EVERY party appears to be FUBAR'D

[WRellim]

Just don't read any Franklin, Jefferson or Adams (later in life) who all rejected the divinity of Christ. Also, ignore Madison, who became increasingly influenced by Deists through out his life. He was adamant about separation of Church and state ("When in doubt err on the side of separation").

The Constitution Party preamble really makes a mockery of what the Founders actually set up.

Having read all of the above (and much more) probably before you were out of diapers, I can honestly state that you are mistaking the separation of "organized religion" for the exclusion of the underlying moral principles.

The "founding fathers" all understood and were in substantial agreement about the need to prevent a STATE RUN CHURCH (which, BTW, would include the modern "Church of Atheism" propounded by so many these days.)

Can people from other Religions join the Constitution Party? Maybe as long as they acknowledge "the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States".

But conversely, it seems that the Libertarian Party (or at least many of its members) will soon be preparing gas chambers for anyone who does not subscribe to the "Worship of NOTHINGness" and the "Holy Scripture of the ZeitGeist Film" that is the current form of modern militant atheism.

"Libertarians" my a**.

 

[WRellim]

1) English is dead. Any attempt to sculpt the language (properly) is an attempt to create equine statuary from genuine dead horses. You can do it, but it's gonna smell like shit.

2) There's a saying that English teachers like to use, I forget the exact expression. Something along the lines of "never use a big word when a small one will do." This applies to grouping your thoughts for readers as well.

<SOAPBOX>
In conversation, you will only hold a persons attention for <30 sec. The same is usually true for writing, though you may get a little longer. Often, if you phrase your thoughts in more than a couple of sentences, your reader's eyes will continue to scan the words, but their thoughts will no longer be registering.

If they register, they will not compute.

Sound bites are your friend.
</SOAPBOX>

Of course the prohibition of definitive terms (because they contain more letters than "Dick and Jane" readers) is merely a lie that your English [sic] teacher told you because they themselves had a very limited vocabulary, and probably had not progressed further than the typical 5th grade reading level required to get a modern "edumacators certifimacate" from the local state teacher's college.

Indeed, one of the values of "biggum" words is that they befuddle the fools (like your so called "English" teacher) who refuse to turn on their brains or consult one of Webster's tomes, but instead simply discard or ignore all words with more than 7 characters.

And, as I so clearly stated, my post was not intended for the general ADHD audience that needs < 30 second "soundbites" and video clips.... it was written to answer a specific (and complex) question from another erudite poster, one inibo -- and as he was capable of reading and comprehending the same, it achieved the intended purpose; whether others should care to read it is inconsequential, although it might prove to inure to their benefit should they endeavor to undertake the effort involved.

 

[Nickel]

Having read all of the above (and much more) probably before you were out of diapers, I can honestly state that you are mistaking the separation of "organized religion" for the exclusion of the underlying moral principles.

For someone so well read, you completely missed my point. Not all Founders would have subscribed to the preamble of the Constitution Party.

The "founding fathers" all understood and were in substantial agreement about the need to prevent a STATE RUN CHURCH (which, BTW, would include the modern "Church of Atheism" propounded by so many these days.)

Do you consider Patrick Henry a Founding Father? Wasn't he for tax-supported religion for Virginia (which was defeated). Doesn't sound like "all'" to me. "All Founders" is a bizarre statement. I thought they were individuals.

But conversely, it seems that the Libertarian Party (or at least many of its members) will soon be preparing gas chambers for anyone who does not subscribe to the "Worship of NOTHINGness" and the "Holy Scripture of the ZeitGeist Film" that is the current form of modern militant atheism.

"Libertarians" my a**.

I don't recall mentioning the Libertarian Party... they don't have anything to do with my initial point. Neither does "Church of Atheism".

 

[inibo]

Forgive me here, because I've only just started reading through this thread, but I don't understand what's so scary about the Gospel other than at the end every person will be judged according to their faith. If you don't believe then what's to fear?

The Gospel is not scary at all. An organization that bases it's platform on the idea that Jesus is the King of America is. If a political party espoused the idea that Allah were the sovereign authority of the United States and all laws were to be derived from the Qur'an would that scare you?

The Gospel is about loving your neighbor, forgiving each other and faith. The dogmatic things that many Christians adhere to come largely from Paul, not from Christ. Paul is not the author of the Gospel.

According to the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration all parts of scripture are equally inspired and equally true, so if you are basing civil law on the scriptures the writing of Paul, or even Moses for that matter, would have as much weight as the words of Jesus.

True Christianity looks a whole lot more like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin than James Dobson and John Hagee.

Since Christians can't agree on what constitutes "true Christianity," if Christianity became the basis of civil law then civil law would be subject to change based on which faction was in control--sort of like we have now. If it were that of Chuck Baldwin or the pastor of my last church it might be tolerable; if it were disciples of J.R. Rushdoony or Fred Phelps that would be a different story.

As I said in earlier posts, my problem is not with Christians or Christianity, it is with people who want to imbue a puritanical moral code with the force of law, who want to base law not on whether a particular behavior does or doesn't "break my leg or pick my pocket," but whether or not it violates scriptural precepts which even committed Christians can't agree on.

 

[kombayn]

I don't know where people get this Barack Obama is Mr. Socialist, if you watch is Talk@Google interview, he actually comes off as a Liberal Conservative (I know, I know, oxy-moron). He does tend to be more pro-business then he lets on.

I truly think Obama is pandering to the Democratic base, but I've heard Obama more than once say he considers himself a conservative on the business platform. He got ripped to holy hell for citing Ronald Reagan as a good president. He had to retract the statement because the Uber-Liberals of the Democratic party flipped out. Trust me, Obama has been pandering to the extreme left, but don't be surprised once you see people like Chuck Hagel and Christine Todd Whitman on his Administration staff.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I don't know where people get this Barack Obama is Mr. Socialist, if you watch is Talk@Google interview, he actually comes off as a Liberal Conservative (I know, I know, oxy-moron). He does tend to be more pro-business then he lets on.

I truly think Obama is pandering to the Democratic base, but I've heard Obama more than once say he considers himself a conservative on the business platform. He got ripped to holy hell for citing Ronald Reagan as a good president. He had to retract the statement because the Uber-Liberals of the Democratic party flipped out. Trust me, Obama has been pandering to the extreme left, but don't be surprised once you see people like Chuck Hagel and Christine Todd Whitman on his Administration staff.

The ADA score reveals all, Grasshopper!

 

[kombayn]

I found this...

http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=IL&pg=2&id=26&year=06&congress=s

To be really confusing. Why can't they just do Yes or No and not the R's & W's?

 

[inibo]

I found this...

http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=IL&pg=2&id=26&year=06&congress=s

To be really confusing. Why can't they just do Yes or No and not the R's & W's?

I'm assuming R=Right, W=Wrong. The reason, I once again assume, is that the AFL-CIO does not want people to think for themselves so they have to tell their members what's right and what's wrong. They assume either stupidity or compliance on the part of their membership. Sort of like a couple of mainstream political parties I know of.

 

[kombayn]

Actually on some it says R=Y, W=N and vice-versa R=N, W=Y and I don't know. It's really confusing that whole website.

 

[Kludge]

Actually on some it says R=Y, W=N and vice-versa R=N, W=Y and I don't know. It's really confusing that whole website.

I'd imagine that they declare what the right vote would have been, whether yea or nay.

 

[Truth Warrior]

The AFL-CIO probably should change and use smiley faces for good and frowny faces for bad.