Respond to either other posts on other threads or start a new one stating your stance. The other threads are specifically tailored towards the subject they're titled as, so why not put those poiltical posts here? Besides, at the end of the day, it's all opinion and view point, so you're all free to bring up what's important to all of you regarding this subject!

But before we do so, I'll honor the off topic nature of the other threads by starting off with an equally off topic image here:



Thank you. And begin debating.

You Americans should be a little bit happy about Trump,
over here we have this Piece of Shit :



Her Motto ?

Rapefugees fucking welcome...

God, i wanna shoot her in the Face with a sawed off Shotie !

Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.

Fucking discuss this, why don't you ?

Do you all have elections this year? Or 2018?

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------


Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.

lol Sweden. Those guys... I don't even know what to say.

Spain is not well, either. Due to many laughable circoustances we had the same idiot since 2011, because here, there's no 8 year rule. Whatever the "voters" vote.. and well, if I told you all the problems we had this election.. and the laughable political parties.. it's just, shit, shit all together. Certainly though as a country and people, we're better off than USA right now, I'll say that.

Do you all have elections this year? Or 2018?.

This Year, but nothing is gonna change, Head of the State will still be
put up by the fucking Rich Man's Party, same as her, so, no fucking Changes...

The Girls at my Workplace are fucking afraid to walk home alone in the Dark,
they are being followed and stalked by fucking Immigrants on their Way.

Especially the one Girl, she is quite the Hottie, i walk her to her Tram
every Night, i'll fucking knife every last Guy who bugs her. :)

Spain is not well, either. Due to many laughable circoustances we had the same idiot since 2011, because here, there's no 8 year rule. Whatever the "voters" vote.. and well, if I told you all the problems we had this election.. and the laughable political parties.. it's just, shit, shit all together. Certainly though as a country and people, we're better off than USA right now, I'll say that.

I don't know much about Spanish politics. Care to elaborate?

I don't know much about Spanish politics. Care to elaborate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain

I don't really care that much either. Call me what you want. I *hate* politics.

:facepalm:

A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.

Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.

So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.

:facepalm:

A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.

Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.

So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.

Why else would I do it then? I was starting to get sick of it showing up on other threads, so I thought I'd be gullible enough to do it here. As you can see, it's done fine so far. Can't wait for all the Trump talk though. That'll be juicy.

True, Hence my Gratitude.

This Year, but nothing is gonna change, Head of the State will still be
put up by the fucking Rich Man's Party, same as her, so, no fucking Changes...

The Girls at my Workplace are fucking afraid to walk home alone in the Dark,
they are being followed and stalked by fucking Immigrants on their Way.

Especially the one Girl, she is quite the Hottie, i walk her to her Tram
every Night, i'll fucking knife every last Guy who bugs her. :)

Any facts to back your statement or is that your xenophobia talking?

According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015.

But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold � by 440 percent.

In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-germany-now-riddled-crime-thanks/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-population-idUSKCN1110Q8

Yay politics! Let's all get ugly and hate on each other and each other's opinions! :D

This is my new favorite meme, it's so so so true:




You Americans should be a little bit happy about Trump,
over here we have this Piece of Shit :



Oh believe me, I'm thrilled. It's still so unreal seeing him when he signs the executive orders and then displaying it for all the media to see. It's like he's saying "Here, CNN. Here, MSNBC. Here, abc. Here NBC. I signed the executive order, and you just saw me do it." I love it. I also love when Kate McKinnon does Merkel on Weekend Update on SNL. It's the best.

Any facts to back your statement or is that your xenophobia talking?

According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015.

But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold — by 440 percent.

In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-germany-now-riddled-crime-thanks/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-population-idUSKCN1110Q8

I very much appreciate that you found some actual numbers (yay! facts!).

You're welcome. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Plus my Mom and her family were refugees during WWII and I know the stories of how poorly they were treated. And I've assisted with refugee evacuations. You see the look on the face of a mother and child that you've just ensured will live and not die in a ditch, it's a look I'll never forget.

Yay politics! Let's all get ugly and hate on each other and each other's opinions! :D

This is my new favorite meme, it's so so so true:

-

Yes! OMG I love it :laugh:

I've never been called a racist cause I've never gotten in a heated debate with anyone. But I hope it happens one day just so I can go off on them :p

You Americans should be a little bit happy about Trump,
over here we have this Piece of Shit :



Her Motto ?

Rapefugees fucking welcome...

God, i wanna shoot her in the Face with a sawed off Shotie !

Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.

Fucking discuss this, why don't you ?

It's Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.

:facepalm:

A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.

Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.

So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.

I'm gonna keep doing it in the other thread so you have to see it, just like I'm going to keep protesting in the street so everyone else does.

Too important not to.

But apparently it's no longer offensive or unconstitutional today…. Ain't America grand? You're free to change your mind. And with the added bonus you can shit on its Constitution too.

Those who are Muslim and those who are from heavily-populated Muslim countries can be different people. Just cause Alahu Apendabar is from Yemen or Joe Schmoe is from Libya, that's doesn't automatically make them Muslim.

Meanwhile, in a still functioning democracy near you…

Any facts to back your statement or is that your xenophobia talking?

Don't need any Census, when i've experienced it firsthand.

What World do we love in when the White Women can't walk home in Peace
without Fear of getting fucking raped ?

Fucking Rapefugees are outta Control.

Since Wikipedia is a quantified Source all of a sudden,
explain THIS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany [/QUOTE]






It's Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.

Amen

I always knew RayMan was a douchebag but now I think he's a piece of shit on top of it. Good to know my first impression was warranted.

Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KeRLdmcUI

Amen

It was bad enough when Killary (Hillary) crawled up from the depths over here. Thank God Killary didn't succeed.

Don't need any Census, when i've experienced it firsthand.

This is the essence of the anti-science, anti-reason stance of the far right extremist today.

Your personal anecdotal experiences are NOT a valid way of determining absolute truth. Collection and analysis of data in a scientific manner gives an objective view of reality. Not RayMan's opinion.

Donald Trump's twin brother at the inauguration in his poncho and on his phone confirmed

()

I always knew RayMan was a douchebag but now I think he's a piece of shit on top of it. Good to know my first impression was warranted.

Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KeRLdmcUI



Don't remember dialing fucking Zero, HPG, what made you crawl outta your Cave ?

Feel threatened by Chivalry you effin' Douche ?

Pathetic, you aren't even worth my fuckin' Time unless you bring up a valuable Point.

TRY. But don't kill yourself while you're at it.

You definitely sound quite reasonable and sensible at the moment.

Why all the rage?

Alcohol

Ah. Yeah, you do seem to be typing like you're drunk.

I didn't make the thread for people to yell at each other! Calm down!

Besides, why would you think every refugee would be a rapist? If that were true, then those countries would be nuked.

Ah. Yeah, you do seem to be typing like you're drunk.

Problem with that ?

Problem with that ?

Do I personally have a problem with it? No, man, do what you please. If you're asking me if there is any problem with it, though, I'd say there could be. For example, later when you're sober, you might regret writing very stupid things.

Besides, why would you think every refugee would be a rapist? If that were true, then those countries would be nuked.

Cool for you, but you're not living in the real World, are you ?

My Girls @ Work can't go home without getting fucking bothered...

I didn't make the thread for people to yell at each other! Calm down!

Besides, why would you think every refugee would be a rapist? If that were true, then those countries would be nuked.

uh, no, I don't think they'd be nuked. That seems like a sort of odd claim.

RayMan is claiming that all the refugees are rapists because he's buying into a story that he can use to explain certain things he perceives, rather than looking at objective data. His demeanor as he defends his flawed point of view is overly aggressive due to the influence of alcohol.

Personally, when I'm drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.

For example, later when you're sober, you might regret writing very stupid things.

Never. And I'm never not right.

---------- Post added at 02:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 AM ----------


Personally, when I'm drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.

It definitely doesn't deserve a clap, it's just the way I am.

Why is this the way you are?

Politics break up Friendships faster than Mario Kart...

Be true to your words, yo

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------


uh, no, I don't think they'd be nuked. That seems like a sort of odd claim.

RayMan is claiming that all the refugees are rapists because he's buying into a story that he can use to explain certain things he perceives, rather than looking at objective data. His demeanor as he defends his flawed point of view is overly aggressive due to the influence of alcohol.

Personally, when I'm drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.

I was being silly when I wrote that. I'm not being serious.

So, it's like Cloneboy and his views? OK

Well except that I'm pretty sure clonemaster hasn't discovered the wonders of alcohol yet. It'll be interesting if we get to find out someday what kind of drunk he is. Though what I really wish is that he'd smoke a joint.

Well, 'cause the dangerous (not the harmless) Refugees, I understand ManRay so far.
But, alcohol and a discussion like this is not a good combination... well, that's not my business.

There are two things that always make a quarrel.
Religion and Politics.

Okay okay, sorry, I'm out. Bye

Well except that I'm pretty sure clonemaster hasn't discovered the wonders of alcohol yet. It'll be interesting if we get to find out someday what kind of drunk he is. Though what I really wish is that he'd smoke a joint.

Not to worry. If I ever get drunk I'll make it known and tell you guys. :o

I always knew RayMan was a douchebag but now I think he's a piece of shit on top of it. Good to know my first impression was warranted.

Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KeRLdmcUI

They have Lady and the Tramp in the background, I'm sold.

Well, 'cause the dangerous (not the harmless) Refugees, I understand ManRay so far.
But, alcohol and a discussion like this is not a good combination... well, that's not my business.

There are two things that always make a quarrel.
Religion and Politics.

Okay okay, sorry, I'm out. Bye

They don't have to. People can talk in a rational and respectful way even when it's a heated discussion. See my disagreement with clonemaster in the other thread, for example. No personal attacks.

It's possible to understand RayMan's viewpoint, but that doesn't justify it.

It's possible to understand RayMan's viewpoint, but that doesn't justify it.

His viewpoint is already justified by his personal experiences. Why would he lie about this?

Not to worry. If I ever get drunk I'll make it known and tell you guys. :o

But you're (soon to be?) 16, you've never had a drop of alcohol in your life. Right? :laugh:

I am 16, and nope.

They don't have to. People can talk in a rational and respectful way even when it's a heated discussion. See my disagreement with clonemaster in the other thread, for example. No personal attacks.
That's good! Unfortunately, I have always experienced bad things of this.

Your personal anecdotal experiences are NOT a valid way of determining absolute truth. Collection and analysis of data in a scientific manner gives an objective view of reality. Not RayMan's opinion.

Meh, Eff Off then, because when even First Person First-Hand Experiences do not count...

Which have happened...

Keep fucking denying. Fucking French Kiss with those Rapefugees. Be my Guest.

But expect to get fucking shanked in the not too far Future you Faggot. Meet you on the Street you're not gonna survive.




Be true to your words, yo

I am, are you ?

I am 16, and nope.

Mhm....

http://imgur.com/Ar6fDq1.gif

:laugh:

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2GN9XKukSjmOek/200.gif#4

Yep. Never have.

You know, ManRay, when you're sober tomorrow, you're gonna be sad that you were the first one to derail this thread. :laugh:

It was inevitable.

Meh, 50 Comments and still noone wasn't serious
or made a smart Comment... *snore*

All below 68 i guess....

It's still on topic because what they're talking about stemmed from something political itself, and you can't always keep that from happening.

Apparently a federal judge just placed a stay on Trump's "No Muslims from countries I don't have business interests in" ban.

It was inevitable.

Yeah, derailing threads is what we do best at the Shrine :laugh:

I am, are you ?

I would, but you're acting like a grade A asshole right now. Your personal experiences do not make anyone else's the same. Just because you deal with rogue refugess doesn't mean everyone else is. Sucks that you have to deal with it, but don't be stereotyping. Don't be insulting others who've responded calmly as well.

Just get a rest and maybe you'll feel better in the morning.

NoNoNoNoNo

Alcohol is the fucking Devil...

I advise you People to drink more of it !!!

Don't worry, if he's a decent person, he'll be pretty ashamed in the morning when sober. :laugh:

The thing is, of course, there are harmless reasonable refugees and there are very dangerous refugees.
But how does one recognize the dangerous ones?
This is an art that our policy unfortunately does not come to the line.
Well, how should this work, right?
Help people who deserve help, but also pay attention to yourself.

I'm going to sleep now..

Meh, 50 Comments and still noone wasn't serious
or made a smart Comment... *snore*

All below 68 i guess....

Have you actually been reading them? Or do they not conform to your opinion?

Fuck off. You don't get to decide what's smart.

His viewpoint is already justified by his personal experiences. Why would he lie about this?

I'm not saying that he is lying. I'm saying that he is erroneously assuming his personal experiences are more significant than scientific data. Did you miss that he literally wrote the words "Don't need any Census, when i've experienced it firsthand."

I don't know exactly what RayMan is referring to. But apparently he's experienced something bad involving people who he believes were refugees. That is unfortunate. Whatever it is, I probably would extend my sympathy. But he is discarding facts in favor of making an assumption about refugees (and, by extension, muslims) as a whole based on isolated incidents. That is wrong, both logically and morally.

Your personal experiences do not make anyone else's the same

O

K

?

Errrmmm ? My Personal Experiences validates my Stance 120% I wasn't generalizing, but now i fucking am,
because fuck Merkel and fuck the German Immigrant Policy... You don't even have a Clue Hunter, about
how bad it is over here...

Don't worry, if he's a decent person, he'll be pretty ashamed in the morning when sober. :laugh:

I hope so. He's just in that mode that I don't like when he's in. Probably brought out by the alcohol.

It's probably just late though. It's too late for the both of you. Get some rest.

Have you actually been reading them? Or do they not conform to your opinion?

Fuck off. You don't get to decide what's smart.

Don't think you're smart Hunter.

That is not the Case.

