the KKK, Televangelists, Fundamentalists and Glenn Beck. In the sauna! Ha!

[JJJ]

You're trying too hard to cover up your own prejudice.

It's no coincidence that the Teabaggers are both racist and religious, and you defend them.

In your world, is it ok to be a racist as long as you declare yourself 'Christian?' It seems to work for the 'baggers.'

Swing and a miss. Zero basis for your ridiculous hypothesis.

[DenverBrit]

Swing and a miss. Zero basis for your ridiculous hypothesis.

Have you been to a Tea Party rally??

And again, is it ok to be racist as long as you declare yourself Christian? Like the KKK?

[JJJ]

Have you been to a Tea Party rally??

Nope.

[Arkie]

Protesters are funny. It doesn't matter if they are Tea Partiers, environmentalists, or even the Black Panthers. The type of people that get out and protest are the most outrageous. They distort the bigger group's message and give plenty of fodder to the opponents' arguments.

[BroncoLifer]

If there is a God, I'm pretty sure he won't want a bunch of bigoted, racist, intolerant a-holes hanging around him just because they said they were Christian.


That's why He won't be hanging out with MEChA, the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. Without a doubt, bigotry, racism, intolerance and ignorance cut across party and ideological lines.

But anyway, the Tea Party movement is about big government and out of control spending, not race.

[JJJ]

Have you been to a Tea Party rally??

And again, is it ok to be racist as long as you declare yourself Christian? Like the KKK?

The KKK is a foul and dispicable organization. Nathan Bedford Forrest was too good of a general to ever start such vile organization.

Buddhists, Jews, Muslims not on the jihad, aetheists who don't bash the religious, they are all good.

[Obushma]

It's no coincidence that the Tea Party are both racist and religious, and you defend them.


Wait, so what ethnicity am I racist against and what is my religious denomination? Or Taco John, or this guy...
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TErw-Rtimac&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TErw-Rtimac&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

who exactly are they racist against?

[JJJ]

Protesters are funny. It doesn't matter if they are Tea Partiers, environmentalists, or even the Black Panthers. The type of people that get out and protest are the most outrageous. They distort the bigger group's message and give plenty of fodder to the opponents' arguments.

Hey no fair introducing logical thought and common sense into this debate.

[DenverBrit]

Nope.

If you had, you'd see a lot of 'Christian' and racist signs together.

Here, educate yourself.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/teaparty6.jpg

http://irregulartimes.com/teapartyfundamentalism.html

[Rigs11]

...and explains why Americans in large numbers are becoming afraid of what's happening around them. Obama is in every part of himself a socialist. That's what he aligns himself with. But you can't say that or you're a racist. Hence this thread....

youre an idiot, ive called you out before on this. how is he every part socialist? please provide examples. hurry ...google quick.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're trying too hard to cover up your own prejudice.

It's no coincidence that the Teabaggers are both racist and religious, and you defend them.

In your world, is it ok to be a racist as long as you declare yourself 'Christian?' It seems to work for the 'baggers.'

Seriously, guy.

If you think that the tea party is a bunch of Klan members, then you are missing a few screws.

You do realize that the most outspoken tea party people here are Taco John and that Samoan guy, right?

[Rigs11]

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20115_large.jpg

[JJJ]

If you had, you'd see a lot of 'Christian' and racist signs together.

Here, educate yourself.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/teaparty6.jpg

http://irregulartimes.com/teapartyfundamentalism.html

Have you been to a Tea Party?

[Obushma]

Seriously, guy.

If you think that the tea party is a bunch of Klan members, then you are missing a few screws.

You do realize that the most outspoken tea party people here are Taco John and that Samoan guy, right?

That's Polly to you cracker. LOL My birth parents are Tongan though, try not to confuse the two. I'm sure you are the guy that asks Korean people about China though.

[DenverBrit]

Seriously, guy.

If you think that the tea party is a bunch of Klan members, then you are missing a few screws.

You do realize that the most outspoken tea party people here are Taco John and that Samoan guy, right?

Not at all, I've said repeatedly that there is a racist streak in the Tea Party. Not that it's a racist organization.

It has that much in common with the NAACP.

[DenverBrit]

The KKK is a foul and dispicable organization. Nathan Bedford Forrest was too good of a general to ever start such vile organization.

Buddhists, Jews, Muslims not on the jihad, aetheists who don't bash the religious, they are all good.


I agree with almost everything you've said in this post. ;D

[Rigs11]

Th tea party is going to be the undoing of the repubs this fall.you can label your movement whatever you want, but in the end you are still repubs screaming the same crap that idiots like limbaugh and beck do.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's Polly to you cracker. LOL My birth parents are Tongan though, try not to confuse the two. I'm sure you are the guy that asks Korean people about China though.

I thought I remembered you saying that you were Samoan.

Anyway, some of my best friends growing up were Tongan royal family.

[TailgateNut]

Th tea party is going to be the undoing of the repubs this fall.you can label your movement whatever you want, but in the end you are still repubs screaming the same crap that idiots like limbaugh and beck do.

end thread

[DenverBrit]

Have you been to a Tea Party?


Yes, and the God speeches were evident.

Fortunately, Denver doesn't tolerate the kind of racist messages seen more commonly in other parts of the country. But talking with some of the attendees, it was clear that a 'black President' was an issue.....his place of birth was mentioned often as was his 'Muslim' and Kenyan connection.

[JJJ]

Yes, and the God speeches were evident.

Fortunately, Denver doesn't tolerate the kind of racist messages seen more commonly in other parts of the country. But talking with some of the attendees, it was clear that a 'black President' was an issue.....his place of birth was mentioned often as was his 'Muslim' and Kenyan connection.

So they talked about God, like perhaps Washington might in an inaugeral speech, and you didn't see any racist signs at all. Noted.

[DBruleU]

Yes, and the God speeches were evident.

Fortunately, Denver doesn't tolerate the kind of racist messages seen more commonly in other parts of the country. But talking with some of the attendees, it was clear that a 'black President' was an issue.....his place of birth was mentioned often as was his 'Muslim' and Kenyan connection.

Liar.

I went to one and none of the "Black President" stuff was there.

[Rigs11]

Liar.

I went to one and none of the "Black President" stuff was there.

do you have video proof? isn't that your motto now?

[DenverBrit]

Liar.

I went to one and none of the "Black President" stuff was there.


I said I talked with attendees and that Denver doesn't seem to tolerate the racist placards seen elsewhere.

Now it's obvious you can't comprehend what you read, so how can you be sure there was no "Black President stuff" there?? Ha!

[DBruleU]

I said I talked with attendees and that Denver doesn't seem to tolerate the racist placards seen elsewhere.

Now it's obvious you can't comprehend what you read, so how can you be sure there was no "Black President stuff" there?? Ha!

Your post hardly made that clear. You said you attended a tea party and talked to attendees who made the "black President" thing an issue. Meaning, you talked to people there who dislike Obama because he's black.

[BroncoLifer]

“I have not experienced the charges of racism that the NAACP is touting,” Vernon Parker, an African-American tea party congressional candidate in Arizona, told POLITICO.


Parker, former mayor of Paradise Valley, said that he has never felt out of place at a tea party rally because of the color of his skin.


“When I go to tea party events, people don’t look at me any differently,” he said. “They didn’t judge me on the color of my skin, quite frankly, they judged me on my principles."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39729.html


The bolded portion is what Dr. King was talking about. Too bad so many people (of all skin colors) can't walk the walk.

[Rohirrim]

...but they want you to think they are genuinely concerned about the size of goverment...:spit:

They weren't concerned about waste and spending when their hero was in office, but all of a sudden, as soon as the first black president is elected they are up in arms over "spending". RIIIIIIIIGHT!

Tonight, I was watching a film clip of George Wallace on a TV. You could take one of his speeches and give it in front of the tea bagger crowd and it would fit right in. They'd be cheering.

[BroncoLifer]

They weren't concerned about waste and spending when their hero was in office, but all of a sudden, as soon as the first black president is elected they are up in arms over "spending". RIIIIIIIIGHT!

None are so blind as those who will not see.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yes, and the God speeches were evident.

Fortunately, Denver doesn't tolerate the kind of racist messages seen more commonly in other parts of the country. But talking with some of the attendees, it was clear that a 'black President' was an issue.....his place of birth was mentioned often as was his 'Muslim' and Kenyan connection.

I dont agree with it, but those people think that the Kenyan and Muslim things are not offensive because of blackness, but because those countries have different political ideas than we have in this country.

Its you who is assuming race with everything. Maybe youre the racist.

[watermock]

Obama's Muslim, radical, Kenyan "connections" ane not myth. Nor are the comments from his "spritual advisor" in Chicago.

Nor is thae fact that his white mother hated the US. She wouldn't even attend business meetings with her indonesian husband in the oil business, but she took the money.

As far as Obama Sr. just look it up.

[DenverBrit]

Your post hardly made that clear. You said you attended a tea party and talked to attendees who made the "black President" thing an issue. Meaning, you talked to people there who dislike Obama because he's black.

That's exactly what I said.....and it was clear in my post on the subject.

[DenverBrit]

I dont agree with it, but those people think that the Kenyan and Muslim things are not offensive because of blackness, but because those countries have different political ideas than we have in this country.

Its you who is assuming race with everything. Maybe youre the racist.

Were you there talking with the Teabaggers??

If you were, you would have walked away understanding that some of those people didn't like Obama because he was black. End of story.

You've seen the racist placards carried by Teabaggers, yet you want to defend these people's racist views and that somehow makes me a racist?

Stop being a dumbass.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Were you there talking with the Teabaggers??

If you were, you would have walked away understanding that some of those people didn't like Obama because he was black. End of story.

You've seen the racist placards carried by Teabaggers, yet you want to defend these people's racist views and that somehow makes me a racist?

Stop being a dumbass.

Nice anectdote.

[DenverBrit]

Nice anectdote.

Dumbass response. But I'm getting used to it from you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Dumbass response. But I'm getting used to it from you.

Sorry, but "I went to a tea party event and talked to people who admitted to me that theyre all a bunch of racists" just doesnt cut it. If thats your standard for truth, then have at it but dont complain when nobody else believes you.

[DenverBrit]

Sorry, but "I went to a tea party event and talked to people who admitted to me that theyre all a bunch of racists" just doesnt cut it. If thats your standard for truth, then have at it but dont complain when nobody else believes you.

And yet, you believe in fairy tales like the world is populated by one families' incest after rescuing the planet's animals in a wooden boat.

So tell me, the racist signs you see at most Teabagger rally's, are they illusions too? ROFL!

[DBruleU]

Sorry, but "I went to a tea party event and talked to people who admitted to me that theyre all a bunch of racists" just doesnt cut it. If thats your standard for truth, then have at it but dont complain when nobody else believes you.

If that's his standard anyone could make anything up and it would need to taken as fact. What a tool.

[DenverBrit]

If that's his standard anyone could make anything up and it would need to taken as fact. What a tool.

LOL

And your standard is what exactly? If you didn't hear or see it, it didn't happen?

[epicSocialism4tw]

If that's his standard anyone could make anything up and it would need to taken as fact. What a tool.

Well, it doesnt make any sense. What kind of person walks up and asks a total stranger racially oriented questions? They'd be lucky not to get the crap kicked out of them.

[DBruleU]

Well, it doesnt make any sense. What kind of person walks up and asks a total stranger racially oriented questions? They'd be lucky not to get the crap kicked out of them.

That's why it's so stupid. Common sense eludes liberals, usually.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's why it's so stupid. Common sense eludes liberals, usually.

Well, I dont think he's a bad guy, I just think that he's dishonest here.

[DenverBrit]

Well, it doesnt make any sense. What kind of person walks up and asks a total stranger racially oriented questions? They'd be lucky not to get the crap kicked out of them.

If I did that, then yes I'd agree. But I stood by and talked casually with a lot of the attendees. Mostly I asked why they didn't like Obama others didn't need to be asked.

Some flat out said they didn't like, or weren't ready for, a Black president, especially one who wasn't US born. Those people made a big deal of his heritage, Muslim father, forged birth certificate etc.

