# World War II Memorial (the left is at it again)



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I got this from a relative. It is worth the read.

The Omission from the New WW II Memorial

THIS HAS GOT TO KEEP GOING UNTIL SOMEBODY KNOWS WE'RE FED UP WITH THOSE WHO

WANT TO CHANGE OUR HISTROY WITHOUT ASKING US. GET MAD AMERICA.

The Omission from the New WW II Memorial

I don't care if you are an unbeliever, one should not change the

words of history. Today I went to visit the new World

War II Memorial in Washington, DC. I got an unexpected history lesson.

Since I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were

the age of my parents, veterans of "the greatest war" with their families.

It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there.

Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of

Ike and Truman that are engraved there.

On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read

the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy-- the United

States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked."

One woman read the words aloud: "With confidence in our armed forces, with

the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable

triumph." But as she read, she was suddenly angry. "Wait a minute!"

she said. "They left out the end of the quote.

They left out the most important part. Roosevelt said 'so help us God.' "

"You're probably right," her husband said. "We're not supposed to

say things like that now."

"I know I'm right," she insisted. "I remember the speech" The two

shook their heads sadly and walked away.

Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, "Well, it has

been 50 years. She's probably forgotten."

But she was right.

I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading. It's

"Flags of Our Fathers" by James Bradley. It's all about Iwo Jima. I

haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's a

graphic description of the battles in the Pacific. But right there it was

on page 58.

Roosevelt's speech to the nation. It ends ". . .so help us God."

The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved

it on the memorial could have fooled me.

I was born after the war. But they couldn't fool the people who were

there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts.

WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?????????

Send this around to your friends.

People need to know before everyone forgets.

People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving

God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since

the beginning. He still wants to be.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

BUMP


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

It's ironic they left that out because it's also ironic that the history books leave out the fact that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and actually helped to assure it being attacked.

What a brilliant move.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Anas Strepera said:


> It's ironic they left that out because it's also ironic that the history books leave out the fact that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and actually helped to assure it being attacked.
> 
> What a brilliant move.


Sources please, reliable ones.

huntin1


----------



## desert_dog (Feb 6, 2005)

This is a myth. 
_No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory_.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God
Italics is what is mostly on the memorial. The ref to God is 4 paragraphs later.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/wwiimemorial.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/wwiigod.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp

Before you point fingers, know the facts. The liberals and PC nuts offer plenty of targets to throw at. There is no reason to spread mis-information and offer targets of your own.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Just more of the right wing BS, just go to Hoax Busters and look up this crap before you print it. Its strange that Liberals never send out Hoaxes, Is it because they are intelligent enough to know one when they see one.
I was in the middle of the Pacific when Roosevelt died and we were devastated. He didn't lie us into a war like this mental giant.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Adokken

I think both sides have hoaxes. How soon we forget Dan Rather. Also, one liberal on here not to long ago said Roosevelt knew all about the Japanese fleet on it's way to bomb Pearl Harbor, but he wanted it to happen to get in on the war. It sure saved his total failure in the economy, but hard to believe any president would stoop that low, liberal or conservative. Both sides have hoaxes, and both sides point fingers and claim they don't do it.

Most of the big hoaxes this past election were perpetrated by liberals and presented by even the mainstream media. That is factual. Ask Rather now. I have not tried Hoax Busters, but I will. Let me recommend FactCheck.com


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Adokken
> 
> I think both sides have hoaxes. How soon we forget Dan Rather. Also, one liberal on here not to long ago said Roosevelt knew all about the Japanese fleet on it's way to bomb Pearl Harbor, but he wanted it to happen to get in on the war. It sure saved his total failure in the economy, but hard to believe any president would stoop that low, liberal or conservative. Both sides have hoaxes, and both sides point fingers and claim they don't do it.
> 
> Most of the big hoaxes this past election were perpetrated by liberals and presented by even the mainstream media. That is factual. Ask Rather now. I have not tried Hoax Busters, but I will. Let me recommend FactCheck.com


How exactly does accepting a forged document indicate a hoax? As well, what are these other major hoaxes created by liberals in past elections?