Meh, Eff Off then, because when even First Person First-Hand Experiences do not count...

Which have happened...

Keep fucking denying. Fucking French Kiss with those Rapefugees. Be my Guest.

But expect to get fucking shanked in the not too far Future you Faggot. Meet you on the Street you're not gonna survive.

Very classy.

I did not say that personal experiences are meaningless. But you are writing off objective data because it doesn't fit with the assumptions you've made based on your personal experiences. That is irrational, and frankly, anti-rational.

Today because of Donald Trump's executive order a family of Syrian refugees with family here in PA were turned away at PHL and sent back to Qatar. They had legally obtained visas. They were fleeing a war zone with their children. Because of people like you, who assume things about them based on things that have nothing to do with them, they're being sent back to a war zone to continue suffering and perhaps die.

I'd like to put you in front of them and force you to explain to them with their children watching why it's so important that they not be allowed to enter my country. You fucking dipshit.

I don't need to have a clue because it's not my problem. That, and taking opinion over fact will forever be dumb.

Now I'm tired. I should stop typing.

The fact is it doesn't get any more objective than personal experiences (it doesn't matter what their opinion of it is; that doesn't change what happened, unless their perception of reality is seriously fucked, and if that's the case than a personal experience can be deluded from their perspective, so is also what they're saying about it), and isolated incidents are what go into general consensus. From that extent he's not wrong.

Don't think you're smart Hunter.

Thanks. I totally needed that. It's not like having a lack of understanding of the world and people thanks to a very common disorder would be considered, but this is most certainly better than that. Bravo.

If only…

Thanks. I totally needed that. It's not like having a lack of understanding of the world and people thanks to a very common disorder would be considered, but this is most certainly better than that. Bravo.

Don't be a victim, he wasn't refering at all to that. He was just being a smart ass douche.

The fact is it doesn't get any more objective than personal experiences (it doesn't matter what their opinion of it is, but it also doesn't change what happened, unless their perception of reality is seriously fucked), and isolated incidents are what go into general consensus. From that extent he's not wrong.

No, this is the exact opposite of the reality. This is why scientific studies are done to make determinations instead of basing them on individual anecdotes. Data is collected with control groups to test against, on a massive level, so that it's statistically valid to draw conclusions from it.

What you're arguing for is exactly the kind of logic that people use to justify racism. No, I am not calling you a racist, so don't play that card. I'm pointing out the flaw in your thinking. A racist might walk down the street and get mugged by a black man. This may be his only experience with a black man all year. From this he draws the conclusion: "See, black people are more likely to be criminals, because the only time I encounter one he attacks me." This might seem right from his perspective, but it's not right from a scientific perspective. Data shows that the major factor in a person's likelihood of criminality is socioeconomic status.

RayMan is making assumptions about all refugees based on isolated incidents in exactly the same way that this hypothetical racist makes assumptions about all black people based on isolated incidents.

Very classy.

I did not say that personal experiences are meaningless. But you are writing off objective data because it doesn't fit with the assumptions you've made based on your personal experiences. That is irrational, and frankly, anti-rational.

Today because of Donald Trump's executive order a family of Syrian refugees with family here in PA were turned away at PHL and sent back to Qatar. They had legally obtained visas. They were fleeing a war zone with their children. Because of people like you, who assume things about them based on things that have nothing to do with them, they're being sent back to a war zone to continue suffering and perhaps die.

I'd like to put you in front of them and force you to explain to them with their children watching why it's so important that they not be allowed to enter my country. You fucking dipshit.

No Problem with Women and Children...

Didn't realize that my Problem was all with the & e(?(/%(/%5.

It's not taking in of poor lost Souls,

it's a fucking hostile Takeover.

WE've all got enough Probs of our Own.

I will not be guilt-tripped. I am in the Right.

Yeah, very logically compelling response. Good argument. "Nuh uh, I'm right."

Fuck you. Your attitude is what has been used to put people like Donald Trump in power, and innocent people are currently suffering because of it. I hope you have one hell of a hangover tomorrow morning and that the shame you feel is even worse.

Don't worry, he most likely will.

Don't worry, he most likely will.

I'm not worrying, I'm hoping.

What I'm worrying about is all the people who are going to die because of irrational hysteria over immigration.

But mass inmigration, no matter what race or what country, is a problem, actually. And it shouldn't be a race problem. It has some effects on the country, in a few stuff.. I think it's basic.. whatever subject it was? I got it in geography.

Everything here was made to be subjective discussion. Anyone who claims to be fully "right" should shut the fuck up.

No, this is the exact opposite of the reality. This is why scientific studies are done to make determinations instead of basing them on individual anecdotes. Data is collected with control groups to test against, on a massive level, so that it's statistically valid to draw conclusions from it.

What you're arguing for is exactly the kind of logic that people use to justify racism. No, I am not calling you a racist, so don't play that card. I'm pointing out the flaw in your thinking. A racist might walk down the street and get mugged by a black man. This may be his only experience with a black man all year. From this he draws the conclusion: "See, black people are more likely to be criminals, because the only time I encounter one he attacks me." This might seem right from his perspective, but it's not right from a scientific perspective. Data shows that the major factor in a person's likelihood of criminality is socioeconomic status.

RayMan is making assumptions about all refugees based on isolated incidents in exactly the same way that this hypothetical racist makes assumptions about all black people based on isolated incidents.

I'm not arguing for the consensus, I'm arguing for his perspective, saying that it was most likely right. I'm not saying his perspective counts for the whole determination.

Wind the clock back and ask yourself: why is there a mass immigration "problem"? It wouldn't be because their homelands have been under siege for almost 3 decades as the West attempts to steal the oil from out under their feet by passively financing instability or actively bombing the bejeezus out of them?

What's a problem is the use of force that results in situations where people have to flee their homes en masse. Much of which the United States is directly responsible for. Whatever "problems" may result from their fleeing to places they can be free and safe must be dealt with because that is the humane and rational thing to do. None of these "problems" outweigh the moral responsibility of giving sanctuary to people fleeing from brutal oppressors threatening their freedom and their lives.

I never have Hangovers. They are for Sissies.

Fucking liberal Cunt.

Never said anything. I am for equal Rights. In every Country. Wouldn't that be nice ?

I'm for #StoptheBombs !

So high on your fucking canadian Throne, aren't you, HPG ?

Don't have an Immigrant Problems, have you ?

You don't even know what you're talking about, so shut your Mouth.

The effin' Girls are afraid to walk 10 Minutes Home over here because of the Rapefugees...

Wind the clock back and ask yourself: why is there a mass immigration "problem"? It wouldn't be because their homelands have been under siege for almost 3 decades as the West attempts to steal the oil from out under their feet by passively financing instability or actively bombing the bejeezus out of them?

Groan. You made it a race thing. I'm not talking about muslims. I'm talking about mass inmigration in general. From anywhere, in any country. From what I know from basic knowledge, massive inmigration is horrible for a country's economy, so indeed, without making it a racial issue, the inmigration problem is an issue, because it can fuck up the country, economically. So I think I heard in the basics of economy class one day, if I recall correctly.

I'm not arguing for the consensus, I'm arguing for his perspective, saying that it was most likely right. I'm not saying his perspective counts for the whole determination.

His perspective is valid in the sense that it is what he personally perceived, sure. What I'm trying to explain is that it is not valid for him to claim that his perspective is valid for everyone, which is what he's doing when he's claiming that because of his perspective refugees should not be allowed into his country.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------


I never have Hangovers. They are for Sissies.

https://s27.postimg.org/bix4u6qhf/1355227937723.gif

Oh, whoa, let's back off everybody. We've got a real internet badass here.

That's fine. Just so you understand what I meant (since I may have missed something, sorry if it was redundant)

From what I know from basic knowledge, massive inmigration is horrible for a country's economy,

What information are you basing this on?

What information are you basing this on?

A economy class long time ago. Now, if I'm proved wrong, I don't have any problem admitting it, I never said I was right. Just what I thought.

Oh, whoa, let's back off everybody. We've got a real internet badass here.

Nope, simply Irish.

That's your Argument ?

L A M E...

A economy class long time ago. Now, if I'm proved wrong, I don't have any problem admitting it, I never said I was right. Just what I thought.

It's not something I've ever specifically looked into, I'm just skeptical. It seems to me this would depend very heavily on the nature of the society they're entering and how healthy its economy already is. Regardless, as a moral issue I think it is quite clear.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------


Nope, simply Irish.

That's your Argument ?

L A M E...

You don't get to do nothing but scream "fuck u Im right!!!" and then complain that I'm not making a sophisticated argument.

Your Irish heritage has absolutely nothing to do with your alcohol tolerance. It's entirely determined by your body mass and the amount you're accustomed to drinking. I'm sure you disagree with this because of your personal experience of Irish people. You might as well claim that the earth is flat and evolution is a lie because your grandpa wasn't a monkey.

Groan. You made it a race thing. I'm not talking about muslims. I'm talking about mass inmigration in general. From anywhere, in any country. From what I know from basic knowledge, massive inmigration is horrible for a country's economy, so indeed, without making it a racial issue, the inmigration problem is an issue, because it can fuck up the country, economically. So I think I heard in the basics of economy class one day, if I recall correctly.

What do you mean "a race thing"? It would help if you could argue in good faith. Also, you plainly no jack shit about world history, so why even bother, Ponyo?

It's not something I've ever specifically looked into, I'm just skeptical. It seems to me this would depend very heavily on the nature of the society they're entering and how healthy its economy already is. Regardless, as a moral issue I think it is quite clear.

What I meant to say originally is, that inmigration is not something that must not be completely ignored, it can be an issue to some countries, and then, it should be looked without bias. And not make it a race problem. Because not only muslims inmigrate. Other races, other person, anyone really, inmigrates to other countries.


What do you mean "a race thing"? It would help if you could argue in good faith. Also, you plainly no jack shit about world history, so why even bother, Ponyo?

I was talking about inmigration in general, not just from refugees or muslims, which based on your reply that's what you seemed to speak about. Inmigration in general. Meaning anyone at all, no matter the race, no matter where they come from. Now I know I'm not the best person to argue with but I don't see why you should say that of me.

If it's not written in the post it's all in your head.

You may have heard a number of Republican politicians in the news today respond to criticism of Trump's Muslim ban by noting that Democrats weren't outraged when Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011.

This intrigued me. I'd never heard of it. Google searches on the topic were only returning unsourced results from fake news sites. But congressmen and women were referencing it, so I wanted a clear picture.

I asked a few Republican acquaintances of mine for more information, and after a bit of a runaround I was finally informed that the "2011 Obama refugee ban" story originates from his invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (one of six occurrences in his presidency)

This July 2011 executive order imposed a travel ban on the following:

"anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”

So yeah, when you hear Republicans in congress talk about how Obama banned refugees in 2011...

Alternative facts folks

You don't get to do nothing but scream "fuck u Im right!!!" and then complain that I'm not making a sophisticated argument.

I thought it was still about Immigrants ?

Way to change the Subject becuase you can't win anymore.

Why don't you try and repel at least a single one of my Aguments ?

Because you can't you fucking Faggot.

You're fucking pathetic, and you can't deal with that, can you HeadPhoneGirl ?

You're a Joke HPG, anyone can see that.

If it's not written in the post it's all in your head.

Again, I was talking about inmigrants in general, and you mentioned the US bombing people for 30 years. And the US has only bombed muslims for 30 years, so yeah. Okay. I clearly just see things in my head. Shouldn't have tried to talk with ever-so-smarter than thou Gururu. Peace.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

ManRay seriously back the fuck off, you've already made yourself look like a huge joke. Alcohol is bad, folks.

You may have heard a number of Republican politicians in the news today respond to criticism of Trump's Muslim ban by noting that Democrats weren't outraged when Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011.

This intrigued me. I'd never heard of it. Google searches on the topic were only returning unsourced results from fake news sites. But congressmen and women were referencing it, so I wanted a clear picture.

I asked a few Republican acquaintances of mine for more information, and after a bit of a runaround I was finally informed that the "2011 Obama refugee ban" story originates from his invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (one of six occurrences in his presidency)

This July 2011 executive order imposed a travel ban on the following:

"anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”

So yeah, when you hear Republicans in congress talk about how Obama banned refugees in 2011...

Alternative facts folks

Keep pushing that alternative facts thing. It's starting to get really entertaining :smrt:

Also, most 'republican' politicians are just as good as 'democrats' (they've actually both become quite misleading labels as to what their way of means actually are, compared to the actually definition of the party)

Federal judge just granted a stay on Trump's refugee and immigrant ban thanks to swift ACLU action. Nationwide, and the federal government is being required to turn over the names of everyone who was turned away. Fight is certainly not over, but this is a good first victory.

Welcome to the white house, Trumpy. Get ready to deal with this every day you're there.

https://mic.com/articles/166984/the-aclu-took-trump-to-court-the-first-night-of-his-muslim-refugee-and-immigrant-ban?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.JcKBzG3BU

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/muslim-ban-federal-court

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------


Keep pushing that alternative facts thing. It's starting to get really entertaining :smrt:

Your side are the ones who created it. We're just repeating their own words.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------




[/COLOR]ManRay seriously back the fuck off, you've already made yourself look like a huge joke. Alcohol is bad, folks.

Alcohol is great. It gives you a peek into someone's true character.

It isn't the alcohol speaking. The alcohol just let us hear what he's normally thinking but doesn't say.

Keep pushing that alternative facts thing. It's starting to get really entertaining :smrt:

Also, most 'republican' politicians are just as good as 'democrats' (they're actually both quite misleading labels as to what they're way of means actually are)

He had a good point, Clonemaster. Would you quit being so fanatical. You should also stop reading and watching the news of only those who cater to your political beliefs.. they make you think you're *always* right.