Most didn't mention his color, Kenya or Muslims, they simply didn't like his policies.

And for the record, I don't like his performance much either.

There were no racist signs that I saw. However, the tea party has enough racist placards at their rally's for there to be no doubt that they have a racist streak.

In an earlier post, you asked to see them, I posted them for all to see.

Yet you have no comment about them?

[DenverBrit]

That's why it's so stupid. Common sense eludes liberals, usually.

You're another jackass who thinks that because I don't agree with some Tea party, Libertarian or Republican views, I'm a liberal.

Very simplistic and naive of you.

The world isn't all about party loyalty no matter what.

Grow up a little and you'll figure it out someday.

[DBruleU]

If I did that, then yes I'd agree. But I stood by and talked casually with a lot of the attendees. Mostly I asked why they didn't like Obama others didn't need to be asked.

Some flat out said they didn't like, or weren't ready for, a Black president, especially one who wasn't US born. Those people made a big deal of his heritage, Muslim father, forged birth certificate etc.

Most didn't mention his color, Kenya or Muslims, they simply didn't like his policies.

And for the record, I don't like his performance much either.

There were no racist signs that I saw. However, the tea party has enough racist placards at their rally's for there to be no doubt that they have a racist streak.

In an earlier post, you asked to see them, I posted them for all to see.

Yet you have no comment about them?

So you agree that there is a small number of people who basically "crash" these rally's and their views don't jive with the Tea Party.

Got it. Stop calling them racist then.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If I did that, then yes I'd agree. But I stood by and talked casually with a lot of the attendees. Mostly I asked why they didn't like Obama others didn't need to be asked.

Some flat out said they didn't like, or weren't ready for, a Black president, especially one who wasn't US born. Those people made a big deal of his heritage, Muslim father, forged birth certificate etc.

Most didn't mention his color, Kenya or Muslims, they simply didn't like his policies.

And for the record, I don't like his performance much either.

There were no racist signs that I saw. However, the tea party has enough racist placards at their rally's for there to be no doubt that they have a racist streak.

In an earlier post, you asked to see them, I posted them for all to see.

Yet you have no comment about them?

Yeah...its pretty sketchy to make those signs a talking point because its well known that liberals have intentionally planted operatives at those meetings to hold up signs that make the tea party look bad. You must have missed the post of mine that showed tea party people running liberals with racist signs out of their meetings.

[DBruleU]

You're another jackass who thinks that because I don't agree with some Tea party, Libertarian or Republican views, I'm a liberal.

Very simplistic and naive of you.

The world isn't all about party loyalty no matter what.

Grow up a little and you'll figure it out someday.

I'm simplistic yet you equate the Tea Party as racist because you "saw" a few sings that are racist?

[DenverBrit]

So you agree that there is a small number of people who basically "crash" these rally's and their views don't jive with the Tea Party.

Got it. Stop calling them racist then.

Not at all. They were Tea Party followers, some of whom expressed racist views about Obama.

Where did I agree that anyone 'crashed' the Denver rally?

Is this more of your 'logic'. If they were racist they must be 'liberals crashing the rally?'

The Teaparty has attracted the extreme right of the Repubs, why didn't it occur to you that they brought some of their racist views with them?

[JJJ]

You're another jackass who thinks that because I don't agree with some Tea party, Libertarian or Republican views, I'm a liberal.

Very simplistic and naive of you.

The world isn't all about party loyalty no matter what.

Grow up a little and you'll figure it out someday.

Nope, I think you simply agree with just about every liberal position but just don't like being called a liberal.

What Tea Party, Libertarian, or Republican views do you agree with?

[barryr]

Liberals are the biggest racists, so yeah, I would says odds are they were closet demos. since it's the liberals who believe minorities, namely blacks, are too stupid to do for their own and need all of these welfare programs. Democrat Robert Byrd spent a career with that belief.

[DenverBrit]

Nope, I think you simply agree with just about every liberal position but just don't like being called a liberal.

What Tea Party, Libertarian, or Republican views do you agree with?

Minimum intrusion by Government. (Not the Bush version)

Low taxation.

Balanced budgets (not the Bush version)

Free trade. (but not unregulated)

Pro choice. (Libertarian)

Small government

Individual liberty (within the law)

Freedom of and from Religion.

Fact is, none of the parties represent the US people as a whole.
Until campaign finance reform is passed, the lobbyists and those they work for have hijacked Democracy. Both main parties are equally corrupt, the system guarantees whoever is elected will take the money in equal amounts.

[JJJ]

Minimum intrusion by Government. (Not the Bush version)

Low taxation.

Balanced budgets (not the Bush version)

Free trade. (but not unregulated)

Pro choice. (Libertarian)

Small government

Individual liberty (within the law)

Freedom of and from Religion.

Fact is, none of the parties represent the US people as a whole.
Until campaign finance reform is passed, the lobbyists and those they work for have hijacked Democracy. Both main parties are equally corrupt, the system guarantees whoever is elected will take the money in equal amounts.

All of those with the exception of abortion are part of the Tea Party platform.

So what is the real reason you despise the Tea Party people?

It cannot be racism because you have shown yourself that you border on being a religios bigot and don't really live by your last tenant. For someone who supports freedom of and from religion you are pretty quick to call religious people idiots. The Noah crack as a prime example.

[DBruleU]

Minimum intrusion by Government. (Not the Bush version)

Low taxation.

Balanced budgets (not the Bush version)

Free trade. (but not unregulated)

Pro choice. (Libertarian)

Small government

Individual liberty (within the law)

Freedom of and from Religion.

Fact is, none of the parties represent the US people as a whole.
Until campaign finance reform is passed, the lobbyists and those they work for have hijacked Democracy. Both main parties are equally corrupt, the system guarantees whoever is elected will take the money in equal amounts.

What is Freedom FROM religion anyway?

So, we are allowed to worship how we choose, but you're allowed to tell us we can't because it's getting a little too close your personal space?

[JJJ]

What is Freedom FROM religion anyway?

So, we are allowed to worship how we choose, but you're allowed to tell us we can't because it's getting a little too close your personal space?

They want to be free from a couple well dressed Mormons knocking on their door or people wearing a cross around their neck at work. You know, all those really offensive things that religious people do.

[DBruleU]

They want to be free from a couple well dressed Mormons knocking on their door or people wearing a cross around their neck at work. You know, all those really offensive things that religious people do.

I'm serious. It doesn't even make sense. Freedom FROM Religion? Really? Where does it say that in the constitution?

[TailgateNut]

I dont agree with it, but those people think that the Kenyan and Muslim things are not offensive because of blackness, but because those countries have different political ideas than we have in this country.

Its you who is assuming race with everything. Maybe youre the racist.

Yep, that's the issue.:spit:

[TailgateNut]

Liberals are the biggest racists, so yeah, I would says odds are they were closet demos. since it's the liberals who believe minorities, namely blacks, are too stupid to do for their own and need all of these welfare programs. Democrat Robert Byrd spent a career with that belief.


Yep, that's why "liberal states" such as Texas, Mississippi,Georgia and several other "deep south redneck havens" have overwhelming numbers of republican residents.:spit:

Damn Skippy, you are one stupid MFr.

[DenverBrit]

All of those with the exception of abortion are part of the Tea Party platform.

So what is the real reason you despise the Tea Party people?

It cannot be racism because you have shown yourself that you border on being a religios bigot and don't really live by your last tenant. For someone who supports freedom of and from religion you are pretty quick to call religious people idiots. The Noah crack as a prime example.

Since when did not sharing your extreme religious views have anything to do with my believing in freedom of and from religion?

The "Noah crack"?

Is a valid issue. You believe in a bizarre tale of incest and animal rescue and I think it ridiculous, but feel free to think it's true.

[DenverBrit]

I'm serious. It doesn't even make sense. Freedom FROM Religion? Really? Where does it say that in the constitution?

Freedom from religion doesn't make sense to you? Why am I not surprised.

Do you know anything about Jefferson?

Google 'separation of church and state' and educate yourself.

Here, to get you started, a simple explanation that even you might understand. 8')

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.

[Garcia Bronco]

The reality is there are a number of "Colored" people in the Tea Party and this will only divide the NAACP.

[Garcia Bronco]

You have the freedom to choose your religion, but you do not have freedom from religion. If we had "freedom from religion" in this country then ultimately we would be oppressing the religious. Which is tyranny.

[DenverBrit]

You have the freedom to choose your religion, but you do not have freedom from religion. If we had "freedom from religion" in this country then ultimately we would be oppressing the religious. Which is tyranny.


Jefferson and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

[Garcia Bronco]

Jefferson and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought, nor Madison, the only thing that matters here is the logic behind what you are saying and the actual text of the First Amendment. If we are to bully the Muslims, Quakers, Christians, and so on about their beliefs and what the can and cannot express, without violence, then we are no better than our British(sorry) tyrant masters of the 1700's.

This is an interesting page related tothis sub-topic. Check out the stats at the bottom

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

[DenverBrit]

It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought, nor Madison, the only thing that matters here is the logic behind what you are saying and the actual text of the First Amendment. If we are to bully the Muslims, Quakers, Christians, and so on about their beliefs and what the can and cannot express, without violence, then we are no better than our British(sorry) tyrant masters of the 1700's.

This is an interesting page related tothis sub-topic. Check out the stats at the bottom

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

There's no intention to bully other religions by promoting religious freedom, the opposite would be true. Tolerance.

Freedom from religion is also about tolerance and separation from government. Iran would be a good example of a state run by a religious doctrine, therefore not free from religion and anything but tolerant.

A line from the page you linked is on the money.

Religious minorities frequently suffer a loss of freedom in those countries which do not have a wall of separation.

[Requiem]

I guess you'll find out if they are fairy tales or not when you die.

As will you.

However, in your lifetime, if you so pleased, you could invest a little time towards comparative mythology and see that the themes and motifs outlined in the Bible, are an amalgamation of those seen throughout history, from cultures the world over that existed and were documented well before Christ's appearance in our timeline.

Yet you seem to believe that the tall tales told in them are unique and exclusive to the Christian doctrine, despite the overwhelming evidence that exists that states otherwise.

[DBruleU]

As will you.

However, in your lifetime, if you so pleased, you could invest a little time towards comparative mythology and see that the themes and motifs outlined in the Bible, are an amalgamation of those seen throughout history, from cultures the world over that existed and were documented well before Christ's appearance in our timeline.

Yet you seem to believe that the tall tales told in them are unique and exclusive to the Christian doctrine, despite the overwhelming evidence that exists that states otherwise.

That's fine. I'm confident in my beliefs.

[Requiem]

What beliefs? You claim to be a Christian yet violate Christ's words and teachings on a consistent basis with your demeanor towards others who aren't like you on this board.

Your statement of, "That is fine, I'm confident in my beliefs." just shows your arrogance, and ignorance to myth, the rise of religion, and how it compares across the globe.

What makes Christianity any more valid compared to the other worldly religions that exist?

What makes it more valid than any religious beliefs found in tribal societies?

Are these questions you can adequately answer? Probably not.

[DBruleU]

What beliefs? You claim to be a Christian yet violate Christ's words and teachings on a consistent basis with your demeanor towards others who aren't like you on this board.

Your statement of, "That is fine, I'm confident in my beliefs." just shows your arrogance, and ignorance to myth, the rise of religion, and how it compares across the globe.

What makes Christianity any more valid compared to the other worldly religions that exist?

What makes it more valid than any religious beliefs found in tribal societies?

Are these questions you can adequately answer? Probably not.

Why is it so hard for some to accept others have different beliefs? I don't think it's my arrogance and ignorance you should be worried about.

[Rohirrim]

"Belief" is the main problem with the teabaggers. They believe they know something about the Constitution, but in fact know almost nothing about it, and will readily admit it. I heard one on NPR yesterday actually say she didn't know exactly what it said but she knows what it means and that's all she needed to know. In other words, it's the old Humpty Dumpty rule: It means whatever I want it to mean.