----------



## desert_dog (Feb 6, 2005)

> How exactly does accepting a forged document indicate a hoax? As well, what are these other major hoaxes created by liberals in past elections?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1984.shtml
CBS article stating they didn't verfy the papers. Release the papers on the 8th, then sit on the false information for 12 days before being so bold as to say they won't back the papers any longer. They didn't have the guts to just admit being wrong.
Straight bullets:
If a "R" proposes to increase Social Security 7%, A "D" proposes 10%, how is it that the left calls that a cut? My math- a 7% increase is addition, not subtraction.
Gun Control Works- Washington DC has some of the strictest gun laws and the highest murder rate in the nation. Florida passes a shall issue law and the # of violent assualts and murders drops significantly.
If the Rs are in power they will turn over Roe vs Wade. Rs have had a majority and the Pres for over 4 years and not one of them talks about it. Bush is pretty "right" and he doesn't go there because the supreme court made the call years ago and won't overturn it. If a law was passed they would merely find it illegal and through it out. Still murder, but legal.
Lied about the war.....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation &#8230; And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction&#8230; So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real &#8230;"
Authors of these statements in order, W. Clinton, W. Clinton, Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, J. Kerry. When a democrat says it, it must be true. Funny thing is Kerry ran on being against the war. And Bush is accused of lying?
Want more laughs? Read more of militant_tiger or adokken. Or go here:
http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/arc ... ar-quotes/
BTW, the website "factcheck.com" is operated by Name Administration Inc., a privately held company based in the Cayman Islands. 
And what are we to learn from this? M_T, try .org. :wink: 
Sorry this is so long, But M_T you asked and this is a small start.


----------



## desert_dog (Feb 6, 2005)

> And what are we to learn from this? M_T, try .org


Sorry, I re-read this and it sounded wrong.
Plainsman wrote: Let me recommend FactCheck.com
FactCheck.org is what your looking for. 
They don't seem biased just because they pick on everyone!

:beer: :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Jeez... FDR wanted the Japanese to destroy our fleet at Pearl Harbor?? What the hell is that? How dumb do you people think we are???


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster

In the event that you may have misinterpreted my previous post, what you say, and my point are the same. I think the person who said FDR wanted in on the war is out of touch. I used it as an example of a hoax perpetrated by the liberal side. It would be easy to misinterpret my point, as FDR was liberal, so why would a liberal bash him. Some paranoid person with another conspiracy theory I would guess. It is disconcerting when you read some posts on here and compare them to the belief values expressed by Montana's Unibomber.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

ZOG.....WHY ARE YOU SUPPRISED?

The Liberals hate God (whatever they claim) and they want him dead. The only way for that to happen in their minds if for peole to stop worshiping Him. They are trying to accompish this by making us all forget about Him. they remove His name from the public eye, restrict what you can say about Him, and claim its unconstitutional to teach our children about Him.

They are attempting to remove I AM from America...and to a large extent they have suceeded. America is NOT a Christian nation any longer. it was int he begining, and it was intended to stay as such (becasue that gives the most rights the the most people), but they have twisted it. America is now a pagan nation just like eveory other nation on this planet. Dont be supprised if She acts like it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

desert_dog said:


> > How exactly does accepting a forged document indicate a hoax? As well, what are these other major hoaxes created by liberals in past elections?
> 
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1984.shtml
> ...


I really like how the site of Kerry quotes on the war focuses on Albright and Gore quotes, not Kerry. I really didn't understand most of your post because it wasn't in reference to anything in particular.



> The Liberals hate God (whatever they claim) and they want him dead. The only way for that to happen in their minds if for peole to stop worshiping Him.


All conservatives really support white supremacy. It is a fact. Every single conservative has stated or believes that whites are the master race, and they support the actions of the KKK. You want to sling slander? I can play that game.



> They are trying to accompish this by making us all forget about Him. they remove His name from the public eye, restrict what you can say about Him, and claim its unconstitutional to teach our children about Him.


Yeah by freedom of religon they meant for Christians, this reminds me a lot of when the south said that "All men are created equal" was only meant for whites. Will you never learn from your mistakes?



> They are attempting to remove I AM from America...and to a large extent they have suceeded.


They want erca?



> America is NOT a Christian nation any longer.


It never was, thank God we are here to make sure you can't make it as such.