I regularly see other sides of the story to support the truth of my own; if I'm gonna keep arguing that CNN is fake news I'm not going to deliberately ignore them.

I also don't set out to be always right, having to be always right is not a good characteristic of anybody; most conservative websites (Infowars too) will always correct themselves on anything misleading that they've accidentally or mistakenly reported on. Every once and a while CNN will too, but not most of the time.

I regularly see other sides of the story to support the truth of my own; if I'm gonna keep arguing that CNN is fake news I'm not going to deliberately ignore them.

No.. so far, a lot of people have debunked your so called "truths" and all you did was continue to support them with even more bullshit articles.

You know, Clonemaster. Just like how there's a conspiracy in the media, according to you, that only shits on Trump and republicans or conservatives, there's also media that caters to them, by posting what they want to read, wether if it's true or not. No media is really trustworthy if you ask me. There's always bias in political news and people are quick to decide which one is true depending on what they believe.

That they're Muslim is irrelevant to the issue of displacement. They have the misfortune, like every other vulnerable population throughout history, of living on top of prized natural resources coveted by their own homegrown power mongers and foreign imperialist powers.

Wars and environmental disasters are the only causes of immigration upset.

Seriously, Clonemaster - if all you have to support your ideas is just news articles - you really don't have good arguments. Bias in news media has always existed, and now more than ever.

ManRay seriously back the fuck off, you've already made yourself look like a huge joke. Alcohol is bad, folks.

Ha, Son, don't get in my Way,
Don't know why you're butting in, but,
do you want some of this ?

Why don't you do some Homework and read up
on the last few Comments ?

I haven't said anything that is not fucking true.

18 ? You haven't got a fucking Clue.

Thought you were smart... Appparently not. :)

I'm 19, 20 this October, and I'm not even gonna bother with a drunken man, your arguments are stupid. To even resort to personal just because I simply said you're making yourself look like shit, which you totally are.. really low, man. You'll really be totally ashamed tomorrow morning. Learn to never step on the Shrine drunk, again.

So.

Tell me how i am emberassing myself ?

Of the Arguments i brought forward,
they must all be false right ?

Examples.

Please.

---------- Post added at 04:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 AM ----------

Thought so.

Seriously, Clonemaster - if all you have to support your ideas is just news articles - you really don't have good arguments. Bias in news media has always existed, and now more than ever.

It goes both ways. Your last statement is totally true and is a major part of my point. But the general public media outlets are the ones where nearly all of the bias is coming from (they will report false news the majority of the time because their paid by those of the left side to do so and therefore they are supportive of their respective cause). Places like Infowars have to do in depth research to get the truth of what they tell; Alex Jones built Infowars from the ground by himself, and he's not interested of making a profit off of what he reports. You can even see all of the tons of papers on his desk in the videos; it's taken him hours to retrieve and lay out that information. He's not just blindly telling what will be supportive of Trump, all the time, because even Trump makes mistakes and he's not a God (believe it or not). Their main cause is only the truth and it's all they want to be known. Their as well invested in exposing whatever lie the media has told, and they do it a lot, and I've explained why they do it. There's actually too much evidence to support what I'm saying and all that has to be done is for one to dig deep enough to find it; which individuals such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones do, and when you add up what they're saying, and / or form a conclusion based upon evidence you've found if you've taken the time to find it, it's like an epiphany in your mind for God's sakes!

Fun fact: the name Infowars is succinctly representative of what point I'm driving - there's literally a war on for your mind! A war of information. Dishonest media is trying to tell you what to believe and, so may be places like Infowars, but there's also evidence to find that supports their information, contrary to bullshit evidence not backed by anything but a shallow lie. (yes, places like CNN have reported on the truth before, but it's not very often at all; at least not enough for them to keep the credibility they totally don't deserve.)

Keep pushing that alternative facts thing.

I wouldn't want to hurt Republican snowflakes' feels by using the L word.

How old are you? 21?

How old are you? 21?

I'm 12

And where are you from?

I wouldn't want to hurt Republican snowflakes' feels by using the L word.

For the record I believe that *most* Republicans are guilty of almost every of the same thing that I'm saying Democrats are, that's because a lot of Republicans just operate under that name and with what they're involved in they might as well just be Democrats, but even that name is now misleading and their party should be referred to as 'Bullshiterian' from here on out.

Pah.

Invalidated.

George is the only Person i'm taking seriously for the last 2 Pages.

You know, folks, even with my strong support of Donald Trump, I am not unwilling to make fun of his (hilariously) egotistical behavior, especially when warranted.

Here I made an over-exaggerated version of a typical Donald Trump speech, and me, myself? I'm laughing my ass off at it.


"Folks, I am so great. I am so great. I had a lot of voters...we got a lot of votes, didn't we? We won, didn't we? We won the election? Yes, yes, we did...and you know what, folks, the fake news, dishonest media... are part of movement to make me look bad! Can you believe it? I can't believe it. Folks, folks, folks......it's very very bad. It's very bad out there, you know there's a lot of protests, and a lot of violence out there, and Hillary Clinton, paid those people a lot of money to protest and say those things! Can you believe it? And our hard earned jobs and manufacturing are shifting to Mexico, and China! Communist China created global warming; it's all a big money making scheme but you know what, folks, we're going to Make America Great Again, aren't we? We're gonna build a wall too, it'll be a great wall...you know the illegal immigrants and rapists are crossing the Mexican border and committing crimes and you know what, folks? The Mexican president is saying they won't be paying for the wall but I think they will, right? Right, people? We're gonna make them pay for the wall and you know what, I've said before, we're going to Make, America Great Again and you know what people? We face a lot of opposition. But we will Make America Great Again, aren't we folks? Yes we are, yes we're gonna do it. And you know what, folks....China!, but I'll tell ya what, I am so great.*goes on and on for hours*

*later* ...and folks, folks...America First... America First...and Americans, Americans, Americans....but you know what, folks? I'll tell ya what...

I've now witnessed hours of two insanely biased people fighting against a group of people that have actual evidence and reason on their hands, yet the two go insane insisting in their ways.

I feel I've opened a can of worms that ended up being too big.

And where are you from?

PA, u?

At least George is incredibly generous and well spoken to the point I could never be mad at him.

A Ray of Man......yeah, go to fucking bed. That alcohol took too much a hold of your head.

I feel I've opened a can of worms that ended up being too big.

Probably less confusion would have been generated if the thread had been titled: "Drunken Assholes & Conspiracy Theorists Welcome". In which case Clone boy, DAK and Man of War would have had the place to themselves.

Probably less confusion would have been generated if the thread had been titled: "Drunken Assholes & Conspiracy Theorists Welcome". In which case Clone boy, DAK and Man of War would have the place to themselves.

:laugh: True. I should probably ask them to rename it.

At this point, if everything calms down and the tone is more formal, then I'll keep the thread open. If not, I'll ask for it to close.

Clonemaster; conspiracy theorist, Conservative, investigative self-titled journalist since 2017, bringing you the alternative facts anytime, anywhere, as well as all the juicy conspiracy theories you can eat.

....The shrine's, official, example of typical conservatism behavior. Glad to be here with ya, folks. It's gonna be a good one.



*camera quickly pans out*

All of the photos you're linking here already have the exact same perspective issues I mentioned. You're claiming those perspective issues don't matter, I assume, but let me go through this again. Earthcam footage from 12:15pm, from a much higher viewpoint than any of the photos you've linked:

This photo coincides in timing very closely with the gigapixel image. Trump was sworn in at noon. By the time this earthcam photo is taken he's already been sworn in.

Now, if the crowd size increased after that, that's perfectly valid. It may very well have done so! But that doesn't make the media's reports dishonest. The photo that was spread directly comparing the two events from the Washington Monument was a comparison of the Trump inauguration just before noon and the Obama inauguration just before noon. The comparison is valid - that doesn't mean that the crowd size couldn't have increased later.

Sigh....again, I'll point to some other things

http://100percentfedup.com/fake-news-alert-cnn-finally-releases-actual-picture-of-trump-inauguration-crowdand-proof-that-crowd-size-for-obamas-2009-inauguration-was-greatly-exaggerated/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g

And most importantly

http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/trump-inauguration-photos-rigged/

Late addition; video evidence of the crowd

https://youtu.be/yePtCGg7b40?t=1h27m36s

And some additional explanation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxjEnPPclE8

So, let's see.

This...







against this...


And this fucking bullshit



Harsh sigh.....The CNN gigapixel is clearly detailed enough so that you can see any gap in the crowd. I already demonstrated this, and now compared it with other photos that were deliberately taken before he was sworn in; they were not all taken around the same time. And Trump's photo - that was widely used as the comparison was definitely taken at a different, earlier time than Obama's, at a possible two or three hour difference. There's also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they're too blurry. And they clearly demonstrate areas of the crowd empty whereas the CNN gigapixel shows minimal gaps at the least, and taking the photo(s) at such a time earlier would be the only way that this is possible without, uh...deeming him a delusional liar.

And you tell me that this doesn't make the media's reporting dishonest...

The media's amount of coverage on this is ridiculous - more ridiculous than Trump's claims ever were. The media saw another opportunity to make him (them) out as liar(s) and they took it. And they're just using it to affirm that Donald Trump, Sean Spicer and the White House are liars that you can't trust.

I seriously don't know any other way to put it....it's just ridiculous.



Again, what I'm pointing out here is also backed up by the records of Metro tickets sold that day, which you still haven't responded to. You can post all the low angle shots taken from within the crowd you want, but you can't show any alternative angles on the Metro numbers.

Um... Spicer and the White House have already corrected themselves on this; I saw no need to respond about it.


In regards to your "voter fraud evidence," that's not what I'm asking for. Yes, voter fraud can occur to some extent, and I have no doubt that it does sometimes. But Trump claimed that three million people voted illegally. Where did he get this number from? It is a very convenient number because that just happens to be the number by which he lost the popular vote. The entire context in which he gave this made up number was just to try to save face and pretend he didn't "really" lose the popular vote.

I actually wasn't directing that towards you, but there is already existing evidence (that you WILL find if you take the time to look for it) that back up Trump's claims so I'll just leave it there for now/


Have you noticed that all of the sources you provide are pro-Trump sources? Why is it that you insist that the media's bias means that they must be lying, but you don't extend that same logic to r/TheDonald or Alex Jones? Do you seriously believe that Sean Hannity isn't biased towards Trump?

Yes. Sean Hannity, along with Bill O'Reilly (these two I know for a fact, so I won't cite any others because I don't know for sure), for that matter have known Donald Trump for years. They know him very well; they know how he thinks, they know what sort of person he is, what his usual behavior consists of; they know what his intentions are, they flatly know that he's not a liar, and that he and his cabinet wouldn't make such ridiculous claims without the events and factors in question having actually happened, they also know that Trump is not perfect and he makes mistakes just as much as you and I do. And in addition they research this stuff themselves - especially Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.

(I recall one of Hannity's comments on how almost all of what Trump does on a daily basis is negotiate; people who personally know him, know this. I also clearly recall that Hannity has many (sometimes phone) conversations with Donald Trump, usually anywhere from the hours of 1 - 5 AM, and he has these conversations and talks to him personally on a regular basis to keep in check with he's doing, what he means to do, and for what he himself says about Trump)

There's a good reason I don't extend logic to them. All they're doing is telling the truth - that's all they want to do. They, unlike the media, are not being paid to make Trump look better than he actually is, contrary to the majority of the media and news outlets who are paid to make Trump look worse than he actually is (I've already previously explained in thorough why they do this). They aren't in it for the money; they have no ulterior motives, deceptive, biased, nor wrongful motives based on money like the controlled-media does. And think about if the media ever said anything honest about Obama or Clinton ever. They would be ridiculed, they would be shunned, they would lose their jobs; they would collapse or be bought out.

I would dare you to personally get in contact with Sean, Rush, O'Reilly, or even Jones and ask about this yourself.

Another late addition; quoted from the about (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/about/) of The Conservative Treehouse:
"The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community

Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.

Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.

Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.

But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard. The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.

The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it’s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.

This is where democrats mis-view republicans as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.

The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.

The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The liberal believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)

The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger. The liberal believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.

And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the liberal, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.

One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.

And there it is. There’s where the meanness comes from. The liberal ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.

One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our liberal friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.

In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need – make donations to the Red Cross when there’s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it’s just $50 here and there – it’s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it’s your duty to give back.

The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. And perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their “generosity” to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention – re distributive policies ALWAYS end up dis-empowering those who they’re meant to help.)

However each of us got here, it’s probably a fact that we have the turmoil of those storms in common, perhaps some unease that we could share and always, we also find fresh ground to cover from day to day. We’re developing valuable relationships as we trust one another in our community in the woods. The chatting in the branches encourages, strengthens and equips for some serious walking.

We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you’ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch….or just pull up a rock to the campfire."
Read this, and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about; that I'm using low-IC thinking. That conservative sites, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity and the like are biased for Donald Trump, and that they'll fabricate and make up stories to support his cause. That they're not credible. That they don't do their research. That they won't tell the truth. That they don't want to tell the truth. That I'm pushing some crazy unbelievable conspiracy theory. That I haven't done my research; that there isn't evidence to back up what I've been saying the past couple days.

Regardless of it looking lazy, immature, foolish, or naive on my part; I say with all my passion and faith (in God as well, mind you) that NONE of the above are true.