They believe they can just stand up and start throwing **** out there but what they don't realize is that every amendment in the Constitution has about a roomful of books, essays, arguments, rulings, precedents and discussions backing it up - of course not one of which they would bother to read. Why get educated when you can just sit there like a moron lapping up whatever Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or that idiot Bachmann spew out, and then you can just shoot from the hip and say whatever ridiculous bs occurs to you? Hell, as long as you have the general feel for thing, what else do you need?

[Requiem]

Why is it so hard for some to accept others have different beliefs?

Acceptance isn't the issue.

I have plenty of Christian friends and respect their beliefs because they aren't uppity and demeaning about it.

My issue comes when people as yourself act self-righteous and above others who don't believe what you believe.

I don't think it's my arrogance and ignorance you should be worried about.

I'm not worried about it, but I just find it amusing, especially when there are agnostics and atheists on the forum who have more of a clue about Christianity than you do when (allegedly) you're self-professed as one of the best around. I understand it is the trendy thing to claim and be, but you might want to practice what you preach if you really want a shot at the big gig in the sky you'll be gearing up for all your life.

Wouldn't want to be disappointed, would you?

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Belief" is the main problem with the teabaggers. They believe they know something about the Constitution, but in fact know almost nothing about it, and will readily admit it. I heard one on NPR yesterday actually say she didn't know exactly what it said but she knows what it means and that's all she needed to know. In other words, it's the old Humpty Dumpty rule: It means whatever I want it to mean.

They believe they can just stand up and start throwing **** out there but what they don't realize is that every amendment in the Constitution has about a roomful of books, essays, arguments, rulings, precedents and discussions backing it up - of course not one of which they would bother to read. Why get educated when you can just sit there like a moron lapping up whatever Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or that idiot Bachmann spew out, and then you can just shoot from the hip and say whatever ridiculous bs occurs to you? Hell, as long as you have the general feel for thing, what else do you need?

More "I saw this one, or I heard that one" anecdotes about the tea party. You guys sure are excited about your stereotypes and generalizations. Yet another example of the moral and ethical ineptitude of the modern liberal movement. You very well could make gerneralizations based on knowing the beliefs of the local teapartyers Taco John and the Tongan guy and extrapolate that just as easily as you have done with the propaganda rhetoric-feuled hate-speech generalizations that you have bought into. Taco John is well spoken. Ask him if you want to know instead of taking wholesale the MSNBC talking points which have been handed down from the white house, who is at odds with the tea party over POLICY, and have established talking points for MSNBC on this issue.

[Requiem]

I'm glad Isaac is an exception to the rule.

[Rohirrim]

More "I saw this one, or I heard that one" anecdotes about the tea party. You guys sure are excited about your stereotypes and generalizations. Yet another example of the moral and ethical ineptitude of the modern liberal movement. You very well could make gerneralizations based on knowing the beliefs of the local teapartyers Taco John and the Tongan guy and extrapolate that just as easily as you have done with the propaganda rhetoric-feuled hate-speech generalizations that you have bought into. Taco John is well spoken. Ask him if you want to know instead of taking wholesale the MSNBC talking points which have been handed down from the white house, who is at odds with the tea party over POLICY, and have established talking points for MSNBC on this issue.

What policy? All I've seen from the tea party so far is paranoid hysteria about that socialist black man in the White House. Little of anything they've said or claimed has any basis in fact. I can only assume that their true driving force has some other origin, ergo this thread.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What policy? All I've seen from the tea party so far is paranoid hysteria about that socialist black man in the White House. Little of anything they've said or claimed has any basis in fact. I can only assume that their true driving force has some other origin, ergo this thread.

Seriously? Did you just ask what policy the tea party is in opposition to? Ha!

No wonder you keep falling back in the intellectually deficient "theyre all just racists" straw man. Its convenient, easily emotes, and lazy.

You may have missed nearly all of the news for the past three years, but you'll see that the tea party has been a driving force for policy positions. Beginning with Bush's Harriett Myers appointment and continuing through Bush's bailouts, Obama's bailouts, Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Illegal Immigration, Unemployment, and Tax increases. If you notice the obvious thread running through those issues, the message is clearly that the tea party want the fed to get their hands out of their wallets. It should be obvious that in an economic downturn that these would be common issues shared among people of different political orientations, and thats pretty much what the tea party is.

There's a reason its called the tea party. Its about money. Money = property = civil rights.

Its simple. The race card was inevitable because its all that the dems have anymore, and its not effective anymore anyway because its use has exceeded its utility.

[JJJ]

Freedom from religion doesn't make sense to you? Why am I not surprised.

Do you know anything about Jefferson?

Google 'separation of church and state' and educate yourself.

Here, to get you started, a simple explanation that even you might understand. 8')

What a bunch of silly nonsense. Separation of church and state does not mean freedom from religion. It simply means there is no state run religion.

From Jefferson's own words:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The bold part by definition says you have to put up with someone else's right to practice their religion and only have the right to not have religion imposed on you. In other words they can't make you join but you have to listen to the sales pitch.

You guys really love to misquote Jefferson I must say. He deserves better.

[BroncoLifer]

In other words, it's the old Humpty Dumpty rule: It means whatever I want it to mean.

Which makes it indistinguishable from the "Living Constitution" concept the Left holds dear.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Which makes it indistinguishable from the "Living Constitution" concept the Left holds dear.

Zing!

[DenverBrit]

What a bunch of silly nonsense. Separation of church and state does not mean freedom from religion. It simply means there is no state run religion.

From Jefferson's own words:



The bold part by definition says you have to put up with someone else's right to practice their religion and only have the right to not have religion imposed on you. In other words they can't make you join but you have to listen to the sales pitch.

You guys really love to misquote Jefferson I must say. He deserves better.

You've just described freedom of and from religion. Well done. But you don't seem to understand it.
What exactly do you think I mean by freedom from religion??

Where have I misquoted Jefferson? It's you who keeps trying to make Jefferson out to be religious man. He was very wary of religion and it's effect. I've posted this before when you made claims about Jefferson's religious beliefs. Apparently, you didn't understand it then, so try again.

Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth... Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.

[TailgateNut]

You've just described freedom of and from religion. Well done. But you don't seem to understand it.
What exactly do you think I mean by freedom from religion??

Where have I misquoted Jefferson? It's you who keeps trying to make Jefferson out to be religious man. He was very wary of religion and it's effect. I've posted this before when you made claims about Jefferson's religious beliefs. Apparently, you didn't understand it then, so try again.

Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated:

Most who claim to be religious tend to think of others as "lesser beings", and then wonder why those who don't beleive see them as arrogant and pushy assholes!

[JJJ]

You've just described freedom of and from religion. Well done. But you don't seem to understand it.
What exactly do you think I mean by freedom from religion?? [/B]

Exactly what you have said in other threads. You don't want to have to look at someone praying at work, or a religious artifact or picture on someone's desk, or a Christmas tree during the holidays in the office lobby, or a Menorah at Hanukka, or to hear a preacher in a town square.

Eliminating every shread of religion out daily life is ridiculous and was not what was meant in anyway by Jefferson when he talked of the separation of church and state.

Jefferson would want to celebrate the great religious diversity that currently exists in this country not spend his every waking breath trying to sanitize it clean from the face of the country.

[Drek]

The bold part by definition says you have to put up with someone else's right to practice their religion and only have the right to not have religion imposed on you. In other words they can't make you join but you have to listen to the sales pitch.

You guys really love to misquote Jefferson I must say. He deserves better.

You should really try reading that more critically.

We are all free from having to join to anyone's religion or have ourselves subjected to the "sales pitch" as you put it at our own discretion. If someone does not believe in religion that itself is a belief structure, and giving the "sales pitch" to them is no different than the non-religious trying to take away the right to practice from the religious.

Separation of church and state means we as a nation need to legislate according to the constitution and bill of rights, not in accordance with moral doctrine imposed by a religious belief.

Case in point: Gay marriage. It is a gross violation of civil rights to allow only some people to join in a federally recognized civil union with their romantic partners. The immorality or lack thereof is not up for debate because our nation is not supposed to legislate morality but instead enfranchise and empower its citizenship.

The #1 problem with the tea party: They associate the American revolution with a desire to not pay taxes as opposed to taxation without representation. They view their "freedom" as having a direct relationship with the percentage of their annual income that pays taxes. They view government as the whole of their problems, yet work within the governmental system, feeding the dragon they claim to want slain.

In short, they don't make any sense. Much like the libertarian party which has now faded and been replaced by the tea party they vote with their wallets, not with their heads.

15000 marines hanging out in Okinawa? Support the troops! Health care for the elderly? Outrage. "Free" trade agreements that pad corporate pockets and take jobs out of the U.S.? Free market economy! Giving an overt handout that has been largely repaid to those same corporations instead of a backroom deal that is never recouped? Again outrage.

I could go on, but in short its a lot of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. They don't truly want freedom, they want wealth and privilege. In fact they by and large feel entitled to it, not the freedom they truly deserve.

So let your government tell you want you can and can't do in every single aspect of your life except the dollar figure you see on your paycheck and everything is right with the world? Not for me.

[DenverBrit]

Exactly what you have said in other threads. You don't want to have to look at someone praying at work, or a religious artifact or picture on someone's desk, or a Christmas tree during the holidays in the office lobby, or a Menorah at Hanukka, or to hear a preacher in a town square.

Eliminating every shread of religion out daily life is ridiculous and was not what was meant in anyway by Jefferson when he talked of the separation of church and state.

Jefferson would want to celebrate the great religious diversity that currently exists in this country not spend his every waking breath trying to sanitize it clean from the face of the country.

I'm beginning to think you're challenged in some way.
You repeatedly make these accusations.......you pull them out of your ass anytime you run out of rhetoric.

Once again, go find the posts where I made these statements.......and once again, good luck.

[Taco John]

That was painful to read Drek. You don't have a good understanding of the tea party at all. Or libertarianism for that matter.

The problem with the tea party is partisan politics causes leftists to knee jerk rather than actually try to understand. But this is a problem with politics in general. Personally, I don't care what anyone thinks of the tea party. I've been a member of it for the better part of my adult life, only it's been the last couple of years that it's finally been given a name. None of my concerns are anywhere close to the neighborhood of what Drek embarassingly laid out. They are simple: I believe in individual liberties. Whether that's taxes, gay marriage, drugs, religion, you name it. I believe in protecting the individual against the tyranny of the majority. This includes individuals who make a lot of money too. They should not be burdened with a higher percentage than anyone else simply for the fact that they are capable of earning more.

Individual liberty means that all individuals are treated equally under the law. This is what I believe regardless of political partisainship. This is how I vote. And nothing is going to change that.

[Taco John]

For the record, I own a Jeffersonian Bible (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_9?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jefferson+bible&sprefix=Jefferson&ih=8_0_0_1_0_0_0_0_0_1.121_243&fsc=-1). He was a strong proponent of the morals of Jesus.

If Jefferson was indeed an athiest (not likely, he seems to have had a religious philosophy), he wasn't a stupid one.

[JJJ]

It's you who keeps trying to make Jefferson out to be religious man. He was very wary of religion and it's effect. I've posted this before when you made claims about Jefferson's religious beliefs. Apparently, you didn't understand it then, so try again.

Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated:

Jefferson was religious there is no doubt about that. Wary yes, but still very religious and a believer in God. He was a Deist.

Though he often expressed his opposition to clergy and to Christian doctrines, Jefferson repeatedly expressed his belief in God and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher.

I see your point though, he was so extremely wary of God that he evokes him in the first two sentences of the DOI. Your logic simply has no credible basis.

[DenverBrit]

Most who claim to be religious tend to think of others as "lesser beings", and then wonder why those who don't beleive see them as arrogant and pushy a-holes!

This clown can't get or keep his facts straight. I've lost count of the number of times he's tried to attribute comments or posts to me when he gets desperate. He's been wrong every time but keeps repeating the same nonsense.....usually when he feels cornered by his own lack of knowledge.

[Rohirrim]

Jefferson was religious there is no doubt about that. Wary yes, but still very religious and a believer in God. He was a Deist.

Though he often expressed his opposition to clergy and to Christian doctrines, Jefferson repeatedly expressed his belief in God and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher.

I see your point though, he was so extremely wary of God that he evokes him in the first two sentences of the DOI. Your logic simply has no credible basis.

I'm always happy to help out:

The evolution of the text of the Declaration of Independence regarding the use of the word "Creator" began with the quill of Thomas Jefferson, was discussed with and shown or submitted to John Adams and probably Benjamin Franklin. There were two other members of the "Committee of Five" but there is no historical evidence to show what, if any input they might have had. It was then submitted to Congress. Refer to Original Rough Draught of the Declaration of Independence1

The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic:


We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . 2

In the Adams copy, written, sometime between June 11 and June 28, in his own (J. Adams) handwriting we have the following:


We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . 3

Sometime later, but before being submitted to Congress, the above was changed to the following:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .4

Though many other changes were made in the rest of the document, Congress accepted those lines for the finished Declaration.
http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm

[epicSocialism4tw]

For the record, I own a Jeffersonian Bible (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_9?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jefferson+bible&sprefix=Jefferson&ih=8_0_0_1_0_0_0_0_0_1.121_243&fsc=-1). He was a strong proponent of the morals of Jesus.

If Jefferson was indeed an athiest (not likely, he seems to have had a religious philosophy), he wasn't a stupid one.

Consensus is pretty much that he was somewhere on the continuum between a Deist and a Christian Theist.

However, Jefferson certainly does not have the philosophical power of Jesus, and I would never consider Jefferson more important or more significant in any way.

[Rohirrim]

Seriously? Did you just ask what policy the tea party is in opposition to? Ha!

No wonder you keep falling back in the intellectually deficient "theyre all just racists" straw man. Its convenient, easily emotes, and lazy.

You may have missed nearly all of the news for the past three years, but you'll see that the tea party has been a driving force for policy positions. Beginning with Bush's Harriett Myers appointment and continuing through Bush's bailouts, Obama's bailouts, Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Illegal Immigration, Unemployment, and Tax increases. If you notice the obvious thread running through those issues, the message is clearly that the tea party want the fed to get their hands out of their wallets. It should be obvious that in an economic downturn that these would be common issues shared among people of different political orientations, and thats pretty much what the tea party is.

There's a reason its called the tea party. Its about money. Money = property = civil rights.

Its simple. The race card was inevitable because its all that the dems have anymore, and its not effective anymore anyway because its use has exceeded its utility.

Yeah, it's about money alright. They want a great government and they don't want to be taxed for it. They want a unicorn. Yippee kayay. :oyvey:

[DenverBrit]

For the record, I own a Jeffersonian Bible (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_9?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jefferson+bible&sprefix=Jefferson&ih=8_0_0_1_0_0_0_0_0_1.121_243&fsc=-1). He was a strong proponent of the morals of Jesus.

If Jefferson was indeed an athiest (not likely, he seems to have had a religious philosophy), he wasn't a stupid one.

This is a fair explanation of the Jefferson Bible.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

[JJJ]

This clown can't get or keep his facts straight. I've lost count of the number of times he's tried to attribute comments or posts to me when he gets desperate. He's been wrong every time but keeps repeating the same nonsense.....usually when he feels cornered by his own lack of knowledge.

My impression is you are right on the same page as Wiggles and Roh when it comes to views on religion. I don't think anyone reading your posts here would dispute that except perhaps yourself.

There isn't much interest in that European militant secular nonsense in the US. We cherish our religious diversity in this country.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah, it's about money alright. They want a great government and they don't want to be taxed for it. They want a unicorn. Yippee kayay.

Nope.

They'd rather build their own communities than depend on half-interested beaureaucrats whose main objective is securing their own pension at the taxpayer's expense.

[Rohirrim]

Nope.

They'd rather build their own communities than depend on half-interested beaureaucrats whose main objective is securing their own pension at the taxpayer's expense.

Ah, secession. I got ya.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm always happy to help out:

The evolution of the text of the Declaration of Independence regarding the use of the word "Creator" began with the quill of Thomas Jefferson, was discussed with and shown or submitted to John Adams and probably Benjamin Franklin. There were two other members of the "Committee of Five" but there is no historical evidence to show what, if any input they might have had. It was then submitted to Congress. Refer to Original Rough Draught of the Declaration of Independence1

The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic:


We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . 2

In the Adams copy, written, sometime between June 11 and June 28, in his own (J. Adams) handwriting we have the following:


We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . 3

Sometime later, but before being submitted to Congress, the above was changed to the following:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .4

Though many other changes were made in the rest of the document, Congress accepted those lines for the finished Declaration.
http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm

A huge majority of black and hispanic people in this country are religious. Clearly you are against their interests, and clearly this makes you and your entire party a bunch of hard-core racists.

[DenverBrit]

Consensus is pretty much that he was somewhere on the continuum between a Deist and a Christian Theist.

However, Jefferson certainly does not have the philosophical power of Jesus, and I would never consider Jefferson more important or more significant in any way.

I don't think any other Jefferson quote states his position more clearly than this:

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being".

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't think any other Jefferson quote states his position more clearly than this:


-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

That was his position at one point in his life, yes. I think that he was ignorant an uneducated on the subject at that point and that he should stick to law rather than exegesis 101.

[DenverBrit]

My impression is you are right on the same page as Wiggles and Roh when it comes to views on religion. I don't think anyone reading your posts here would dispute that except perhaps yourself.

There isn't much interest in that European militant secular nonsense in the US. We cherish our religious diversity in this country.

Why don't you find the posts where you claim I made all of the statements you listed?

Your impression is all you have and it's wrong. If you had a memory cell left, you would recall we had an almost identical discussion about how off the mark you are when you make such assumptions.

As usual, when challenged, you've got nothing.

[DenverBrit]

That was his position at one point in his life, yes. I think that he was ignorant an uneducated on the subject at that point and that he should stick to law rather than exegesis 101.

So you're right and Jefferson was "ignorant" and "uneducated." Ha!

I'm sorry, but you really should get over yourself.

[Rohirrim]

My impression is you are right on the same page as Wiggles and Roh when it comes to views on religion. I don't think anyone reading your posts here would dispute that except perhaps yourself.

There isn't much interest in that European militant secular nonsense in the US. We cherish our religious diversity in this country.

Since the very first day that Europeans set foot on the soil of North America the fight between secularism and Puritanism has gone on, in one form or another. Ben Franklin made his name as a writer and publisher going up against the Mather family. And it was pretty much over some of the same stuff we argue today. There is a very strong movement in this country to impose one specific religion on the rest of this country. They spread the lie that the Founders intended to create a "Christian" country, that this country was founded on "Christian" principles, that this country was once wholly "Christian." If one does not fight against lies, they will become truth. If there is anything we learned from Reagan/Atwater/Bush/Rove, it should be that.

This country was founded on the principles of the Age of Reason. It's creation was a severance, a divorce, from the principles of what came before; monarchical states controlling all facets of life in collusion with state ordained religion. Many in the Christian fundamentalist movement, especially in the U.S., want to return to that church-run world. Those in the secular world must be willing to continue the fight against that tyranny.

[Rohirrim]

That was his position at one point in his life, yes. I think that he was ignorant an uneducated on the subject at that point and that he should stick to law rather than exegesis 101.

Ha! Now you're even smarter than Thomas Jefferson? Man, a more unchecked ego I have yet to find.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So you're right and Jefferson was "ignorant" and "uneducated." Ha!

I'm sorry, but you really should get over yourself.

I'm sure that I know more about living systems than Jefferson ever dreams could have even existed. Im sure that Jefferson knew more about law than I will ever come close to knowing.

If you want good information on Jesus, go to the scholars of that discipline. Dont go to a lawyer.

[DenverBrit]

I'm sure that I know more about living systems than Jefferson ever dreams could have even existed. Im sure that Jefferson knew more about law than I will ever come close to knowing.

If you want good information on Jesus, go to the scholars of that discipline. Dont go to a lawyer.


This has been about Jefferson's religious beliefs, not yours.

You're going to make JJJ cry if you keep saying Jefferson didn't know what he was talking about when it came to religion. Ha!

[barryr]

Meanwhile Jefferson and the Founding Fathers always started meetings with a prayer. But the left would love to rewrite history, as is their habit, of saying they really were athiests and didn't think belief in God was important. Too many people know better than that.

[Mr.Meanie]

That was painful to read Drek. You don't have a good understanding of the tea party at all. Or libertarianism for that matter.

The problem with the tea party is partisan politics causes leftists to knee jerk rather than actually try to understand. But this is a problem with politics in general. Personally, I don't care what anyone thinks of the tea party. I've been a member of it for the better part of my adult life, only it's been the last couple of years that it's finally been given a name. None of my concerns are anywhere close to the neighborhood of what Drek embarassingly laid out. They are simple: I believe in individual liberties. Whether that's taxes, gay marriage, drugs, religion, you name it. I believe in protecting the individual against the tyranny of the majority. This includes individuals who make a lot of money too. They should not be burdened with a higher percentage than anyone else simply for the fact that they are capable of earning more.

Individual liberty means that all individuals are treated equally under the law. This is what I believe regardless of political partisainship. This is how I vote. And nothing is going to change that.

I agree with all of that, actually. Maybe we disagree slightly on the implementation of it, but those are the core beliefs that I 100% support. The problem for me is it seems those core beliefs are being lost or distorted by the shrillness of the people who claim to lead the tea party (Beck, Palin, Angle), and some of the nut-job fringers. And also by the GOP who seems to think the Tea Party is their ticket back into relevancy and an actual platform.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I agree with all of that, actually. Maybe we disagree slightly on the implementation of it, but those are the core beliefs that I 100% support. The problem for me is it seems those core beliefs are being lost or distorted by the shrillness of the people who claim to lead the tea party (Beck, Palin, Angle), and some of the nut-job fringers. And also by the GOP who seems to think the Tea Party is their ticket back into relevancy and an actual platform.

Thats why its important for people to carry the movement. If you havent yet figured out why there is so much vitriol levied agaisnt the tea party, all you have to do is realize whats at stake: money and power. What does the tea party want? For non-career politicians to get into office to set things back into balance...to put power back into the hands of the people. Thats the worst thing that could happen to the political class.

Also, you have to realize why Beck and Palin are "shrill"...because they are challenging the powers that be and their recourse is to fire back at them by flooding the public with controversy about them so that they can tie the tea party (a people's movement) to these leaders, when its really a true grass roots movement.

[Rohirrim]

A huge majority of black and hispanic people in this country are religious. Clearly you are against their interests, and clearly this makes you and your entire party a bunch of hard-core racists.

See? Like most on the Right, whenever you need to you simply make **** up. Nope. I'm not opposed to any religion anybody wants to choose. Knock yourself out. I'm opposed to people saying this is a "Christian" country and should ordain that children praise the "Christian" god in public schools, and that officers of government should take "Christian" oaths, and that the dogma of Christianity should replace science in our textbooks, etc etc etc.

You fundamentalist whackos have stood the argument on its head. Secularists are not attacking your religion, but you guys have been fighting to impose your religion on us for over two hundred years. Secularists want to follow the basic, Constitutional foundation. In other words, we simply want to be left alone. But one of the tenets of fundamentalist christian doctrine is that you cannot accept that idea, so you must continue to shove your crap down everybody else's throats, by hook or by crook, and you wont be satisfied until you've wiped the secularism out of this secularist country. None of your bull**** can fool anybody. It's clear who is the aggressor in this fight.

[Requiem]

Jefferson wasn't an atheist, he was a deist. Get with the picture.

[epicSocialism4tw]

See? Like most on the Right, whenever you need to you simply make **** up. Nope. I'm not opposed to any religion anybody wants to choose. Knock yourself out. I'm opposed to people saying this is a "Christian" country and should ordain that children praise the "Christian" god in public schools, and that officers of government should take "Christian" oaths, and that the dogma of Christianity should replace science in our textbooks, etc etc etc.

You fundamentalist whackos have stood the argument on its head. Secularists are not attacking your religion, but you guys have been fighting to impose your religion on us for over two hundred years. Secularists want to follow the basic, Constitutional foundation. In other words, we simply want to be left alone. But one of the tenets of fundamentalist christian doctrine is that you cannot accept that idea, so you must continue to shove your crap down everybody else's throats, by hook or by crook, and you wont be satisfied until you've wiped the secularism out of this secularist country. None of your bull**** can fool anybody. It's clear who is the aggressor in this fight.