Not trying to get really serious on you, here, (oh wait, I am. Sorry) but this is simply and overall a discussion of which its subject involves very serious determining factors that affect our lives. And that which affects are lives are one of the chief determining factors in this situation; those of which will or already has proven me right. It's not about being right either, it's just about understanding the absolute truth and scope of the situation - and conspiracy (not theory, fact)

Individuals spotted at the inauguration, all confirmed attendance records
Gordon Freeman at the inauguration confirmed

()

Joe Pesci at the inauguration confirmed

()
More individuals confirmed
()
Then we have this guy over here who looks shady as fuck
()
All of these have been confirmed

You're welcome. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Plus my Mom and her family were refugees during WWII and I know the stories of how poorly they were treated. And I've assisted with refugee evacuations. You see the look on the face of a mother and child that you've just ensured will live and not die in a ditch, it's a look I'll never forget.

Exactly. What country/state did your Mom and her family leave?

---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------


Don't need any Census, when i've experienced it firsthand.

What World do we love in when the White Women can't walk home in Peace
without Fear of getting fucking raped ?

Fucking Rapefugees are outta Control.

Wow, so much hate. So little need for actual numbers. Or facts. Alter, wo wohnst du denn?

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------


It's Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.

Don't be. I'm pretty sure we will manage. It will be problematic and not easy but we will manage.

Individuals spotted at the inauguration, all confirmed attendance records
Gordon Freeman at the inauguration confirmed

()

Joe Pesci at the inauguration confirmed

()
More individuals confirmed
()
Then we have this guy over here who looks shady as fuck
()
All of these have been confirmed

Dude I'm super confused by this. I'm *thinking* that you know no of those people are who you say they are? Because it's CNN (and we know how they report the 100% truth :laugh:) but I see no "lol" or ":p" or ":laugh:" from you, so I'm not sure how to take this lol

Joe Pesci wishes he was as young as that guy. Looks more like Mr. Constanza to me :p
And Rob Reiner is such a raging, flaming liberal that he'd most likely rather die than attend a republican inauguration

Dude I'm super confused by this. I'm *thinking* that you know no of those people are who you say they are? Because it's CNN (and we know how they report the 100% truth :laugh:) but I see no "lol" or ":p" or ":laugh:" from you, so I'm not sure how to take this lol

Joe Pesci wishes he was as young as that guy. Looks more like Mr. Constanza to me :p
And Rob Reiner is such a raging, flaming liberal that he'd most likely rather die than attend a republican inauguration

He's joking. It would be sort of funny if it weren't making light of a fascist coming into power.

I agree the guy labeled Joe Pesci doesn't look anything like him though.

Maybe it's Mussolini. Who knows. :p

Maybe it's Maybelline.

The good news is that the unprecedented levels of citizen activism that are springing up in the wake of Trump's disastrous first week seem to be emboldening Republicans in congress to stand up to him as well. I don't have much love for them myself, but even I don't think that most of them actually want to see blatantly illegal orders like banning whole nations of people out of blatant Islamophobia representing their party.

Storms are brewing. I really do wonder if this guy is going to make it through four years.

http://time.com/4652966/donald-trump-refugee-ban-executive-order-republicans/

Did some dumbass literally just ask Spicer why the President didn't mention Jews specifically in his Holocaust Remembrance comments?

I have to date yet to see Trump make an antisemitic comment, for all people want to chuck that at him to gain Jewish support. It's pretty blatantly explicit when you're talking about the Holocaust that you have Jews in mind, and frankly I think it's disrespectful to the millions of slavs that were purged by Nazi Germany to paint it as an exclusively Jewish persecution anyway.

A thousand controversies in front of us and the press picks up on this trivial nonsense. Way to undermine your credibility at a time when the President is trying to do exactly that.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------


Sigh....again, I'll point to some other things

http://100percentfedup.com/fake-news-alert-cnn-finally-releases-actual-picture-of-trump-inauguration-crowdand-proof-that-crowd-size-for-obamas-2009-inauguration-was-greatly-exaggerated/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g

And most importantly

http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/trump-inauguration-photos-rigged/

Late addition; video evidence of the crowd

https://youtu.be/yePtCGg7b40?t=1h27m36s

And some additional explanation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxjEnPPclE8

So, let's see.

This...







against this...


And this fucking bullshit



Harsh sigh.....The CNN gigapixel is clearly detailed enough so that you can see any gap in the crowd. I already demonstrated this, and now compared it with other photos that were deliberately taken before he was sworn in; they were not all taken around the same time. And Trump's photo - that was widely used as the comparison was definitely taken at a different, earlier time than Obama's, at a possible two or three hour difference. There's also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they're too blurry. And they clearly demonstrate areas of the crowd empty whereas the CNN gigapixel shows minimal gaps at the least, and taking the photo(s) at such a time earlier would be the only way that this is possible without, uh...deeming him a delusional liar.

And you tell me that this doesn't make the media's reporting dishonest...

The media's amount of coverage on this is ridiculous - more ridiculous than Trump's claims ever were. The media saw another opportunity to make him (them) out as liar(s) and they took it. And they're just using it to affirm that Donald Trump, Sean Spicer and the White House are liars that you can't trust.

I seriously don't know any other way to put it....it's just ridiculous.




Um... Spicer and the White House have already corrected themselves on this; I saw no need to respond about it.



I actually wasn't directing that towards you, but there is already existing evidence (that you WILL find if you take the time to look for it) that back up Trump's claims so I'll just leave it there for now/



Yes. Sean Hannity, along with Bill O'Reilly (these two I know for a fact, so I won't cite any others because I don't know for sure), for that matter have known Donald Trump for years. They know him very well; they know how he thinks, they know what sort of person he is, what his usual behavior consists of; they know what his intentions are, they flatly know that he's not a liar, and that he and his cabinet wouldn't make such ridiculous claims without the events and factors in question having actually happened, they also know that Trump is not perfect and he makes mistakes just as much as you and I do. And in addition they research this stuff themselves - especially Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.

(I recall one of Hannity's comments on how almost all of what Trump does on a daily basis is negotiate; people who personally know him, know this. I also clearly recall that Hannity has many (sometimes phone) conversations with Donald Trump, usually anywhere from the hours of 1 - 5 AM, and he has these conversations and talks to him personally on a regular basis to keep in check with he's doing, what he means to do, and for what he himself says about Trump)

There's a good reason I don't extend logic to them. All they're doing is telling the truth - that's all they want to do. They, unlike the media, are not being paid to make Trump look better than he actually is, contrary to the majority of the media and news outlets who are paid to make Trump look worse than he actually is (I've already previously explained in thorough why they do this). They aren't in it for the money; they have no ulterior motives, deceptive, biased, nor wrongful motives based on money like the controlled-media does. And think about if the media ever said anything honest about Obama or Clinton ever. They would be ridiculed, they would be shunned, they would lose their jobs; they would collapse or be bought out.

I would dare you to personally get in contact with Sean, Rush, O'Reilly, or even Jones and ask about this yourself.

Another late addition; quoted from the about (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/about/) of The Conservative Treehouse:
"The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community

Perhaps you�ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.

Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.

Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society � the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it�s means there�s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also � shocking � not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.

But here�s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity � the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen � but you have to work hard. The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward � material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.

The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it�s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you�ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people�s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.

This is where democrats mis-view republicans as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence � and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues � welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can�t actually afford � ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger � they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.

The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.

The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The liberal believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a �perfect� utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)

The conservative tends to be more faithful � and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment � trust and faith in something bigger. The liberal believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and �fix� things.

And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the liberal, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.

One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.

And there it is. There�s where the meanness comes from. The liberal ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear �unfair.� He constantly chooses only to see the �injustices� � and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.

One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our liberal friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.

In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need � make donations to the Red Cross when there�s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it�s just $50 here and there � it�s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it�s your duty to give back.

The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. And perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their �generosity� to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention � re distributive policies ALWAYS end up dis-empowering those who they�re meant to help.)

However each of us got here, it�s probably a fact that we have the turmoil of those storms in common, perhaps some unease that we could share and always, we also find fresh ground to cover from day to day. We�re developing valuable relationships as we trust one another in our community in the woods. The chatting in the branches encourages, strengthens and equips for some serious walking.

We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you�ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch�.or just pull up a rock to the campfire."
Read this, and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about; that I'm using low-IC thinking. That conservative sites, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity and the like are biased for Donald Trump, and that they'll fabricate and make up stories to support his cause. That they're not credible. That they don't do their research. That they won't tell the truth. That they don't want to tell the truth. That I'm pushing some crazy unbelievable conspiracy theory. That I haven't done my research; that there isn't evidence to back up what I've been saying the past couple days.

Regardless of it looking lazy, immature, foolish, or naive on my part; I say with all my passion and faith (in God as well, mind you) that NONE of the above are true.

Not trying to get really serious on you, here, (oh wait, I am. Sorry) but this is simply and overall a discussion of which its subject involves very serious determining factors that affect our lives. And that which affects are lives are one of the chief determining factors in this situation; those of which will or already has proven me right. It's not about being right either, it's just about understanding the absolute truth and scope of the situation - and conspiracy (not theory, fact)

I've played this game a number of times, pulled my own imagery from CNN footage to guarantee against photoshop, because the crowd does look bigger at a glance from the broadcast angle than from the overhead view. But I always reach the same conclusion.

You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They're still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama's crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump's inauguration.

The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they're literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.

Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can't simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"

I mean, you can say it, but you're not fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.

At least try to keep up with history, please: The Final Solution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution).

At least try to keep up with history, please: The Final Solution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution).

The Holocaust targeted Jews first and foremost. No one is denying this. Not me. Not the President.

The Holocaust also targeted slavs, who were not considered Aryan. Many, many people were exterminated who had no Jewish ancestry for this reason. Doesn't mean we should downplay the Jewish aspect of the persecution. I think it's generally unfortunate that we tend to forget the other victims. That's all.

When someone talks about the victims of the Holocaust and does not specifically narrow their focus to Jewish victims, they are either being conscientious about the other victims or else they are taking it for granted that Holocaust Victim = Jew. The latter is somewhat regrettable but certainly understandable in so far it is how we commonly remember the event.

At worst, Trump is guilty about that. I read his remarks. Nothing antisemitic about them. I have seen him labeled antisemitic on a number of other occasions. I have looked into these accusations when I've been aware of them. I have yet to find any that I feel were legitimate.

I hate Donald Trump's guts and I think that's pretty obvious, but I'm going to object when I see him accused of something that I don't feel is a legitimate complaint.

Want to know what was disgusting about the Trump administration in relation to this topic? Spicer tossing antisemitism back on Obama during the press conference because Obama had stood up for persecuted Palestinians.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Holocaust Denial has attracted and continues to attract legions of followers.

I've played this game a number of times, pulled my own imagery from CNN footage to guarantee against photoshop, because the crowd does look bigger at a glance from the broadcast angle than from the overhead view. But I always reach the same conclusion.

You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They're still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama's crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump's inauguration.

The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they're literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.

Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can't simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"

I mean, you can say it, but you're not fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.

It's not worth it. I just went through this with him, even showing aerial photos taken at the same time as the CNN photo he's pointing to that have the same crowd gaps, but he doesn't care. The man has a story and he's sticking to it. Maybe in a few years it'll be different.

I think you're making too much of the holocaust question. I didn't see what you're referring to, but it sounds like a reasonable question. Trump's direct ties to the alt right are enough to raise suspicion even if he hasn't said anything directly anti-semitic - he might not have, but his chief adviser has, and he's closely associated with a movement that includes a lot of fiercely anti-semitic individuals.

Holocaust Denial

I remember teenagers denying it in highschool.

Now there's a movie about it with Rachel Weiss. I did not finish it. It didn't seem all that interesting.

Did some dumbass literally just ask Spicer why the President didn't mention Jews specifically in his Holocaust Remembrance comments?

I have to date yet to see Trump make an antisemitic comment, for all people want to chuck that at him to gain Jewish support. It's pretty blatantly explicit when you're talking about the Holocaust that you have Jews in mind, and frankly I think it's disrespectful to the millions of slavs that were purged by Nazi Germany to paint it as an exclusively Jewish persecution anyway.

A thousand controversies in front of us and the press picks up on this trivial nonsense. Way to undermine your credibility at a time when the President is trying to do exactly that.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------



I've played this game a number of times, pulled my own imagery from CNN footage to guarantee against photoshop, because the crowd does look bigger at a glance from the broadcast angle than from the overhead view. But I always reach the same conclusion.

You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They're still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama's crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump's inauguration.

The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they're literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.

Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can't simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"

I mean, you can say it, but you're not fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.

smh

Again,


From someone who was actually there:



There's absolutely nothing to confirm that the overhead photos used as comparison between Obama's were taken around the same time ("There's also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they're too blurry.") and listed times for respective photos where they're presented could easily just be lied about. I think that they were taken about 2 or 3 hours before the whole crowd had gathered, CNN and others passed it off as the comparison between Obama's crowd and Trump's crowd, and had falsely cited that they were taken at the time Trump was inaugurated - which there is currently no visual evidence to support that claim, as, once again, the photos are too blurry to tell.

Seriously. That crowd shown in those overhead photos are so significantly inferior compared to Obama's, it just makes jack-shit for sense that only that many people would attend Donald Trump's inauguration. I call bullshit. I've been calling bullshit for a while, and I'm also clearly not the only one who thinks so.

---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

HA! Holocaust Denail. I would like somebody of that group to sit through the whole 10-hour entirety of Shoah and continue to deny the holocaust.

It's not worth it.

George's job, like all his compatriots, is to spread FUD and undermine rational debate.

It was the gross tone deafness of the Trump administration to issue that executive order denying refugees on Holocaust Remembrance Day. During WWII the Roosevelt administration denied the entry of Jews fleeing persecution into the U.S. on the ground they could be spies, saboteurs, members of the fifth column and that their presence could threaten national security.

Sound familiar?

Also curious that no citizen from any of the seven countries on Trump's Muslim Ban have attacked the U.S. Yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack the U.S. - 9/11 anyone? - are not on the ban. India and Pakistan are also not part of the ban.