You hate black and hispanic culture. You are a racist

[Rohirrim]

Meanwhile Jefferson and the Founding Fathers always started meetings with a prayer. But the left would love to rewrite history, as is their habit, of saying they really were athiests and didn't think belief in God was important. Too many people know better than that.

After one especially important meeting of the Constitutional Congress, many of the more religious members repaired to a local church to take part in a thanksgiving. Washington and his contingent went to the local pub to toss a few back with his former comrades in arms. I doubt that any of the religious types held that against him the next day.

This is what you modern, radical fundamentalists miss: In the Founders time, the idea was that everybody was allowed to follow their own path without pressure or coercion. What you righties want to do is impose your path on everybody else and you wont be happy until you forced everybody to succumb to the tyranny of your religious beliefs. Just like the Taliban.

[Rohirrim]

You hate black and hispanic culture. You are a racist

And, as you've proved so many times on this board, you're an idiot.

[barryr]

After one especially important meeting of the Constitutional Congress, many of the more religious members repaired to a local church to take part in a thanksgiving. Washington and his contingent went to the local pub to toss a few back with his former comrades in arms. I doubt that any of the religious types held that against him the next day.

This is what you modern, radical fundamentalists miss: In the Founders time, the idea was that everybody was allowed to follow their own path without pressure or coercion. What you righties want to do is impose your path on everybody else and you wont be happy until you forced everybody to follow succumb to the tyranny of your religious beliefs. Just like the Taliban.

No, everyone was allowed to practice their religion without government telling them which church to go to and making them do it in the basement either. Which is what you lefty jarheads miss is that it is freedom of religion, not from religion. If anybody acts like the Taliban, it's you liberal intolerant ****ers who push your diseased agenda on everyone else.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And, as you've proved so many times on this board, you're an idiot.

Ah, I see.

Its okay for you and your approved media to make lame, unreasonable accusations but when the tables are turned it just isnt right.

Thanks for illustrating what hypocrisy looks like for us all!

[epicSocialism4tw]

No, everyone was allowed to practice their religion without government telling them which church to go to and making them do it in the basement either. Which is what you lefty jarheads miss is that it is freedom of religion, not from religion. If anybody acts like the Taliban, it's you liberal intolerant ****ers who push your diseased agenda on everyone else.

No joke. Militant extremist atheism is a plague in this country.

[Garcia Bronco]

They believe they can just stand up and start throwing **** out there but what they don't realize is that every amendment in the Constitution has about a roomful of books, essays, arguments, rulings, precedents and discussions backing it up - of course not one of which they would bother to read. Why get educated when you can just sit there like a moron lapping up whatever Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or that idiot Bachmann spew out, and then you can just shoot from the hip and say whatever ridiculous bs occurs to you? Hell, as long as you have the general feel for thing, what else do you need?

All those books, essays, and precedents are beliefs too. But what actually matters is the actual written law, not some one's interpretation of it.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is what you modern, radical fundamentalists miss: In the Founders time, the idea was that everybody was allowed to follow their own path without pressure or coercion. What you righties want to do is impose your path on everybody else and you wont be happy until you forced everybody to succumb to the tyranny of your religious beliefs. Just like the Taliban.

The same barb could be thrown at any one that believes anything and subjects others to it. Every one here included.

[Requiem]

Meanwhile Jefferson and the Founding Fathers always started meetings with a prayer. But the left would love to rewrite history, as is their habit, of saying they really were athiests and didn't think belief in God was important. Too many people know better than that.

It has nothing to do with re-writing history. The interpretations of their religious nature is based off of their own writings, books and other forms of discourse. Nobody is saying they were atheists. Get a brain and understand theology better.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Allen, Franklin, Paine, etc. -- All Deists.

The list goes on.

(P.S., Deists can refer to God in prayer as well, and have it not be a Christian God.)

[Rohirrim]

The same barb could be thrown at any one that believes anything and subjects others to it. Every one here included.

Really? So secularists are beating down the doors of government demanding that our mottos be printed on the money, that our oaths should be mumbled by all the children in all the schools in the land, that our rules should be hung on the walls of court houses, and that our dogma should populate the science textbooks of children? Odd. I hadn't heard that.

[Requiem]

I wish Thomas Paine was alive, so that he could line up all these guys and kick them in the nuts.

[barryr]

It has nothing to do with re-writing history. The interpretations of their religious nature is based off of their own writings, books and other forms of discourse. Nobody is saying they were atheists. Get a brain and understand theology better.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Allen, Franklin, Paine, etc. -- All Deists.

The list goes on.

(P.S., Deists can refer to God in prayer as well, and have it not be a Christian God.)

Oh, what BS. You idiots claim God was not important to them, yet their actions show otherwise.

[barryr]

Really? So secularists are beating down the doors of government demanding that our mottos be printed on the money, that our oaths should be mumbled by all the children in all the schools in the land, that our rules should be hung on the walls of court houses, and that our dogma should populate the science textbooks of children? Odd. I hadn't heard that.

Actually, secularists have been demanding the removal of many things, so not sure what cave you are living in not to know that.

[barryr]

I wish Thomas Paine was alive, so that he could line up all these guys and kick them in the nuts.

Ah yes, since he'd side with your beliefs LOL

[Garcia Bronco]

Really? So secularists are beating down the doors of government demanding that our mottos be printed on the money, that our oaths should be mumbled by all the children in all the schools in the land, that our rules should be hung on the walls of court houses, and that our dogma should populate the science textbooks of children? Odd. I hadn't heard that.

Not those items specfically, but other items of beliefs. Again, belief is belief. The topic of said belief matters not regarding my point.

[Requiem]

Oh, what BS. You idiots claim God was not important to them, yet their actions show otherwise.

I never claimed that God wasn't important to them. I just placed them in their rightful category as Deists, and not Christians. I'm sorry you cannot decipher the difference.

[Requiem]

Ah yes, since he'd side with your beliefs LOL

Apparently you've never read the Age of Reason or aren't privy to the life of Thomas Paine. Go figure. I wouldn't take you to be a student of history.

[barryr]

I never claimed that God wasn't important to them. I just placed them in their rightful category as Deists, and not Christians. I'm sorry you cannot decipher the difference.

Today that's your story, but we know how liberals are. Depends on the argument at the time.

[barryr]

Apparently you've never read the Age of Reason or aren't privy to the life of Thomas Paine. Go figure. I wouldn't take you to be a student of history.

LOL, yes, but it's figured you are a scholar of it. :spit:

[JJJ]

This has been about Jefferson's religious beliefs, not yours.

You're going to make JJJ cry if you keep saying Jefferson didn't know what he was talking about when it came to religion. Ha!

I have said many times on these pages that Jefferson was quite confused about religion, the meaning of it, and struggled his entire life trying to make sense of it. He went through many phases in his life regarding his beliefs in religion and God and whether a God even exists. Just like most people including myself.

In the end religion provides comfort for people for the things that can't be proven or explained. For others, science does the same thing. Both can't prove their case definitively and must rely on faith to answer the big question, where the hell did all this come from in the first place?

If religion provides comfort for people let it be. If people use religion as a weapon of terror that is wholey unjust and should be resisted.

[Requiem]

LOL, yes, but it's figured you are a scholar of it. :spit:

My arguments regarding the religious nature of the selected Founding Fathers above had stayed the same and consistent on this forum every time the issue has been brought up. And yes, I've read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Then again, who hasn't? Apparently you. Do you even know who Thomas Paine was?

[Garcia Bronco]

I never claimed that God wasn't important to them. I just placed them in their rightful category as Deists, and not Christians. I'm sorry you cannot decipher the difference.

What he's saying the point of them being deists has little merit in this topic. At the end of the day they believed in a Supreme Being. What form that took was up to them and probably one of the reasons they sought freedom to begin with amongst others.

[barryr]

My arguments regarding the religious nature of the selected Founding Fathers above had stayed the same and consistent on this forum every time the issue has been brought up. And yes, I've read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Then again, who hasn't? Apparently you. Do you even know who Thomas Paine was?

Was he your fake NFL scout buddy? LOL

[Rohirrim]

The question isn't whether the Founders were religious. Some were. Some weren't. The question is, would they have favored imposing their religious beliefs on the country? To a man we can answer, absolutely not. That's the difference between them and the modern American Taliban that populates this board.

[barryr]

Oh no, the athiests might actually see someone, gasp, pray in public. Quick, get them a bag to breath in before they faint and **** their pants. Of course, somehow they don't seem to mind the catering of Islam to our society though.

[Garcia Bronco]

The question isn't whether the Founders were religious. Some were. Some weren't. The question is, would they have favored imposing their religious beliefs on the country? To a man we can answer, absolutely not. That's the difference between them and the modern American Taliban that populates this board.

Who is imposing their religious beliefs on the country...for example?

[Requiem]

What he's saying the point of them being deists has little merit in this topic. At the end of the day they believed in a Supreme Being. What form that took was up to them and probably one of the reasons they sought freedom to begin with amongst others.

I don't think Barry was implying that at all.

I'm not even sure how religion got brought up regarding the NAACP's vote regarding the Tea Party.

Point is, Barry stated that members of this forum have went on record vowing that the Founding Fathers didn't care about God. I know I sure haven't, and I haven't read anything from others that would indicate that. He also alleged that they had been assumed to be atheists. Not sure where that was the case either.

And yes, the Founding Fathers sought freedom of religion for themselves and everyone in this country.

[Requiem]

Was he your fake NFL scout buddy? LOL

Unless you believe in reincarnation, the chances of that are slim and none. I'll take this as your way of displaying your ignorance regarding the topic of Thomas Paine. Perhaps in your mind, he could be related to John McCain, since their last names have a similar ring and rhyme to them. Is that better? No?

[Rohirrim]

Who is imposing their religious beliefs on the country...for example?

Your homework is to use the internets and discover how the Red Scare was the excuse for Christian fundamentalists to stamp "In God We Trust" on all our money. And that's only one example.

[Requiem]

Oh no, the athiests might actually see someone, gasp, pray in public. Quick, get them a bag to breath in before they faint and **** their pants. Of course, somehow they don't seem to mind the catering of Islam to our society though.

How are atheists catering to Islam?

[barryr]

How are atheists catering to Islam?

Hmm, yes, you're right, I see their daily objections to Islam being taught in U.S. classrooms, also requiring students to dress up in the same garb and the outrage of feet washing materials located in some airports, catering to their religious beliefs just for examples.

[Garcia Bronco]

Your homework is to use the internets and discover how the Red Scare was the excuse for Christian fundamentalists to stamp "In God We Trust" on all our money. And that's only one example.

In God We trust was first put on currency in the 1860's. The Red Scare was in the 1918ish realm with a redux in the 50's. "I God We Trust" did become the National Motto in the 50's, but I don't even think Gaffney would claim it's because of the Red Scare. You might be right, but somehow I think it's all a little more complicated than that.

"In God We Trust" reflects the majority of our people as well as it's founders and denotes no particular God, nor endorses a particular religion.

[JJJ]

Your homework is to use the internets and discover how the Red Scare was the excuse for Christian fundamentalists to stamp "In God We Trust" on all our money. And that's only one example.

Ha! I have shown you more than once that In God We Trust predates even the invention of communism.


The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. The motto first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin, followed in 1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866-1883), quarter dollar, half dollar, silver dollar and gold dollars. It did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.[2][3] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

[Requiem]

Hmm, yes, you're right, I see their daily objections to Islam being taught in U.S. classrooms, also requiring students to dress up in the same garb and the outrage of feet washing materials located in some airports, catering to their religious beliefs just for examples.

Since the English in this "sentence" is so terrible, I can hardly begin to analyze what you are beginning to state. I kinda see where you are trying to go (nowhere, really), and with that, you just may have won W*GS non sequitur of the day award. Congrats, brah.

[barryr]

Since the English in this "sentence" is so terrible, I can hardly begin to analyze what you are beginning to state. I kinda see where you are trying to go (nowhere, really), and with that, you just may have won W*GS non sequitur of the day award. Congrats, brah.

Sorry, I forgot you only read moron, so I can see how this escaped you LOL

[Requiem]

Sorry, I forgot you only read moron, so I can see how this escaped you LOL

I read very well, but you lack the ability to articulate yourself in an intelligent manner and it has been a while since I had to read such horrendous diatribe.

Your argument, more or less, is that since you don't see much news of atheists questioning the teaching of Islam in school, etc. -- that they must be catering to them.

Sound logic, dipstick.

[Rohirrim]

Ha! I have shown you more than once that In God We Trust predates even the invention of communism.

My mistake, although I don't remember us ever discussing it. I meant to say when was "God" put into the pledge of allegiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

And also, during this same period (1956) is when "In God we trust" became the national motto.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[epicSocialism4tw]

Your homework is to use the internets and discover how the Red Scare was the excuse for Christian fundamentalists to stamp "In God We Trust" on all our money. And that's only one example.

The threat of communism was real enough that your mischaracterization of the situation as some trivial case of theist zealousy is pretty much a useless paradigm.

What you conveniently ignored is that the same communist underground that spurned McCarthyism is the same one that spawned violent domestic terrorists in the 1960's.

Communism has a HUGE track record of putting religious people in mass graves.

[Rohirrim]

BTW, the thread title is wrong. The NAACP only passed a resolution calling on tea party leaders to repudiate racist elements in the movement, which they refused to do, instead calling the NAACP a racist organization. Odd reaction.

[Rohirrim]

The threat of communism was real enough that your mischaracterization of the situation as some trivial case of theist zealousy is pretty much a useless paradigm.

What you conveniently ignored is that the same communist underground that spurned McCarthyism is the same one that spawned violent domestic terrorists in the 1960's.

Communism has a HUGE track record of putting religious people in mass graves.

Now the sixties were caused by communism? You guys are better even than the Chinese at rewriting history.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Now the sixties were caused by communism? You guys are better even than the Chinese at rewriting history.

Um...Weather Underground?

Wake up.

[TailgateNut]

After one especially important meeting of the Constitutional Congress, many of the more religious members repaired to a local church to take part in a thanksgiving. Washington and his contingent went to the local pub to toss a few back with his former comrades in arms. I doubt that any of the religious types held that against him the next day.

This is what you modern, radical fundamentalists miss: In the Founders time, the idea was that everybody was allowed to follow their own path without pressure or coercion. What you righties want to do is impose your path on everybody else and you wont be happy until you forced everybody to succumb to the tyranny of your religious beliefs. Just like the Taliban.

TATA!!!

[TailgateNut]

No joke. Militant extremist atheism is a plague in this country.


It's not the atheists who kill in the name of a god, blow up clinics in the name of a god, start wars because a god told them to. There's your plague!

[TailgateNut]

i have said many times on these pages that jefferson was quite confused about religion, the meaning of it, and struggled his entire life trying to make sense of it. He went through many phases in his life regarding his beliefs in religion and god and whether a god even exists. Just like most people including myself.

In the end religion provides comfort for people for the things that can't be proven or explained. For others, science does the same thing. both can't prove their case definitively and must rely on faith to answer the big question, where the hell did all this come from in the first place?

If religion provides comfort for people let it be. If people use religion as a weapon of terror that is wholey unjust and should be resisted.


lol

[JJJ]

lol

Ok, let's hear your explanation. This should be good.

[DivineBronco]

http://gawker.com/5588556/the-embarrassing-racist-satire-of-tea-party-leader-mark-williams

yikes this guy seems wonderfully in touch

[Drek]

That was painful to read Drek. You don't have a good understanding of the tea party at all. Or libertarianism for that matter.
Then why not explain it? Because for years I saw libertarians shout about civil liberties and freedom but when it came time to vote they 100% of the time voted for their wallets and not for their rights as individuals. As a result they basically gave a blank check to the extreme moral conservatives of the right wing and we had an absolute buffoon for a president eight years running who thought he was serving a divine mandate from god while helping his cohorts literally steal from the American people.

The problem with the tea party is partisan politics causes leftists to knee jerk rather than actually try to understand. But this is a problem with politics in general.
The problem with the tea party is that it is a partisan political organization that only has a voice because we are in hard economic times and people want to have someone to blame.

Where were the tea partiers when Bush was taking away our rights en masse post 9-11? The NSA is a massive **** you to civil liberties but I didn't see this massive movement of those seeking liberty against that. Instead we allowed our government to empower itself with the right to perform warrant-less wiretaps and dozens of other tactics that has our government treating its own citizenry like Russian spies during the Cold War.

Why no outrage there Taco?


Personally, I don't care what anyone thinks of the tea party. I've been a member of it for the better part of my adult life, only it's been the last couple of years that it's finally been given a name.
No, its just the last few years you've found a group that shares the same lack of understanding you have.

None of my concerns are anywhere close to the neighborhood of what Drek embarassingly laid out. They are simple: I believe in individual liberties. Whether that's taxes, gay marriage, drugs, religion, you name it.
Why does so much of this group you choose to attach yourself with not support large portions of that then?

You say you support gay marriage, but most tea party politicians are violently opposed. You say you support deregulation of drugs, yet again most of the politicians coming out of this movement do not. You say you want freedom of religion, yet the majority of the tea party's most public supporters have argued that we are a Christian nation, not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

If you truly believe what you said there you are not a member of the tea party in any ideological way, at least not what the organized group calling itself the tea party represents itself as.

I believe in protecting the individual against the tyranny of the majority.
Great, me too. Now how would you suggest going about that while at the same time electing officials who have no desire to do so?

This includes individuals who make a lot of money too. They should not be burdened with a higher percentage than anyone else simply for the fact that they are capable of earning more.
The wealthiest of individuals use the majority of non-need based social services. A few examples:
There is somewhere over 100 small local airports that see ~80% of all their air traffic in the form of private planes. Those airports are nearly entirely federally funded. In fact, they get more money per year from the government than the major international airports.

The FBI actively pursues copyright offenders, despite the actual crime being almost entirely a civil matter.

Our entire highway system is designed to enable a nationwide distribution of goods, which enables companies and the wealthy to expand and increase their holdings.

This isn't even getting into the fact that our military borders on a for hire mercenary group whenever a corporation needs interests protected abroad.

The U.S. state and federal governments spend a disproportionate amount of their wealth helping the far extremes of our economic system. Obviously the lowest end of that extreme is unable to make that up to the U.S. people, but why should the highest end of that scale be allowed to shirk financial compensation for the massive entitlements they receive?

I'm assuming that ultimately you're preaching a flat tax. But in order for this nation to go to a flat tax you and I would be looking at some pretty sizable tax increases because the wealthiest of individuals would continue to evade federal and state taxation thrusting the whole of the bill onto the middle class.

Individual liberty means that all individuals are treated equally under the law. This is what I believe regardless of political partisainship. This is how I vote. And nothing is going to change that.
Great, then I'm assuming you have and never will vote for a political representative from the tea party, because it is an extremely partisan group that in no way works for civil liberties.

[TonyR]

...you have to realize why Beck and Palin are "shrill"...because they are challenging the powers that be and their recourse is to fire back at them by flooding the public with controversy about them so that they can tie the tea party (a people's movement) to these leaders, when its really a true grass roots movement.

LOL!!! You really believe this? Really? The reason Beck and Palin play the game they play is only because they are profit seeking opportunists. They're laughing all the way to the bank while people like you buy the crap they sell.

[TonyR]

The problem with the tea party is that it is a partisan political organization that only has a voice because we are in hard economic times and people want to have someone to blame.

No, its just the last few years you've found a group that shares the same lack of understanding you have.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Great post.

[Rohirrim]

Drek shoots and scores. ;D

[Requiem]

"Talk about a hole in one."

[cutthemdown]

LOL!!! You really believe this? Really? The reason Beck and Palin play the game they play is only because they are profit seeking opportunists. They're laughing all the way to the bank while people like you buy the crap they sell.

You just summed up every politician. Once you realize dems and repubs only like 10-15% different you will understand more.

It's all crap, they all want money, and none of them really care about you. They care about there families and themselves just like everyone else.

[DenverBrit]

You just summed up every politician. Once you realize dems and repubs only like 10-15% different you will understand more.

It's all crap, they all want money, and none of them really care about you. They care about there families and themselves just like everyone else.

One of the reasons I had hopes for Obama was his pledge to introduce a bill proposing campaign finance reform.

Haven't heard a word since his election, yet I think it's the most important step forward if he tide of corruption in Washington is going to be stemmed.

I agree with your comment that there is very little difference between the parties.

They are about equal in the amount of money taken in bribes from the lobbyists

[JJJ]

One of the reasons I had hopes for Obama was his pledge to introduce a bill proposing campaign finance reform.

Haven't heard a word since his election, yet I think it's the most important step forward if he tide of corruption in Washington is going to be stemmed.

I agree with your comment that there is very little difference between the parties.

They are about equal in the amount of money taken in bribes from the lobbyists

McCain was the choice if you wanted campaign finance reform. Him overplaying that issue is what got him derailed in his first bid several years back. He is about the only one I actually believe means what he says about CFR.

I think it is a fruitless effort myself. There is really no good way to stop people from spending money they want to spend. I have never seen it happen. Try stopping in one form, it will simply show up in another.

That is why stopping corporations from giving money to campaigns won't work either. If they can't give money directly they will find a way to provide support to the candidate in some other form indirectly.

[Garcia Bronco]

One of the reasons I had hopes for Obama was his pledge to introduce a bill proposing campaign finance reform.

Haven't heard a word since his election, yet I think it's the most important step forward if he tide of corruption in Washington is going to be stemmed.

I agree with your comment that there is very little difference between the parties.

They are about equal in the amount of money taken in bribes from the lobbyists

Even on a global political spectrum they aren't all that different.

[Taco John]

I don't think any other Jefferson quote states his position more clearly than this:


-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


I would agree with Jefferson on this. But you miss the point. For anyone to say that Jefferson was an athiest, well that's incorrect. Not that it matters. The point Jefferson consistently made was that the state should not push religion on its people, not that the people of religion should be excluded from representation.

[Taco John]

That was his position at one point in his life, yes. I think that he was ignorant an uneducated on the subject at that point and that he should stick to law rather than exegesis 101.


Hardly. Jefferson was on the money. There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible that are hard to reconcile without a knife to cut a lot of it out.

[Taco John]

I agree with all of that, actually. Maybe we disagree slightly on the implementation of it, but those are the core beliefs that I 100% support. The problem for me is it seems those core beliefs are being lost or distorted by the shrillness of the people who claim to lead the tea party (Beck, Palin, Angle), and some of the nut-job fringers. And also by the GOP who seems to think the Tea Party is their ticket back into relevancy and an actual platform.


That's not my problem. I don't care who claims to lead the tea party or who tries to capitalize on their energy. And for that matter, the leftists who don't understand it and choose to mock with fingers stained from the embarassing voting ink of Barack Obama drying on their hands.

I only care about the principles of individual liberty.

[Taco John]

See? Like most on the Right, whenever you need to you simply make **** up. Nope. I'm not opposed to any religion anybody wants to choose. Knock yourself out. I'm opposed to people saying this is a "Christian" country and should ordain that children praise the "Christian" god in public schools, and that officers of government should take "Christian" oaths, and that the dogma of Christianity should replace science in our textbooks, etc etc etc.

You fundamentalist whackos have stood the argument on its head. Secularists are not attacking your religion, but you guys have been fighting to impose your religion on us for over two hundred years. Secularists want to follow the basic, Constitutional foundation. In other words, we simply want to be left alone. But one of the tenets of fundamentalist christian doctrine is that you cannot accept that idea, so you must continue to shove your crap down everybody else's throats, by hook or by crook, and you wont be satisfied until you've wiped the secularism out of this secularist country. None of your bull**** can fool anybody. It's clear who is the aggressor in this fight.