Could it be because Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon?

Donald Trump: Make America White Again.

^ +100

To add: I would modify to "Make America White Christian Again".

I agree with Killgrave 100%. That was unfortunately not what this member of the press questioned.

lol @ Clone continuing to post a picture of the same thing over and over again in the hopes that sooner or later more people will magically appear in it.

smh

Again,


From someone who was actually there:



There's absolutely nothing to confirm that the overhead photos used as comparison between Obama's were taken around the same time ("There's also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they're too blurry.") and listed times for respective photos where they're presented could easily just be lied about. I think that they were taken about 2 or 3 hours before the whole crowd had gathered, CNN and others passed it off as the comparison between Obama's crowd and Trump's crowd, and had falsely cited that they were taken at the time Trump was inaugurated - which there is currently no visual evidence to support that claim, as, once again, the photos are too blurry to tell.

Seriously. That crowd shown in those overhead photos are so significantly inferior compared to Obama's, it just makes jack-shit for sense that only that many people would attend Donald Trump's inauguration. I call bullshit. I've been calling bullshit for a while, and I'm also clearly not the only one who thinks so.[COLOR="Silver"]


Alright, I'm going to try one more time.

Here is an entire archive of earthcam's video footage for the whole event, half hour by half hour, from a high angle. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08

Here's specifically the footage from 12:00-12:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOjaTcDuwI4&list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08&index=11

But you can go through the whole thing. I just did. The gaps in the crowd that are apparent in the supposed "fake news" comparison never disappear.

All the photos you can point to that you claim disprove it are taken from low angles. You don't have a single piece of counter evidence taken from the same height, same angle as the ones that show the clear crowd gaps. You have testimony from someone who was there... on the ground. Giving his personal subjective experience. Who also happens to be a Trump supporter.

You have nothing.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------


It was the gross tone deafness of the Trump administration to issue that executive order denying refugees on Holocaust Remembrance Day. During WWII the Roosevelt administration denied the entry of Jews fleeing persecution into the U.S. on the ground they could be spies, saboteurs, members of the fifth column and that their presence could threaten national security.

Sound familiar?

Also curious that no citizen from any of the seven countries on Trump's Muslim Ban have attacked the U.S. Yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack the U.S. - 9/11 anyone? - are not on the ban. India and Pakistan are also not part of the ban.

Could it be because Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon?

Donald Trump: Make America White Again.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Some bon mots from Trump: “laziness is a trait in blacks.” “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

Google Fred Trump and the KKK and see what you get.

The orange doesn't fall far from the racist tree.

Some bon mots from Trump: “laziness is a trait in blacks.” “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

I hadn't heard these before. What a doozie.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about_blacks_inherent_laziness_19 91_book_says.html

I am sure r/thedonald has had some things to say about this. No doubt, the mainstream media retroactively invented the book, and hacked into google books to plant it so they could lie and claim poor innocent Trumpy (who never says anything awful and embarrassing) is a racist. I guess they must have manufactured fake 1999 Playboy issues with a fake interview, as well.

Here's a whopper I somehow missed the first time around:

Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html): "I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed. “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” …Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Yep.

On the other hand, this is probably why some Republicans in congress are already showing minor signs of revolt.

Not that I don't agree that the status quo has to go, but if history has shown anything it's that citizens are the "collateral damage" of revolutions, while the establishment almost always survives to build anew from scratch.

Certainly. There's a big difference between changing the status quo from the ground up because the people are fed up with it, and a government taking power in order to burn it to the ground. There are already some scary indications that the Trump administration's long term goal is the latter.

Alright, I'm going to try one more time.

Here is an entire archive of earthcam's video footage for the whole event, half hour by half hour, from a high angle. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08

Here's specifically the footage from 12:00-12:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOjaTcDuwI4&list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08&index=11

But you can go through the whole thing. I just did. The gaps in the crowd that are apparent in the supposed "fake news" comparison never disappear.

All the photos you can point to that you claim disprove it are taken from low angles. You don't have a single piece of counter evidence taken from the same height, same angle as the ones that show the clear crowd gaps. You have testimony from someone who was there... on the ground. Giving his personal subjective experience. Who also happens to be a Trump supporter.

You have nothing.

Great way to end a post.

So, okay, you got me here. You've finally presented some video evidence which (I think) proves me wrong on the comparison to the CNN gigapixel, and which I've also taken some time looking through (here, you can see screens showing Trump speaking; you can also see the camera's counting time, which both these things indicate that the crowds shown are at the respective time of his swearing in). But in particular, I noticed a discrepancy with the crowd at the base of the monument shown by the Twitter photos compared to what the footage shows. That's odd. I'm still a bit skeptical, as it doesn't make much sense for only that amount of attendance for a presidential inauguration of Donald Trump, but there's also a great amount of people that simply weren't able to get in, either from fear of being attacked, or entryways being blocked, or some other circumstances which I'm forgetting (this (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/21/definitive-cnn-gigapixel-image-of-crowd-during-trump-inauguration-speech-confirms-sean-spicer-correct/) which I linked before I think explains in more detail; I don't have time at the moment to type it out). The CNN gigapixel also shows the crazy amount people who were resorted to watch the inauguration from outside the attendance area, which still supports Spicer's claims to at least some degree (in that statement he considered every factor of attendance or viewership.)

Still, this doesn't disprove that the majority of mainstream media are lying bastards most of the time and that they'll take any opportunity (real, or fabricated) to discourage support and enthusiasm for Donald Trump. It also doesn't change the fact that they've given this subject more coverage, air time and overall disproportion than deserved, for which there are also other countless examples of the media doing so.

---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------


George's job, like all his compatriots, is to spread FUD and undermine rational debate.

Good detective work. I'm also getting compensation for my drive to push these concepts, so I guess that's why I'm doing it.

No, I wouldn't ever lie, or anything...of course Donald Trump has never eaten food with a white fork! That would automatically make him a white-supremacist, as we all well know.

Common sense, people.

Alright, well a few points here.

First, I've been looking for an archive of the whole earthcam footage for a while just because I hoped it might finally end this silly debate (I don't just mean with you specifically, I mean across the board) but hadn't managed to find an upload of it until now. (This archive was only uploaded two days ago.) But ultimately I shouldn't really have had to - most people understood that the evidence already available was sufficient that the media's stories on it were not dishonest, and the only people arguing against it were those who were already fully invested in defending Trump, such as r/thedonald.

There are lots of reasons why Trump's inauguration would have been smaller than Obama's, and not all of them are reasons that even necessarily reflect poorly on him. As you said, some amount of people were slowed down in their attempts to reach the inauguration by protesters - though I do not think any of the evidence about that shows it to be more than a small amount. Much more significant is the fact that the D.C. voting population went overwhelmingly blue this election, as indeed they virtually always do; since D.C. residents are obviously the most likely to be in attendance, it stands to reason that far fewer locals would be showing up for a president they didn't want. Not only that, but Obama had the historical significance of being the first black president, and many people who wouldn't have otherwise attended even for someone they approved of went precisely for that reason. Black Americans in particular showed up in massive numbers for Obama's inauguration because for the first time in their lives, someone who could have some kind of first-hand understanding of what it's like to face racial discrimination in America was leading the country. Conversely, a lot of the white people who voted Trump in this year did so reluctantly, and even among those who weren't so reluctant, having another white male espousing conservatism was not exactly a new event in their lives.

Frankly, anyone who would have predicted Trump's turnout would be as big as Obama's would have been crazy -- for reasons that are not inherently anti-Trump. And this is why it's been such a huge problem.

The media reported on what was essentially a fairly obvious and mundane fact. Trump's supporters are so trained to attack anything and everything the media says about him that they immediately set about desperately looking for anything they could find that would "prove" the DISHONEST MEDIA WAS LYING ABOUT THE ATTENDANCE! See, the reason this was made a big deal of is twofold: it's partly because the comparison image spread all over social media by people who are looking for cathartic ways of responding to the fact that someone they feel deeply, truly threatened by has taken power in their country. But it's also because the backlash from Trump's side (and the fact that Trump and Spicer lied about it and then accused the media of lying) made a huge issue out of something that was, as far as sources like CNN and PBS were concerned, only one small story they ran for the day.

All I ask is that you seriously consider this: if it turned out that you were wrong about this, despite the fact that it seemed so incredibly sure that the media was lying from all the stuff you read on r/thedonald and how just and righteous the cause seems when you're hanging out with people there, doesn't it stand to reason that maybe, just maybe, this applies to other things that you feel sure about too? That maybe most of the other things you see people on r/thedonald decrying as the "lying media" might actually not be lies, even though it just seems so strongly to you that they must be?

Not asking you to answer me, though of course it's your prerogative if you feel the need to. Just throwing it out there.

For the record, I do not agree with gururuu that you are trying to undermine rational debate. I respect that you're willing to have it even when I throw walls of text at you.

To add: I would modify to "Make America White Christian Again".

One nation Under God

One nation Under God

Written in 1882 and not adopted as the nation's pledge until 1942. Not written by the founding fathers. There is no inherently Christian language in the constitution or the declaration of independence. And for that matter, what you're quoting might as well be Muslim.

not adopted as the nation's pledge until 1942.

Too early, I think it was during Eisenhower's presidency as a reaction to the red scare.

Again, read you're history. The words "under God" were added in 1954 as symbolic push-back against atheistic communism during the Cold War, as well the deliberate "conflation of Christianity and capitalism as a challenge to the New Deal".

The next thing DAK will push is the old canard that the "founding fathers" were devout Christians.

Too early, I think it was during Eisenhower's presidency as a reaction to the red scare.

You're right, my bad. 42 is when it was adopted as the pledge but 54 is when the words "Under God" were added.

Again, read you're history. The words "under God" were added in 1954 as symbolic push-back against atheistic communism during the Cold War, as well the deliberate "conflation of Christianity and capitalism as a challenge to the New Deal".

The next thing DAK will push is the old canard that the "founding fathers" were devout Christians.

Who owned slaves. I wonder where God was for the enslaved? Aren't they "under God" or maybe that only applied to rich landowners. Perhaps God really is old and white.

Ironic, since the Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightenment, they valued reason over emotion. But it only goes so far.

Don't forget Jefferson took a razor to the Bible and cut out portions he thought "were contrary to reason?"

Or the presence of the Bible at Washington's Presidential inauguration was an afterthought?

Actually the U.S. motto is: In God We Trust. All others pay cash.

Are you guys serious? A government ruled by religion is fucking worse than a government ruled by Trump.

Get some fucking sense. Separation of religion and government is something that was done and very clear when America was founded, or its constitution.

It was the principles and concepts from the bible which the Declaration of Independence consists some of and which the US Constitution was founded upon. "In God We Trust" makes every bit of sense; the US is a Christian nation, believe it or not.

Written in 1882 and not adopted as the nation's pledge until 1942. Not written by the founding fathers. There is no inherently Christian language in the constitution or the declaration of independence. And for that matter, what you're quoting might as well be Muslim.

Then I would've said Allah or Muhammad or whatever


It was the principles and concepts from the bible which the Declaration of Independence consists some of and which the US Constitution was founded upon. "In God We Trust" makes every bit of sense; the US is a Christian nation, believe it or not.

:this:

I knew there was something else I forgot :p

Are you guys serious? A government ruled by religion is fucking worse than a government ruled by Trump.

Get some fucking sense. Separation of religion and government is something that was done and very clear when America was founded, or its constitution.

Farthest from the truth. (Coming from one who has actually read these documents)

That's depressing

Legit question for you all: why in the US court system does the defendant hold their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God"? And why why are our presidents sworn in with one hand on the bible?

Seriously if you want a government that makes its laws through christian logic, y'all gonna live like in the 1800s.

A christian-based gobernment is much worse than a Trump government.

^^ Not everyone has to use the bible.

Seriously if you want a government that makes its laws through christian logic, y'all gonna live like in the 1800s.

A christian-based gobernment is much worse than a Trump government.

Familiarize yourself with US history and the documents themselves before making such statements.

Farthest from the truth. (Coming from one who has actually read these documents)

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/So+did+bowser+impregnate+her+with+his+reptile+spaw n+or+_e4ab4388478b647012431e9a40fc4df5.jpg

Legit question for you all: why in the US court system does the defendant hold their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God"? And why why are our presidents sworn in with one hand on the bible?

Because we're a Christian nation! :smrt:

Ok so then why isn't the Koran used? Or any other religious text?

If Trump pounded out in one of his 2am tweets that the Earth was square you can bet George would be quick to agree.

Legit question for you all: why in the US court system does the defendant hold their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God"? And why why are our presidents sworn in with one hand on the bible?

I don't know much about American law but here in Canada you're given a choice. You can "swear" on whatever holy book you follow (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.) or you can "affirm" (which is basically the same thing just without a religious connection). What they're doing is "swearing" or "affirming" that their live testimony (or written, if the evidence is in the form of an affidavit) is true and that they will perjure themselves if they lie while sworn in.

I'm guessing they just do that because your country was founded by mostly Christian men (as far as I know).

Also, go ahead and read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and tell me how it stays in line with the way our current government operates.

It doesn't.

A christian-based gobernment is much worse than a Trump government.

I'm Christian and I 100% agree. As would be the same for any government with any clear religious ties.

Legit question for you all: why in the US court system does the defendant hold their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God"? And why why are our presidents sworn in with one hand on the bible?

Because Religion is the Opium of the People.

I don't care, believe what you want on your own, but a government is something that should not be biased with the laws of a ancient book that has laws and thinking of literally centuries ago, that's barbaric.

Hell, this is why the muslims are like they are. Because they follow their lives as the book of centuries ago tells them. You want to have a Christian government, that bases their laws in the Bible, so you people can stone your wives? Come on. I'm not even bashing your beliefs, believe in whatever the fuck you want, just have some common sense and don't make everyone have to abide by those beliefs too.