Then you should favor private schooling as opposed to public schooling. Public schooling means representation. And like it or not, Christianity is the prevailing religion in America. Christians are going to want their views included in the cirriculum just as much as anyone else is going to want their views included.

If you're going to take people's money to fund your ideas, don't expect that they're not going to want to have their ideas represented. You're being irrational if you think they're just going to go away, especially when they have such a sizable voting block.

[Taco John]

This is what you modern, radical fundamentalists miss: In the Founders time, the idea was that everybody was allowed to follow their own path without pressure or coercion. What you righties want to do is impose your path on everybody else and you wont be happy until you forced everybody to succumb to the tyranny of your religious beliefs. Just like the Taliban.


I would love to see you extend this logic to social security. You believe in social security, right? Well I don't. I think it weakens our society, not strengthens it. You "leftists" want to impose your ideas on everybody else, even going so far as to enforce an income tax witholding scheme that forces everybody to donate and does not allow individuals to opt out of the social security system. At least with a church, they're not going to throw me in jail if I refuse to pay.

[Taco John]

For that matter, I don't see leftism and religion too far removed, except that leftist send me to a real jail for not participating in their schema, while religion sends me to an imagined hell.

[Pony Boy]

I would love to see you extend this logic to social security. You believe in social security, right? Well I don't. I think it weakens our society, not strengthens it. You "leftists" want to impose your ideas on everybody else, even going so far as to enforce an income tax witholding scheme that forces everybody to donate and does not allow individuals to opt out of the social security system. At least with a church, they're not going to throw me in jail if I refuse to pay.

That can also be applied to medical coverage, you will not have an option to opt out. The "leftists" know what best for us ........we cannot be left alone to make those decisions.

[Bronco Yoda]

Then why not explain it? Because for years I saw libertarians shout about civil liberties and freedom but when it came time to vote they 100% of the time voted for their wallets and not for their rights as individuals. As a result they basically gave a blank check to the extreme moral conservatives of the right wing and we had an absolute buffoon for a president eight years running who thought he was serving a divine mandate from god while helping his cohorts literally steal from the American people.


The problem with the tea party is that it is a partisan political organization that only has a voice because we are in hard economic times and people want to have someone to blame.

Where were the tea partiers when Bush was taking away our rights en masse post 9-11? The NSA is a massive **** you to civil liberties but I didn't see this massive movement of those seeking liberty against that. Instead we allowed our government to empower itself with the right to perform warrant-less wiretaps and dozens of other tactics that has our government treating its own citizenry like Russian spies during the Cold War.

Why no outrage there Taco?



No, its just the last few years you've found a group that shares the same lack of understanding you have.


Why does so much of this group you choose to attach yourself with not support large portions of that then?

You say you support gay marriage, but most tea party politicians are violently opposed. You say you support deregulation of drugs, yet again most of the politicians coming out of this movement do not. You say you want freedom of religion, yet the majority of the tea party's most public supporters have argued that we are a Christian nation, not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

If you truly believe what you said there you are not a member of the tea party in any ideological way, at least not what the organized group calling itself the tea party represents itself as.


Great, me too. Now how would you suggest going about that while at the same time electing officials who have no desire to do so?


The wealthiest of individuals use the majority of non-need based social services. A few examples:
There is somewhere over 100 small local airports that see ~80% of all their air traffic in the form of private planes. Those airports are nearly entirely federally funded. In fact, they get more money per year from the government than the major international airports.

The FBI actively pursues copyright offenders, despite the actual crime being almost entirely a civil matter.

Our entire highway system is designed to enable a nationwide distribution of goods, which enables companies and the wealthy to expand and increase their holdings.

This isn't even getting into the fact that our military borders on a for hire mercenary group whenever a corporation needs interests protected abroad.

The U.S. state and federal governments spend a disproportionate amount of their wealth helping the far extremes of our economic system. Obviously the lowest end of that extreme is unable to make that up to the U.S. people, but why should the highest end of that scale be allowed to shirk financial compensation for the massive entitlements they receive?

I'm assuming that ultimately you're preaching a flat tax. But in order for this nation to go to a flat tax you and I would be looking at some pretty sizable tax increases because the wealthiest of individuals would continue to evade federal and state taxation thrusting the whole of the bill onto the middle class.


Great, then I'm assuming you have and never will vote for a political representative from the tea party, because it is an extremely partisan group that in no way works for civil liberties.

It's going....going....going......GONE! It's out of the freaking Park...past the parking lot, over the freeway and it's still going...

[Bronco Yoda]

THOMAS JEFFERSON "By oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves." -1813

[Taco John]

Then why not explain it? Because for years I saw libertarians shout about civil liberties and freedom but when it came time to vote they 100% of the time voted for their wallets and not for their rights as individuals. As a result they basically gave a blank check to the extreme moral conservatives of the right wing and we had an absolute buffoon for a president eight years running who thought he was serving a divine mandate from god while helping his cohorts literally steal from the American people.


The problem with the tea party is that it is a partisan political organization that only has a voice because we are in hard economic times and people want to have someone to blame.

Where were the tea partiers when Bush was taking away our rights en masse post 9-11? The NSA is a massive **** you to civil liberties but I didn't see this massive movement of those seeking liberty against that. Instead we allowed our government to empower itself with the right to perform warrant-less wiretaps and dozens of other tactics that has our government treating its own citizenry like Russian spies during the Cold War.

Why no outrage there Taco?



No, its just the last few years you've found a group that shares the same lack of understanding you have.


Why does so much of this group you choose to attach yourself with not support large portions of that then?

You say you support gay marriage, but most tea party politicians are violently opposed. You say you support deregulation of drugs, yet again most of the politicians coming out of this movement do not. You say you want freedom of religion, yet the majority of the tea party's most public supporters have argued that we are a Christian nation, not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

If you truly believe what you said there you are not a member of the tea party in any ideological way, at least not what the organized group calling itself the tea party represents itself as.


Great, me too. Now how would you suggest going about that while at the same time electing officials who have no desire to do so?


The wealthiest of individuals use the majority of non-need based social services. A few examples:
There is somewhere over 100 small local airports that see ~80% of all their air traffic in the form of private planes. Those airports are nearly entirely federally funded. In fact, they get more money per year from the government than the major international airports.

The FBI actively pursues copyright offenders, despite the actual crime being almost entirely a civil matter.

Our entire highway system is designed to enable a nationwide distribution of goods, which enables companies and the wealthy to expand and increase their holdings.

This isn't even getting into the fact that our military borders on a for hire mercenary group whenever a corporation needs interests protected abroad.

The U.S. state and federal governments spend a disproportionate amount of their wealth helping the far extremes of our economic system. Obviously the lowest end of that extreme is unable to make that up to the U.S. people, but why should the highest end of that scale be allowed to shirk financial compensation for the massive entitlements they receive?

I'm assuming that ultimately you're preaching a flat tax. But in order for this nation to go to a flat tax you and I would be looking at some pretty sizable tax increases because the wealthiest of individuals would continue to evade federal and state taxation thrusting the whole of the bill onto the middle class.


Great, then I'm assuming you have and never will vote for a political representative from the tea party, because it is an extremely partisan group that in no way works for civil liberties.


I don't have time to go point for point on this, running out the door right now. But all you did was confirm for me that you conflate Republicans with Tea Party and are confused about the difference, and don't seem to even recognize that there is a difference.

Where was the Tea Party during the Bush years? At war protests.

I'm not going to be held responsible for the fact that Sarah Palin sees the tea party energy and notices an opportunity to brand herself as such. But you will see just as she will that when the vote comes down, it won't be the core of the tea party voting for her. The folks that started this will be supporting the God Father of the Tea Party movement.

[JJJ]

Drek;2881592
Then why not explain it? Because for years I saw libertarians shout about civil liberties and freedom but when it came time to vote they 100% of the time voted for their wallets and not for their rights as individuals. As a result they basically gave a blank check to the extreme moral conservatives of the right wing and we had an absolute buffoon for a president eight years running who thought he was serving a divine mandate from god while helping his cohorts literally steal from the American people.

Basically a baseless rant.

The problem with the tea party is that it is a partisan political organization that only has a voice because we are in hard economic times and people want to have someone to blame.

No the tea party exist because we are in hard economic times and taking 1000% the wrong strategy to deal with those hard times. The tea party exists because some people want to take personal responsibility to try and do something about it.

Where were the tea partiers when Bush was taking away our rights en masse post 9-11?

What a dumbass statement. They were supporting Bush's focus on looking for the terrorists that were trying to take your lives away. Presidents for centuries have temporarily suspended civil liberties during times of war or crisis. Hell, FDR put them in concentration camps. Bush response was right on the money in this regard.

The NSA is a massive **** you to civil liberties but I didn't see this massive movement of those seeking liberty against that. Instead we allowed our government to empower itself with the right to perform warrant-less wiretaps and dozens of other tactics that has our government treating its own citizenry like Russian spies during the Cold War.

Why no outrage there Taco?

Show me one legitimate case of damages due to this temporary policy?

No, its just the last few years you've found a group that shares the same lack of understanding you have.


Why does so much of this group you choose to attach yourself with not support large portions of that then?

You say you support gay marriage, but most tea party politicians are violently opposed.

Violently is a poor and inaccurate choice of words. There has been no violence at tea parties and I don't think gay marriage is even on the topic of discussions or the platform of the tea party.

You say you support deregulation of drugs, yet again most of the politicians coming out of this movement do not. You say you want freedom of religion, yet the majority of the tea party's most public supporters have argued that we are a Christian nation, not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

I think every tea partier would be quite happy with just having the freedom of religion as the constitution provides.

If you truly believe what you said there you are not a member of the tea party in any ideological way, at least not what the organized group calling itself the tea party represents itself as.

Great, me too. Now how would you suggest going about that while at the same time electing officials who have no desire to do so?

A bit too obtuse to follow.

The wealthiest of individuals use the majority of non-need based social services. A few examples:
There is somewhere over 100 small local airports that see ~80% of all their air traffic in the form of private planes. Those airports are nearly entirely federally funded. In fact, they get more money per year from the government than the major international airports.

You mean like The Murtha Airport? Let them close those down. Though traditionally such airports were seen by military folks as having backup capabilities during wartime and are pretty handy during any local catastrophy. But on the whole if they can't survive on their own merit they should go.

The FBI actively pursues copyright offenders, despite the actual crime being almost entirely a civil matter.

Couldn't you apply the same logic to the SEC? Would you propose having their enforcement also be handled strictly through the civil court system? Copyright law is primarily there to protect the little guy from being stomped on by a much larger entity. In civil court the one with the most money usually wins.

Our entire highway system is designed to enable a nationwide distribution of goods, which enables companies and the wealthy to expand and increase their holdings.

This same system delivers the vital goods of daily life to the masses. Without it essentials like food would put double the price. Is it really as disproportionate as you make it out?

This isn't even getting into the fact that our military borders on a for hire mercenary group whenever a corporation needs interests protected abroad.

Seems like basic common sense to me.

The U.S. state and federal governments spend a disproportionate amount of their wealth helping the far extremes of our economic system. Obviously the lowest end of that extreme is unable to make that up to the U.S. people, but why should the highest end of that scale be allowed to shirk financial compensation for the massive entitlements they receive?

The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 45% pay 0% of the taxes. You can't get much more progressive than that.

I'm assuming that ultimately you're preaching a flat tax. But in order for this nation to go to a flat tax you and I would be looking at some pretty sizable tax increases because the wealthiest of individuals would continue to evade federal and state taxation thrusting the whole of the bill onto the middle class.

Keeping it close to where it is now is fine.

Great, then I'm assuming you have and never will vote for a political representative from the tea party, because it is an extremely partisan group that in no way works for civil liberties.

A conclusion with no basis.

[Bronco Yoda]

GEORGE WASHINGTON "Beware of pretend patriotism." -1796

[DenverBrit]

I would agree with Jefferson on this. But you miss the point. For anyone to say that Jefferson was an athiest, well that's incorrect. Not that it matters. The point Jefferson consistently made was that the state should not push religion on its people, not that the people of religion should be excluded from representation.

Exactly.

As for "missing the point".....not sure I understand.

[DenverBrit]

McCain was the choice if you wanted campaign finance reform. Him overplaying that issue is what got him derailed in his first bid several years back. He is about the only one I actually believe means what he says about CFR.

I think it is a fruitless effort myself. There is really no good way to stop people from spending money they want to spend. I have never seen it happen. Try stopping in one form, it will simply show up in another.

That is why stopping corporations from giving money to campaigns won't work either. If they can't give money directly they will find a way to provide support to the candidate in some other form indirectly.

To vote for McCain meant Palin as VP. Wasn't going to happen.

[DenverBrit]

Even on a global political spectrum they aren't all that different.

Unfortunately, that's true.

[Taco John]

Drek (or anyone), read the thread starting post here if you want to understand the difference between the Tea Party, and your media and partisan fueled caricature idea of the Tea Party:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=89496

[El Minion]

Via Gawker:
(http://gawker.com/5588556/the-embarrassing-racist-satire-of-tea-party-leader-mark-williams)
On Thursday, in response to the NAACP's pretty tame resolution asking Tea Partiers to be a little less racist, he took to his blog (http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=10387) and Tea Party Expressed the opinion that the real racists, in this situation, are the NAACP. Because they use the word "colored," see. Sigh

Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Chairman, who last night took to CNN to call the NAACP “the real racists.” No racism there. No sirree
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/15/id-recommend-a-****load-of-scotch/)

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

[Taco John]

I don't know who this Mark Williams character is, nor to I really care... But F the NAACP and their ignorant and racist organization. Also F Gawker.

[Mr.Meanie]

Via Gawker:
(http://gawker.com/5588556/the-embarrassing-racist-satire-of-tea-party-leader-mark-williams)
On Thursday, in response to the NAACP's pretty tame resolution asking Tea Partiers to be a little less racist, he took to his blog (http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=10387) and Tea Party Expressed the opinion that the real racists, in this situation, are the NAACP. Because they use the word "colored," see. Sigh

Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Chairman, who last night took to CNN to call the NAACP “the real racists.” No racism there. No sirree
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/15/id-recommend-a-****load-of-scotch/)

wtf? wow.

[El Minion]

wtf? wow.

From the article linked above:

Is there a word for this? Where one group condemns another group for a behavior, and a member of the condemned group turns around and attempts to repudiate the condemnation by engaging in the very behavior it was condemned for in the first place?

http://chattahbox.com/images/2010/01/teaparty_robertson_spelling_racist_problem.jpg

[El Minion]

Via Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/15/2087023/tea-party-rejects-racist-label.html#ixzz0ttzgeaAD):

Billy Roper is a write-in candidate for governor of Arkansas and an unapologetic white nationalist.

“I don’t want non-whites in my country in any form or fashion or any status,” he says.

Roper also is a tea party member who says he has been gathering support for his cause by attending tea party rallies.

“We go to these tea parties all over the country,” Roper said. “We’re looking for the younger, potentially more radical people.”

Accusations about racism within the tea party have rumbled for a year, but they suddenly exploded this week with a resolution at the NAACP convention in Kansas City saying the party is attracting people and groups hostile to minorities.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/15/2087023/tea-party-rejects-racist-label.html#ixzz0ttzgeaAD

[TonyR]

...the leftists who don't understand it and choose to mock with fingers stained from the embarassing voting ink of Barack Obama drying on their hands.


When the alternative was McCain/Palin I think you're a bit confused about who should be embarrassed.

[DenverBrit]

when the alternative was mccain/palin i think you're a bit confused about who should be embarrassed.

qft!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hardly. Jefferson was on the money. There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible that are hard to reconcile without a knife to cut a lot of it out.

You missed my point. Jefferson is not the man to cut anything out of the Bible. There are plenty of people who have spent their lives dedicated to biblical scholarship who blow Jefferson's layman understanding away.

Youre looking to the wrong person if youre looking to Jefferson for a biblical education. Thats more difficult a proposition than asking Pat Bowlen to coach the Broncos to 25 consecutive super bowls on his first attempt at coaching.

[Taco John]

When the alternative was McCain/Palin I think you're a bit confused about who should be embarrassed.

I didn't vote for McCain. I voted for Ron Paul, and couldn't be more proud of my vote even today.

[JJJ]

When the alternative was McCain/Palin I think you're a bit confused about who should be embarrassed.

I think both left and right can agree we are thoroughly embarrassed by the Obama presidency to date. Shameful on so many fronts simultaneously it really hard to keep track. The response to the recession, apologetic foreign policy, the medical debacle, face planting Israel, Eric Holder on just about anything, that silly press secretary, so many embarrassing things in so short of time. The only thing he has done right is Afghanistan and that took 12 months to figure out.

Hard to see how McCain would have been a worse choice than Obama now after two years. He certainly would have had a more lucid response to the recession than a random gusher of porkbarrel spending.

VPs in the end don't matter and are just there for a few chuckles. Can't see Palin having as many embarrassing gaffes as Biden has had already though. I give him that one-liner on the Russian spy hottie on Leno though. That was damn funny.

[Taco John]

You missed my point. Jefferson is not the man to cut anything out of the Bible.

He did a fine job if you understand that what he was doing was philisophical archeology. His aim was to uncover the libertarian roots that Christ established.


There are plenty of people who have spent their lives dedicated to biblical scholarship who blow Jefferson's layman understanding away.

I disagree with your assessment. I think Jefferson's understanding of Christ's message is spot on. I think he cut a lot of the political corruption out of the Bible that has poisoned the well for centuries that has served to empower the same infrastructure of central religious authority that Christ spent his entire ministry tearing down. Jefferson understood that Christ was a liberator of men from a millenia of religious superstition, and he understood that this tradition had been compromised by Rome (Constantine) for its own political aim, and central authority and superstition was put right back into it.

I can't think of someone better than Jefferson to do this. What a wonderful thing to take away the inconsistencies, and unify the teachings that maintained a high fidelity. I don't know if he did a perfect job, but I'd say he did better than Constantine's central council. Plus, Jefferson didn't have the headache of having to superimpose the religion and customs against a paganist template in order to achieve mass adoption. He wasn't trying to centralize power and create a new empire. He was merely interested in clearing away some of the clutter.


Youre looking to the wrong person if youre looking to Jefferson for a biblical education. Thats more difficult a proposition than asking Pat Bowlen to coach the Broncos to 25 consecutive super bowls on his first attempt at coaching.

I don't look to Jefferson for a Biblical education. I spent my entire adult life trying to make sense of it for myself after a crisis of faith, going so far as to breaking things down to the greek interpretations. I stopped looking to central authorities for my religious nourishment, and went straight to the source.

Frankly, it's a compromised book - and no wonder - it was put together by a congress of men. The book is one of the greatest political coups ever made. Constantine managed to parlay his political efforts into an empire that exists to this day, outliving the fallen Roman Empire that was left in its wake. And thank God for that. Despite the inconsistencies in it, it contains some of the greatest wisdom of our civilization. I can only shake my head at people who don't recognize what an important piece of literature the Bible is.

All this said, I like Jefferson's take on it, to be sure. He did something that makes sense to me - eliminated the contradictions and kept only what rang true. He particularly kept only what rang true to the libertarian philosophy that Christ established - the stuff that got buried by Rome. I think Jefferson did a magnificent work of philisophical archeology - but like all archeological efforts, there's no way to do it perfectly. You can only work with what you have to work with. It's not like he could ressurect the tomes work that were cast into the fire. But I can't think of anyone better than Jefferson to pick the libertarian thread out of Christ's teachings and seperate it from the authoratarianism that was injected by Rome.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-not-racist-710.jpg

Quotes


"The Tea Party movement knows that there are tens of thousands of dedicated racists and ultra nationalists in their ranks. Those groups must be repudiated by the regular, law-abiding members or they must take responsibility, they can't have it both ways."


- NAACP president, listing the facts Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/12/naacp-to-condemn-racism-of-the-tea-parties/?fbid=HhK-CO2UVqr)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-racism-710.jpg

[barryr]

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-racism-710.jpg

I'm sure butt**** req thinks all these constant cartoons posted in at least five forums are very informative and add so much, speaking from a supposed objective history scholar that he is LOL

[Requiem]

I'm sure butt**** req thinks all these constant cartoons posted in at least five forums are very informative and add so much, speaking from a supposed objective history scholar that he is LOL

In this case, LABF is showing pictures of people from Tea Party events with racism on their boards of protest. It is relevant to discussion and makes a pretty simple point.

[barryr]

In this case, LABF is showing pictures of people from Tea Party events with racism on their boards of protest. It is relevant to discussion and makes a pretty simple point.

Oh please, what a stretch, even for you. But I can see why cartoons would be legit since that's about all in a newspaper you read anyway. You are a phony and I will make sure those that don't know it too.:welcome:

[Requiem]

How is it a stretch? A poster earlier in the thread stated that you don't see racism at Tea Party events. LABF posts pictures that show the opposite. On spot, on target, right on with the pace of the thread. Why whould I be against it?

And I'm sure you will expose me being a phony, Barry. It'll be surprising if you can even articulate yourself well enough to get others to understand it. You have about a sixth graders grasp of our lexicon and grammatical orientation.

[cutthemdown]

those people are just liberal plants to discredit the Tea Party. I mean come on that's easy to do.

Finding repubs that look like black panthers though is impossible. That **** was real.

[DBruleU]

How is it a stretch? A poster earlier in the thread stated that you don't see racism at Tea Party events. LABF posts pictures that show the opposite. On spot, on target, right on with the pace of the thread. Why whould I be against it?

And I'm sure you will expose me being a phony, Barry. It'll be surprising if you can even articulate yourself well enough to get others to understand it. You have about a sixth graders grasp of our lexicon and grammatical orientation.

You are in every way possible a product of liberalized higher education. Don't get me wrong...nothing wrong with education as long as it's to further you rather than fill your mind with mindless jargon that derails any and all logical thinking and turns you into another liberal bot. Maybe once you enter the real world and start paying for things (please don't follow up with more BS as to how you have been, you haven't been like the rest of us. College is different) you'll realize what Tea Partiers (Not Tea Baggers you childish adults) are really saying and what they despise about the Fed these days affects us all.

But in any case...a few pages back is a video of a black man speaking at the Dallas Tea Party, refuting the racism claims. Maybe you missed it, or just ignored it all together, but the fact remains that the media has done a masterful job side-winding what the Tea Party really is into making people believe it's racist. Weak-minded individuals gobble it up.

[barryr]

How is it a stretch? A poster earlier in the thread stated that you don't see racism at Tea Party events. LABF posts pictures that show the opposite. On spot, on target, right on with the pace of the thread. Why whould I be against it?

And I'm sure you will expose me being a phony, Barry. It'll be surprising if you can even articulate yourself well enough to get others to understand it. You have about a sixth graders grasp of our lexicon and grammatical orientation.

Oh, boy wonder scholar, did I make you mad? Loved your hysterical bad reps, what was it like 10 in a row on posts you didn't even read LOL. Oh, loved the comment "some day you won't get up" or something stupid like that. Like you can do something about that tough guy. Wait a minute, odd actions by you for someone who claimed didn't care what I posted or thought. You are a phony, plain and simple and others will know. Have a great day boy wonder or is it wonder woman? LOL

[barryr]

You are in every way possible a product of liberalized higher education. Don't get me wrong...nothing wrong with education as long as it's to further you rather than fill your mind with mindless jargon that derails any and all logical thinking and turns you into another liberal bot. Maybe once you enter the real world and start paying for things (please don't follow up with more BS as to how you have been, you haven't been like the rest of us. College is different) you'll realize what Tea Partiers (Not Tea Baggers you childish adults) are really saying and what they despise about the Fed these days affects us all.

But in any case...a few pages back is a video of a black man speaking at the Dallas Tea Party, refuting the racism claims. Maybe you missed it, or just ignored it all together, but the fact remains that the media has done a masterful job side-winding what the Tea Party really is into making people believe it's racist. Weak-minded individuals gobble it up.

He ignored it since he is a liberal who doesn't like being called that, but that's what he is. Until he grows up and deals with the real world, his stance on the world will continue to be one-sided.