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/So+did+bowser+impregnate+her+with+his+reptile+spaw n+or+_e4ab4388478b647012431e9a40fc4df5.jpg

I had to resort to reading a transcript, admittedly. :erm:

I don't care, believe what you want on your own, but a government is something that should not be biased with the laws of a ancient book that has laws and thinking of literally centuries ago, that's barbaric.

Hell, this is why the muslims are like they are. Because they follow their lives as the book of centuries ago tells them. You want to have a Christian government, that bases their laws in the Bible, so you people can stone your wives? Come on. I'm not even bashing your beliefs, believe in whatever the fuck you want, just have some common sense and don't make everyone have to abide by those beliefs too.

For the most part, I agree. I'd just recommend you don't put Muslims (or anyone, for that matter) into one giant box when making these statements. Not trying to be rude. I just find we need to be careful, even in an environment like this.

And also, https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

For the most part, I agree. I'd just recommend you don't put Muslims (or anyone, for that matter) into one giant box when making these statements. Not trying to be rude. I just find we need to be careful, even in an environment like this.

I'm not trying to offend, I'm just putting an example; and it's more or less the same thing.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------


And also, https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

Clonemaster, seriously, continuing to put links that caters to whatever you think does not mean what you want to believe is the total, undeniable truth. You keep seriously using links as your arguments.

I'm not trying to offend, I'm just putting an example; and it's more or less the same thing.

Yes, but your example could be more effective with specific instances firmly grounded in fact. (i.e. take a passage directly from the Koran, in this case)

Ponyo bring it down a notch. Nobody's yelling or cursing (oh wait, you are), we're just discussing. Try and go one sentence without "fucking" it.

*waits to be told to "fuck off" or "go fuck myself"*

Do we have to mix Religion into the Politics Discussion aswell ?

That's likely to make it worse ten Times over :laugh:

*waits to be told to "fuck off" or "go fuck myself"*

:this:

Ponyo bring it down a notch. Nobody's yelling or cursing (oh wait, you are), we're just discussing. Try and go one sentence without "fucking" it.

*waits to be told to "fuck off" or "go fuck myself"*
Wow, you totally win the argument against me by saying that I've cursed two or three times. Good job, DAK, you win today.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------


:this:

Weren't you not ever getting into this thread?

Do we have to mix Religion into the Politics Discussion aswell ?

That's likely to make it worse ten Times over :laugh:

I don't think we should shy away from difficult topics. As long as we're mature, we should be able to discuss anything like reasonable adults.

Ok so then why isn't the Koran used? Or any other religious text?

It has all to do with the historical practice of making a show of vows or affirmation. Read all about it at Quora (https://www.quora.com/Oaths-If-church-and-state-are-separate-why-do-we-swear-on-the-Bible-in-court-Is-there-an-alternative-for-non-Christians).

This is a good part:

"…the custom of raising ones right hand dates back to the medieval period in which felons would be branded on their right hand with a mark denoting their crime, so you lift your right hand to show you are not a felon and thus not of suspect testimony. During those times felons were also not allowed to make declarations under oath."

Wow, you totally win the argument against me by saying that I've cursed two or three times. Good job, DAK, you win today.

http://imgur.com/s5iflsS.gif

Clonemaster, seriously, continuing to put links that caters to whatever you think does not mean what you want to believe is the total, undeniable truth. You keep seriously using links as your arguments.

Don't automatically assume that it's biased.

I'm also not going to write an essay on the matter because I'm on my phone right now. I'm only guilty of being a little more succinct than I should be.

Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html): "I�m a Leninist,� Bannon proudly proclaimed. �Lenin,� he answered, �wanted to destroy the state, and that�s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today�s establishment.� �Bannon was employing Lenin�s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

None of that really has anything to do with Leninism. Nothing about the Trump administration is remotely reflective of Leninism.

I don't know if I should be more or less concerned by that.

It basically suggests that Bannon is just as uneducated as his boss.

I'm on my phone, too. That's what took me 4 minutes to post that gif of the President lol

Also, Jefferson's letter is not to be taken out of context; there are numerous other letters of conversation that surround it.

Sooooooooooo, Creationism, Eh ? :laugh:

*Ducks under Desk*

Where were you when you realized that Clonemaster was America's Next Great Intellectual?

Crowd size at Trump's inauguration is a big talking point precisely because Trump refuses to let the subject rest until we can all agree that 2 + 2 = 5.

Sooooooooooo, Creationism, Eh ? :laugh:

*Ducks under Desk*

Don't you dare lol

Sooooooooooo, Creationism, Eh ? :laugh:

*Ducks under Desk*

I'm a creationist. I have friends of all beliefs (including atheists). We get along fine, oddly enough.

I'm a creationist. I have friends of all beliefs (including atheists). We get along fine, oddly enough.

Sure. This is the only Life we get,
who am I to scream into somebody's Face about his/her Beliefs ?

Live and let live.

I'm a creationist. I have friends of all beliefs (including atheists). We get along fine, oddly enough.

Same here, actually. My best friend and I are polar opposites on the political field, yet we don't get heated about it. We'll harass each other about it from time to time, but it never gets out of hand. My love/friendship for someone trumps everything else. That includes your race, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs.

Where were you when you realized that Clonemaster was America's Next Great Intellectual?

16 years old and already making billions off of pushing conspiracies. :smrt:

trumps everything else

*insert Hillary Clinton triggered meme here*

*insert Hillary Clinton triggered meme here*

:laugh:

None of that really has anything to do with Leninism. Nothing about the Trump administration is remotely reflective of Leninism.

I don't know if I should be more or less concerned by that.

It basically suggests that Bannon is just as uneducated as his boss.

It's co-rrrelated to right-wing populism in that the hereditary/financial/what have you elites are overthrown by the (historical) working class, aka the proletariat or the common man.

Except that never really comes to pass. Another set of elites just take over. Communism under Stalin. Fascism under Mussolini. National Socialism under Hitler. Cultural Revolution under Mao.

What they all share alike is the killing of millions and millions.

It was the principles and concepts from the bible which the Declaration of Independence consists some of and which the US Constitution was founded upon. "In God We Trust" makes every bit of sense; the US is a Christian nation, believe it or not.

Learn that on Breitbart?

The original texts this nation was founded on were largely inspired by John Locke, who was pretty much the godfather of removing Christianity from philosophy and politics.

Moreover, the religion that most Americans call "Christianity" today didn't really exist yet.

You mean they weren't founded on masturbating?!?!

It's co-rrrelated to right-wing populism in that the hereditary/financial/what have you elites are overthrown by the (historical) working class, aka the proletariat or the common man.

That's such a superficial correlation though. There are hundreds of revolutionaries he could have drawn a better comparison to. Bannon's two key focal points seem to be nationalism and militarization, both of which Lenin would have rejected out of hand.

Feeling tempted to post that Sean Hannity MRW to the nonsense I just read

You mean they weren't founded on masturbating?!?!

That would be a weird country.

Oh wait, that's the Netherlands.

Legit question for you all: why in the US court system does the defendant hold their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God"? And why why are our presidents sworn in with one hand on the bible?

A tradition started by Washington. A tradition is not law. Article IV of The Constitution states: "... No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

And Trump went against that article in his executive order which says Christians get preference. If you issue an order giving one religious group preference over other based on their religions, that's a religious test and against The Constitution.

And if we elect a Muslim president he or she has every right to put their hands on a Koran.

Swearing on the Bible in court is not mandatory. It's tradition, again. Atheists or agnostics can simply swear to tell the truth. The very devout who don't like the word swear can say they affirm to tell the truth.

And how Christian is a nation that had slavery, child labor, imposed laws that kept non whites from voting, turned a blind eye to groups like the KKK, denied women the right to vote, and committed genocide against Native Americans?

And how Christian is a nation that had slavery, child labor, imposed laws that kept non whites from voting, turned a blind eye to groups like the KKK, denied women the right to vote, and committed genocide against Native Americans?

I think they were more discussing the official religious affiliation of the founding fathers, not necessarily whether they followed their beliefs. Which is a topic for another day.

That's such a superficial correlation though. There are hundreds of revolutionaries he could have drawn a better comparison to. Bannon's two key focal points seem to be nationalism and militarization, both of which Lenin would have rejected out of hand.

I agree. But, at the same time, should everything he says be taken literally? My guess is that invocation of Lenin has more to do with the dead Russian's propaganda tactics.

It was the principles and concepts from the bible which the Declaration of Independence consists some of and which the US Constitution was founded upon.

This is absolute nonsense. The declaration makes a couple of references to a deity, but the actual principles in it are not derived from the Bible. Where in the Bible is the principle expressed that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed? That is the primary thrust of the document.

There's nothing about the constitution that is directly linked to the Bible either. The principles it contains came primarily from enlightenment era philosophy, particularly John Locke; the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a minor alteration of a quote from him. Now Locke himself was a Christian, there is certainly no doubt of that. But in his philosophy he specifically set out to deduce things without referring to scriptural authority. Most Enlightenment philosophers were deists, explicitly not Christians.

If your claims are right then why isn't there anything in the constitution or the declaration that explicitly proclaims Christianity a state religion? Why is there instead a statement that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? It's very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------


I agree. But, at the same time, should everything he says be taken literally? My guess is that invocation of Lenin has more to do with the dead Russian's propaganda tactics.

He means it in the sense that Lenin's goal was to tear down the established government and replace it from the ground up. That's all.

I agree. But, at the same time, should everything he says be taken literally? My guess is that invocation of Lenin has more to do with the dead Russian's propaganda tactics.

Well, I think Bannon is a bit of a mystery to all of us. Is the Dark Lord pulling the strings behind Trump an evil genius or just another idiot? Comparing himself to a historic figure who he doesn't appear to know much about indicates the latter.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------


He means it in the sense that Lenin's goal was to tear down the established government and replace it from the ground up. That's all.

That's been the goal of like every revolutionary ever.

Bannon chose to name one who he appears to have next to nothing in common with otherwise.

That should give us some clues into what is (or isn't) ticking inside his head.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------


It's very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.

I kind of think they wouldn't have even said "most people in the country are Christian". 'Christian' is a really vague term that lacks any core defining features beyond the use, in some capacity, of a set of texts that share a (mostly) common ancestor. This was at the forefront of a lot of enlightenment thinkers' minds in the wake of Europe's religious wars.

Whereas today, due in large part I think to the ascent of non-denominationalism, most Americans share an erroneous assumption that 'Christian' is a fairly well-defined term.

I kind of think they wouldn't have even said "most people in the country are Christian". 'Christian' is a really vague term that lacks any core defining features beyond the use, in some capacity, of a set of texts that share a (mostly) common ancestor. This was at the forefront of a lot of enlightenment thinkers' minds in the wake of Europe's religious wars.

Whereas today, due in large part I think to the ascent of non-denominationalism, most Americans share an erroneous assumption that 'Christian' is a fairly well-defined term.

It doesn't need to be a really precisely defined term to say most people in the country were Christian. But I don't know if I agree with you that it's vague. I would rather say "broad." There are countless different variations of Christianity, many of which have severely different beliefs. But in general, Christians are people who derive their religious beliefs from the scriptures purporting to document the life of Jesus. That is broad but not vague, and it is most definitely accurate to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the colonies fell under that description.

Well, I think Bannon is a bit of a mystery to all of us. Is the Dark Lord pulling the strings behind Trump an evil genius or just another idiot? Comparing himself to a historic figure who he doesn't appear to know much about indicates the latter.

There is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, I would contend that the inverse is still within the realm of possibility, particularly given who the new president is, and the means by which he came to occupy that position.

It doesn't need to be a really precisely defined term to say most people in the country were Christian. But I don't know if I agree with you that it's vague. I would rather say "broad." There are countless different variations of Christianity, many of which have severely different beliefs. But in general, Christians are people who derive their religious beliefs from the scriptures purporting to document the life of Jesus. That is broad but not vague, and it is most definitely accurate to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the colonies fell under that description.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they have to be "derived" from it to qualify. I can think of plenty of counterexamples. But I suppose that's getting on to a different topic.

My point was more [redacted until I can be arsed to refresh my memory, because I could have been pretty off the mark here].

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------


There is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, I would contend that the inverse is still within the realm of possibility, particularly given who the new president is, and the means by which he came to occupy that position.

I want to frame this quote and put it on my wall.

---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Trump probably only ever read Leviathan anyway.........

The quote ends with the qualifier, "...but don't rule out malice."

Trump probably only ever read Leviathan anyway.........

I'd say "Bullet Point Ayn Rand for Dummies".

This is absolute nonsense. The declaration makes a couple of references to a deity, but the actual principles in it are not derived from the Bible. Where in the Bible is the principle expressed that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed? That is the primary thrust of the document.

There's nothing about the constitution that is directly linked to the Bible either. The principles it contains came primarily from enlightenment era philosophy, particularly John Locke; the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a minor alteration of a quote from him. Now Locke himself was a Christian, there is certainly no doubt of that. But in his philosophy he specifically set out to deduce things without referring to scriptural authority. Most Enlightenment philosophers were deists, explicitly not Christians.

If your claims are right then why isn't there anything in the constitution or the declaration that explicitly proclaims Christianity a state religion? Why is there instead a statement that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? It's very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.

Time for me to get religious as fuck and start quoting things from the Bible and shit.

So, consider this; from where do most of our laws and morals stem from? The Bible; which consists of The Ten Commandants. examples;

"Thou shalt not kill" (Dignity)
"Thou shalt not steal" (Ownership)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Veracity)

From where does truth stem from? God's word. From where is his word? Well, it's as written, recorded, and documented in the Bible; God spoke through numerous individuals to transcript his word to paper, which has been collected to a sort of manual of guidelines that we are essentially to live our lives by it's principles and concepts. That is how man knows God's word. It's through the word of God that man knows right from wrong, and that man knows truth. That's how we know right from wrong. That's how we know truth. From where does truth stem from? It has to come from somewhere, right?

"Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Of course, if don't believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn't apply to you. But it is from the Bible that our foundation is formed; so is from God. And The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based upon Biblical principles; they at least derive from such.

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

https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/ - read this (not all of it!) before you dare say it's biased or false

I predict you'll come back with the whole John Locke thing, at which point I'll drop this subject with you.

I'd say "Bullet Point Ayn Rand for Dummies".

I honestly don't think Trump is a Randian. He is something of a very different nature. It wasn't that long ago he identified as a Democrat and spoke in favor of things like national healthcare, and praised Bill and Hillary Clinton. His transformation began with Obama's presidency, which suggests that a) his views are malleable depending on what he sees as most advantageous to himself, and b) he's as racist as we think he is.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------


Time for me to get religious as fuck and start quoting things from the Bible and shit.

So, consider this; from where do most of our laws and morals stem from? The Bible; which consists of The Ten Commandants. examples;

"Thou shalt not kill" (Dignity)
"Thou shalt not steal" (Ownership)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Veracity)

From where does truth stem from? God's word. From where is his word? Well, it's as written, recorded, and documented in the Bible; God spoke through numerous individuals to transcript his word to paper, which has been collected to a sort of manual of guidelines that we are essentially to live our lives by it's principles and concepts. That is how man knows God's word. It's through the word of God that man knows right from wrong, and that man knows truth. That's how we know right from wrong. That's how we know truth. From where does truth stem from? It has to come from somewhere, right?

"Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Of course, if don't believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn't apply to you. But it is from the Bible that our foundation is formed; so is from God. And The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based upon Biblical principles; they at least derive from such.

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

https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/

I predict you'll come back with the whole John Locke thing, at which point I'll drop this subject with you.

So... none of that has anything to do with the principle that governments obtain their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

"Thou shalt not kill," first off, is an inaccurate translation. It is much more accurately rendered "you shall not murder."

The Decalogue is not the first historical instance of such laws being given. Furthermore those laws are not the aspects of the constitution or the declaration that define them as opposed to other forms of government at the time. They are almost completely universal to all human societies.

If you want to make the case that the Bible is the source of the principles that actually define the constitution you need to show that the people who wrote it found its unique elements - like its system of checks and balances, and its prohibition against restricting free speech or the press, just as some examples - in the Bible, and where in the Bible they found those things. Not just spout a bunch of Bible quotes that apply to every place on earth and make incredibly vague comparisons to one line from the document.

Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.

Wow, Clonemaster, I'm gonna need to ask you to calm down there, you said "fuck." once.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------


Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.

:this:

Clonemaster, this is slightly off topic and feel free to tell me not to be nosy, but if you don't mind my asking, do you have plans about what you want to do after high school? You seem to be more well-read and interested in contentious issues than most people your age, so I am curious as to whether you are planning to take those qualities in a professional direction.

He's gonna intern at Breitbart, natch.

VINCENT, SHUT THE FUCK UP

hee hee

So... none of that has anything to do with the principle that governments obtain their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

Yes it does, because that statement means that the government gets all its power from the people; the people set up the government; the people run the government, and, those people that did so followed the Bible, and the link that I posted is testament to that with actual quotes from them, so... yes it does.


Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.

And Clonemaster said unto you,

"Of course, if don't believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn't apply to you" - FFShrine 2:18

It's just that these documents derive from Biblical principles. But it's also somebody's freedom not to follow the whole religion, but to one who chooses to live in the US, they must abide by the law, but not the religion. Just only the such principles instated to the basis (and laws) of our government and documents that constitute it. This is made evident by what beliefs the people who wrote them, as well as what's in the documents themselves.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------


Wow, Clonemaster, I'm gonna need to ask you to calm down there, you said "fuck." once.

Stop barking, Ponyo.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------


Clonemaster, this is slightly off topic and feel free to tell me not to be nosy, but if you don't mind my asking, do you have plans about what you want to do after high school? You seem to be more well-read and interested in contentious issues than most people your age, so I am curious as to whether you are planning to take those qualities in a professional direction.

History has always been a prime interest of mine. But I'd really, really like to be composer most of all. I dabble in creating music as of now, but I don't write it, nor do I know how to read it. Here's my most recent track (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B18GQkZXWsEVQWlJSEdmWVdfT0E), for testament.

But it doesn't rule out any other options of things I may want to do at some point.

The PURGE is on.

History has always been a prime interest of mine. But I'd really, really like to be composer most of all. I dabble in creating music as of now, but I don't write it, nor do I know how to read it. Here's my most recent track (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B18GQkZXWsEVQWlJSEdmWVdfT0E), for testament.

But it doesn't rule out any other options of things I may want to do at some point.

It's a nice track. Really comes together when the addition string parts come in at 30 seconds.

Are you planning on going to school for music theory?

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

Huh, I had a reply made to the top of your post before that but the forum seems to have eaten it. Retyping .....

Respectfully no.
Democracy was not a core Christian value at the time. That's why it's called democracy, because it calls back to a political traditions from polytheistic ancient Greece.
The only remotely democratic mechanism in Europe, the Icelandic Althing, predates Christianity's arrival by at least seventy years.
The English Parliament, the most direct model for the American government was not founded out of high minded Christian values but by the demand of feudal lords who were not willing to submit unconditionally to king. That is not a religious concept. That is a political one.
So when the Founding Father's thought about what government they should have, they abandoned every model made using Christ's name and went for a Pagan forebear.

This not meant as an anti religion statement, it's just what happened.

It's a nice track. Really comes together when the addition string parts come in at 30 seconds.

Are you planning on going to school for music theory?

I should.

Yes it does, because that statement means that the government gets all its power from the people; the people set up the government; the people run the government, and, those people that did so followed the Bible, and the link that I posted is testament to that with actual quotes from them, so... yes it does.

Like I said, I agree that most people in the colonies at that time were Christian. But it's not a valid logical jump from there to assume that anything they devised as a system of government must therefore be based on Christianity. England was also a mostly Christian nation but they had a monarchy and parliament. Was that based on Christian principles too? If not then why didn't their being Christian define what they came up with in that case? What about other predominantly Christian countries which had monarchs without a parliament?

What about the Roman empire? They were a pagan society before they became a Christian one, but they developed a republic anyway. Was that republic the product of their pagan beliefs? In what way did they derive that system of government from paganism? If the American republic came from Christianity then how come the Romans got a republic from something else?

Respectfully no.
Democracy was not a core Christian value at the time. That's why it's called democracy, because it calls back to a political traditions from polytheistic ancient Greece.
The only remotely democratic mechanism in Europe, the Icelandic Althing, predates Christianity's arrival by at least seventy years.
The English Parliament, the most direct model for the American government was not founded out of high minded Christian values but by the demand of feudal lords who were not willing to submit unconditionally to king. That is not a religious concept. That is a political one.
So when the Founding Father's thought about what government they should have, they abandoned every model made using Christ's name and went for a Pagan forebear.

This not meant as an anti religion statement, it's just what happened.

We're not a democracy; we're a republic.

Because I don't feel like doing a bunch of typing (http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html)

We're regarded more as a democracy now, which is the issue.

I believe the dominant Biblically-derived political philosophy of the time was Hobbes, which--I'm quite rusty here so correct me if I'm wrong--can be with some oversimplification reduced to the conclusion that the most objectively divine revelations are those of command, and the sovereign, being most endowed with the power to command, wields the virtue of divinity in his ordinances and must be yielded to in all matters unequivocally.

---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Which I guess is kind of what Trump wants. lulz

You are correct, we are a republic, a pagan Roman concept. But that is a manifestation of democratic principles, which are derived from pagan Greek examples. Thank you for the clarification, but is is a distinction without a difference.

Okay, my point is that founding fathers founded this country upon Biblical principles and implemented them into the [originally intended] workings and law of the government.

The article which to I linked before, has many quotes from some of the founding fathers that only affirm my point, and along with the link to the very article (https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/), I hereby re-quote some of the more noteworthy quotes....

Samuel Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.

I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.

He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.
John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.
George Washington
JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS;
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY;
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION;
FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; “FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY”
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.
Daniel Webster
U. S. SENATOR; SECRETARY OF STATE; “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”
[T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible… men [are] much indebted for right views of civil liberty.

The Bible is a book… which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man.
Noah Webster
REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.

All the… evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion. [T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society – the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men.

[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.
Every one of these quotes and the rest assuredly make great example of what I've been trying to say this whole time.

Our nation is simply founded upon these concepts and that's the very truth of the matter.

For the record, if I'd known you were only 16 I wouldn't have blown you off as readily. I generally assume forum users are older until told otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ18exdhR6I

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Folks, today is the day you'll remember as the day you saw that which was nearly unbelievable to your own eyes.

Every one of these quotes and the rest assuredly make great example of what I've been trying to say this whole time.

Our nation is simply founded upon these concepts and that's the very truth of the matter.

They truly don't, though. Let me preface this by saying I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume for argument's sake these are all accurate, even though in reality I wouldn't do so without looking them up given that they come from a slanted source. That doesn't mean they are inaccurate but it sure doesn't convince me either. But forgetting that because I don't feel like googling them all right now.

The closest one here to really supporting the claim you're making is the Adams "general principles" quote, because in that one he at least does express the opinion that the principles of Christianity are the basis for the revolution. But notice he says he believes they are the basis for the founders "achieving independence," not at all that he is saying they are the basis for the way the new government was designed or the laws in the constitution.

The rest of these quotes are essentially personal statements of faith. There is nothing contentious about the idea that these men were mostly religious. What is in question is whether, as you claim, the principles in the constitution were derived from the Bible, and you've still shown nothing more than extremely tenuous, vague connections between the two. You're just claiming "these guys were Christian, therefore everything they came up with was from the Bible." That is not a sound argument.

---------- Post added at 11:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ18exdhR6I

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Folks, today is the day you'll remember as the day you saw that which was nearly unbelievable to your own eyes.

Uh, no, this is quite in line with my expectations, actually. I'm well aware that religious zealots who want to turn the country into a theocracy turned out in force to vote for Trump.

But when we achieved independence, the United States was born... therefore is also when the government was put to use...

There's also no reason whatsoever that they wouldn't implement these values into the governmental structure, almost every quote is an implication of how they did or were going to, especially given their position of either;supporting the constitution; signing the constitution; signing the declaration; or otherwise

I think it's quite a sound argument. There's more than twenty quotes in here that give testament to the whole idea, as well.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------


Uh, no, this is quite in line with my expectations, actually. I'm well aware that religious zealots who want to turn the country into a theocracy turned out in force to vote for Trump.

No, that's just undeniable. That video gave me fucking chills. I felt an immense power as like such "This is good. This is for something good. And he was elected president, and it was also for a reason that he was". I can see why you're skeptical, because you're not religious, but I mean...

I can see why you're skeptical, because you're not religious, but I mean...

How do you know that? I never said I wasn't.

I guess I shouldn't have assumed, but that's what it felt like. I guess it was the insistence... and also you're statement 'I respect your beliefs', which to me felt like an implication that you weren't religious, or more particularly, Christian.

I'm not a Christian, but I definitely have religious beliefs. They're just evidently very different from yours. Here's a snapshot of the bookshelf next to me.



My beliefs are sort of a mixture of swedenborgian christianity, the philosophy of Alan Watts and the literary outlook of Tom Robbins.

There's also all the sources at the bottom of the article, just to affirm they're from actual entries or documentation.
1.Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 254, to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817.

3. John Adams, Works, Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.

4. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

5. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.

6. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.

7. Life of John Quincy Adams, W. H. Seward, editor (Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller & Company, 1849), p. 248.

8. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.

9. From the Last Will & Testament of Samuel Adams, attested December 29, 1790; see also Samuel Adams, Life & Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1865), Vol. III, p. 379, Last Will and Testament of Samuel Adams.

10. Letters of Delegates to Congress: August 16, 1776-December 31, 1776, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1979), Vol. 5, pp. 669-670, Samuel Adams to Elizabeth Adams on December 26, 1776.

11. From a Fast Day Proclamation issued by Governor Samuel Adams, Massachusetts, March 20, 1797, in our possession; see also Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam�s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 407, from his proclamation of March 20, 1797.

12. Samuel Adams, A Proclamation For a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, given as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from an original broadside in our possession; see also, Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam�s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 385, October 14, 1795.

13. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 10, 1793.

14. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 15, 1796.

15. Josiah Bartlett, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 17, 1792.

16. Gunning Bedford, Funeral Oration Upon the Death of General George Washington (Wilmington: James Wilson, 1800), p. 18, Evans #36922.

17. Elias Boudinot, The Life, Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, pp. 19, 21, speech in the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.

18. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Susan, on October 30, 1782; see also Letters of the Delegates to Congress: 1774-1789, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1992), Vol. XIX, p. 325, from a letter of Elias Boudinot to his daughter, Susan Boudinot, on October 30, 1782; see also, Elias Boudinot, The Life Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1896), Vol. I, p. 260-262.

19. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation, or the Age of Reason Shewn to be An Age of Infidelity (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), p. xv, from his �Dedication: Letter to his daughter Susan Bradford.�

20. Jacob Broom to his son, James, on February 24, 1794, written from Wilmington, Delaware, from an original letter in our possession.

21. From an autograph letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., September 27, 1825.

22. Lewis A. Leonard, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Moffit, Yard & Co, 1918), pp. 256-257.

23. Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G.P. Putnam�s Sons, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 373-374, will of Charles Carroll, Dec. 1, 1718 (later replaced by a subsequent will not containing this phrase, although he reexpressed this sentiment on several subsequent occasions, including repeatedly in the latter years of his life).

24. Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856; see also: Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856), p. 35, quoting from the House Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1856, and B. F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 328.

25. Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9.

26. From the Last Will & Testament of John Dickinson, attested March 25, 1808.

27. John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), Vol. I, pp. 111-112.

28. From his last will and testament, attested on September 21, 1840.

29. Benjamin Franklin, Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam�s Sons, 1904), p. 185, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790.

30. Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. More, and W. Janes, 1793), p. 149.

31. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, October 24, 1810, from a proclamation in our possession, EAI #20675.

32. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 13, 1811, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #23317.

33. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 6, 1812, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #26003.

34. John M. Mason, A Collection of the Facts and Documents Relative to the Death of Major General Alexander Hamilton (New York: Hopkins and Seymour, 1804), p. 53.

35. John M. Mason, A Collection of the Facts and Documents Relative to the Death of Major General Alexander Hamilton (New York: Hopkins and Seymour, 1804), pp. 48-50.

36. Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, John C. Hamilton, editor (New York: John F. Trow, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 542, to James A. Bayard, April, 1802; see also, Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), Vol. XXV, p. 606, to James A. Bayard, April 16, 1802.

37. Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.

38. John Hancock, A Proclamation For a Day of Public Thanksgiving 1791, given as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from an original broadside in our possession.

39. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 28, 1784, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #18593.

40. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 29, 1788, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #21237.

41. John Hancock, Proclamation For a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 16, 1789, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #21946.

42. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, September 16, 1790, from an original broadside in our possession.

43. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, February 11, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23549.

44. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, February 24, 1792, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #24519.

45. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 25, 1792, from an original broadside in our possession.

46. John Hancock, Proclamation for Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, March 4, 1793, from a broadside in our possession.

47. From his last will and testament, attested April 16, 1779.

48. A. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.

49. William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: James Webster, 1818), p. 402; see also George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia & London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 403.

50. Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry, editor (New York: Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 632, addendum to his resolutions against the Stamp Act, May 29, 1765.

51. Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry, editor (New York: Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 592, to Archibald Blair on January 8, 1799.

52. Will of Patrick Henry, attested November 20, 1798.

53. Samuel Huntington, A Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, March 9, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23284.

54. James Iredell, The Papers of James Iredell, Don Higginbotham, editor (Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1976), Vol. I, p. 11 from his 1768 essay on religion.

55. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. I p. 518, Appendix V, from a prayer found among Mr. Jay�s papers and in his handwriting.

56. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 519-520, from his Last Will & Testament.

57. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 386, to John Murray, April 15, 1818.

58. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: Burt Franklin, 1890), Vol. IV, pp. 494, 498, from his �Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society,� May 13, 1824.

59. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 457-458, to the Committee of the Corporation of the City of New York on June 29, 1826.

60. John Jay, John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, Richard B. Morris, editor (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), Vol. II, p. 709, to Peter Augustus Jay on April 8, 1784.

61. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.

62. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 376, to John Murray Jr. on October 12, 1816.

63. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.

64. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.

65. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

66. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

67. Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1886), p. 184.

68. E. Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1886), pp. 141-145.

69. William Kent, Memoirs and Letters of James Kent, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1898), pp. 276-277.

70. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 104, from Francis Scott Key to John Randolph.

71. James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (New York: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. I, pp. 5-6, to William Bradford on November 9, 1772.

72. James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773.

73. Letters of Delegates to Congress: November 7, 1785-November 5, 1786, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1995), Vol. 23, p. 337, James Manning to Robert Carter on June 7, 1786.

74. Letters of Delegates to Congress: May 1, 1777 � September 18, 1777, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1981), Vol. 7, pp. 645-646, Henry Marchant to Sarah Marchant on September 9, 1777.

75. Kate Mason Rowland, Life of George Mason (New York: G. P. Putnam�s Sons, 1892), Vol. I, p. 373, Will of Colonel George Mason, June 29, 1715 (this will was later replaced by the will below.)

76. Will of George Mason, attested March 20, 1773.

77. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

78. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

79. A. J. Dallas, Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Courts of Pennsylvania (Phila�delphia: P. Byrne, 1806), p. 39, Respublica v. John Roberts, Pa. Sup. Ct. 1778.

80. William B. Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed (Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1847), Vol. II, pp. 36-37.

81. Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821), pp. 32, 34, from �An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris, (President,) 4th September, 1816.�

82. Letters of Delegates to Congress: February 1, 1778-May 31, 1778, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1982), Vol. 9, pp. 729-730, Gouverneur Morris to General Anthony Wayne on May 21, 1778.

83. Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America, Delivered at Charlestown, April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (MA: Printed by Samuel Etheridge, 1799), p. 9.

84. From his last will and testament, attested January 28, 1777.

85. James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J. Williams and J. Almon, 1766), pp. 11, 98.

86. Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen T. Riley and Edward W. Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, Robert Treat Paine�s Confession of Faith, 1749.

87. From the Last Will & Testament of Robert Treat Paine, attested May 11, 1814.

88. Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen T. Riley and Edward W. Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 49, Robert Treat Paine�s Confession of Faith, 1749.

89. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.

90. Charles W. Upham, The Life of Timothy Pickering (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1873), Vol. IV, p. 390, from his prayer of November 30, 1828.

91. Mary Orne Pickering, Life of John Pickering (Boston: 1887), p. 79, letter from Thomas Pickering to his son John Pickering, May 12, 1796.

92. From his last will and testament, attested October 8, 1807.

93. Collected Letters of John Randolph of Roanoke to Dr. John Brockenbrough, Kenneth Shorey, editor (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 17, to John Brockenbrough, August 25, 1818.

94. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 99, to Francis Scott Key on September 7, 1818.

95. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. 1I, p. 374.

96. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 106, to Francis Scott Key, May 3, 1819.

97. Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George W. Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948), pp. 165-166.

98. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 475, to Elias Boudinot on July 9, 1788.

99. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.

100. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 84, Thoughts upon Female Education.�

101. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 112, �A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.�

102. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. I, p. 521, to Jeremy Belknap on July 13, 1789.

103. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 93, �A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.� See also Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 578, to Jeremy Belknap on March 2, 1791.

104. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 93, �A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book;� see also Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 578, to Jeremy Belknap on March 2, 1791.

105. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), pp. 94, 100, �A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.�

106. Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 271-273.

107. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 9, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, June 28, 1790.

108. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 10, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, June 28, 1790.

109. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 26, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, October, 1790.

110. The Globe (Washington DC newspaper), August 15, 1837, p. 1.

111. Will of Richard Stockton, dated May 20, 1780.

112. John Sanderson, Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1824), Vol. IX, p. 333, Thomas Stone to his son, October 1787.

113. Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, p. 8.

114. Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. I, p. 92, March 24, 1801.

115. Caleb Strong, Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, February 13, 1813, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #29090.

116. Zephaniah Swift, The Correspondent (Windham: John Byrne, 1793), p. 135.

117. The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush; His �Travels Through Life� together with his Commonplace Book for 1789-1813, George W. Carter, editor (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1948), p. 294, October 2, 1810.

118. Jonathan Trumbull, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 9, 1774, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #13210.

119. Last will and testament of Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., attested on January 29, 1785.

120. Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, A Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 12, 1770, from a proclamation in our possession.

121. George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.

122. George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.

123. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order.

124. George Washington, The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150.

125. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster�s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard�s Will (Washington: Printed by Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 41.

126. Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, p. 44, A Discourse Delivered at Plymouth, on December 22, 1820.

127. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31; see also W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p.

128. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31; see also W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p.

129. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), p. 300, � 578.

130. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339, �Advice to the Young,� � 53.

131. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339, �Advice to the Young,� � 53.

132. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), p. 6.

133. Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his �Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.�

134. Noah Webster, The Holy Bible . . . With Amendments of the Language (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833), p. v.

135. K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.

136. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 255, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,� January 2, 1758.

137. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 245, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,� January 2, 1758.

138. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 248, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,� January 2, 1758.

139. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 276, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ� January 2, 1758.

140. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 267, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,� January 2, 1758.

141. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 278, Sermon 15, �The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,� January 2, 1758.

142. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 42.

143. Letters of Delegates to Congress: January 1, 1776-May 15, 1776, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1978), Vol. 3, pp. 502-503, Oliver Wolcott to Laura Wolcott on April 10, 1776.

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------


I'm not a Christian, but I definitely have religious beliefs. They're just evidently very different from yours. Here's a snapshot of the bookshelf next to me.



My beliefs are sort of a mixture of swedenborgian christianity, the philosophy of Alan Watts and the literary outlook of Tom Robbins.

Okay, then. Thanks for telling me. (That wasn't sarcastic :p)

Clone, your mistake is that you're imposing your 21st century view of Christianity onto hand-picked statements. This is a pretty common error, and frankly it's becoming a serious problem in our society. It is very easy to point to a simple statement, draw a parallel between it and some statement in the Bible, and propose that one derives from or is justified by the other in a very blunt and direct way. The Bible says so many vague, poorly translated, and contradictory things that you can achieve this on almost any stance. It allows individuals to assume a stance first and then back it up with the authority of Christianity afterwards. But that style of argument is only valid in the eyes of people who choose to accept it, not in any sort of universal sense based upon evidence and reason.

If you wish to understand the thought process behind the principles of our nation, you're in luck. Many of the political philosophers who devised this form of law wrote at great length about how they got there. Read Locke. Read Jefferson. Make no assumptions and form an understanding of there religious views based on what they are actually saying, in context and at length. You should reach a much different conclusion.

Satanism is a hard bargain.

Most popular leaders died of drug overdoses and acted more like rebellious teens that found the perfect book of excuses for any behaviour they want.
Drugs, sex (even controversial), and general mayhem.

The heavy metal industry got a good grasp of Satanism for what stands for today: Pure commercialist ideals.
Slap a Baphomet sticker on their album, have some pyrotechnic effects, scream about blood and anything for shock value and you got your Sunday Satanist.

I don't think there will ever be a true Satanist.
It's such a cheap concept, that it can be applied to anything by anyone for any reason.
Conspiracy nuts can call themselves Satanists if they want to tackle the Church+State conspiracies just to be a dick.

You've stated, at best, from one quote, that the revolution was fueled, at least for one member, by Christian values...
Although even that is not the case. He said independence was achieved because of Christian values, not that it was inspired by them, or that they had any say in how that independence would implemented after victory.
Again, when they needed to figure out how to make this all work, they looked elsewhere.
And if it were that important, it would have not taken much to get it explicitly stated in the actual relevant documents.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Anton LeVay was an ex-carnie who got into religion to get laid.

I guess I shouldn't have assumed, but that's what it felt like. I guess it was the insistence... and also you're statement 'I respect your beliefs', which to me felt like an implication that you weren't religious, or more particularly, Christian.

It's an error to assume that your views represent Christianity. They represent yourself, certainly, and perhaps to a great extent a collection of other individuals who would likewise describe themselves as Christians. My wife is a devout Christian with a degree from a theological seminary, and she would agree with literally nothing I have ever seen you say. Whether we wish to call Christianity vague or merely broad, one size by no means fits all or even most.

"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws."

Re-read the Noah Webster quote.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ----------


It's an error to assume that your views represent Christianity. They represent yourself, certainly, and perhaps to a great extent a collection of other individuals who would likewise describe themselves as Christians. My wife is a devout Christian with a degree from a theological seminary, and she would agree with literally nothing I have ever seen you say. Whether we wish to call Christianity vague or merely broad, one size by no means fits all or even most.

There are so many different variations of Christianity that my saying I am Christian is not going to describe what are the necessary criteria to constitute as such. It's come to have many different definitions and it's now very confusing.

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

I think any more dispute following is just because you guys don't necessarily agree.

Webster wasn't even involved in the drafting of the constitution.

You are hanging the entirety of an enormous claim on a small handful of out of context quotations only some of which are even from people who contributed to the documents you're talking about.

---------- Post added at 12:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------


I think any more dispute following is just because you guys don't necessarily agree.

Well yes, but not in the same way that you and I probably disagree on the best rock and roll song of the past decade. We disagree with you because what you're saying is directly contrary to overwhelming historical evidence that's virtually unanimously acknowledged by US historians.

Satanism is a hard bargain.

Most popular leaders died of drug overdoses and acted more like rebellious teens that found the perfect book of excuses for any behaviour they want.
Drugs, sex (even controversial), and general mayhem.

The heavy metal industry got a good grasp of Satanism for what stands for today: Pure commercialist ideals.
Slap a Baphomet sticker on their album, have some pyrotechnic effects, scream about blood and anything for shock value and you got your Sunday Satanist.

I don't think there will ever be a true Satanist.
It's such a cheap concept, that it can be applied to anything by anyone for any reason.
Conspiracy nuts can call themselves Satanists if they want to tackle the Church+State conspiracies just to be a dick.

I'm not sure what brought this up, but the Church of Satan is a lifestyle doctrine firmly rooted in atheism. The religious connotation is purely symbolic. And the lifestyle, I might add, is really silly in my opinion.

Satanism as a theology rooted in Hebraic text and Christian doctrine is extraordinarily fringe.

Noah Webster was not a Founding Father and not part of the process of designing the government. He was an outsider with an opinion.

The additional problem is that there are so many versions of Christianity that have such different views on even basic social, political, or economic issues that the term "Christian Nation" is meaningless on its face. Which Christian? The Founding Fathers? They didn't always see eye to either. They certainly would find a lot of modern expressions of Christianity as anywhere from bewildering to blasphemous.
In the 1700's, being the wrong kind of Christian in a 'Christian nation' could get you oppressed, or beaten, or dead.
The very proposal is missing the point of what they were trying to create.

If only way there was some way they could make sure that any potential "in My name" crap didn't ended up screwing everyone over...
Oh, yeah...
Congress Shall Make No Law...