> it was int he begining, and it was intended to stay as such (becasue that gives the most rights the the most people), but they have twisted it.


Where do you get this crap? Do you make it up or is there some ridiculous site that you get this from?



> America is now a pagan nation just like eveory other nation on this planet. Dont be supprised if She acts like it.


Close, we are a land of FREEDOM of religon. You can follow anything you wish, and no other laws from other religons will be imposed on you (we hope). You know you would think that with the rest of the world as an example we would get it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Iv been tring to ignore you because you cant underrstand simple speech. but i have to speak up this time.

miss-understanding #1) i said you hate God. by that i mean MY God. Thats not slander, its a factual statement. i say this for several reasons. You often wonder why we attack your "religion". you claim your a christian, and that you know parts of the Bible, and that you belong to a Christian denomination. that doesnt change that fact that your not a Christian. you do NOT worship the same God that i do. I worship the God of scripture. The God of the Scripture says that homosexuality is WRONG, and is a sin. you believe its "just the way people are". You believe its a womans choice to kill her child, and that its just a piece of tissue. The God of the bible makes it VERRY clear that unborn children are human, and have all the same rights afforded to live born children. You canot possibly be worshiping the same God as me. i know im worshing the God of the Bible. i know What the God of Scripture says is right and wrong. Therefore, whatever god you worship CANOT be the same God that i worship, as your god apparently doesnt think those things are wrong. if he did, you wouldnt believe they were OK. therefore youare NOT a Christian. Why? Because you dont ACT like a Christian sould, and ou dont BELIEVE what Christians beleve. You and your god dont like what my God expects and commands, so you try to silence us by calling us "biggots" "radicals" "rascists" and "hate mongers". Then you supplant all of Gods values to suit the whims of your Degenerate nature. Again, IM NOT SLANDERING ANYONE. You dont believe what i believe, and you and yours hate me and mine for it; as evidenced by your radical comparison to the KKK. Your trying to replace God with your watered down, corrupted, anything goes version of god. you have eveory right to believe in whatever twisted god you can come up with, but you DONT have the right to try to sensor and legislate my God into oblivion, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT LIBERALS HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS!

missunderstanding #2) You fool! how long will you blindly ignore the obvious! You continualy try to twist my words and paint me as being agains freedom of religion. WHY DONT YOU GET IT? This has NOTHING to do with what others believe! they ARE and they SHOULD BE free to worship whomver they want in WHATEVER way they want. BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SENSOR MY RELIGION JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER GUY IS UNCOMFORTABLE DURRING Y PRAYER! That doesnt force ANYTING on him, all it does is RESTRICT ME, and my freedoms. BUT THATS WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS WANTED ALL ALONG! To restrict my beliefs under the guise of "equality". GUESS WHAT! EVEORY OTHER RELIGION HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN MINE DOES! THEY ALL GET BETTER TREATMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND FROM THE AUTHORITIES, AND FROM SCHOOLS. you are just restricting us with you foolish regulations. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FREEDOM OF OTHER RELIGONS. If they are free now, then THEY ALWASE HAVE BEEN. te only difference is that my God is now restricted. Thanks a bunch!

miss-understanding #3) Yes, America was Christian. It was founded by Christians (And Deists) who used Christian Prinsiples and CHRISTIAN justifications for what they did. Ill ask you a question: what did the Founders use as justification for all men being created equal? what justification did they use for all men having "unalienable rights"? THE FACT THAT THE CREATOR (GOD) ENDOWED THEM WIT THOSE RIGHTS. so you see Tigre, Christianity is what this nation is based on. Christianity is what geve you your rights, and Christianity is what gave you you freedom of religion. You oppenly state that you dont want a Christian nation. The proper implementation of Christianity is what GUARENTEES your rights. its realy to bad that you are so dedicated to tearing down the very thing that gave you, and maintains your rights. :eyeroll:

mis-understanding #4) SEE ABOVE.

Mis-understanding #5) WRONG. We are a nation with freedom OF religon, not freedom FROM Religion. Just because your religon doesnt like the law of the land doesnt make you exempt from it. Just because your religion says that murder is fine if you had a reaosn, doenst mean you should be exempt from murder charges. how does this apply? because our laws were based on the moral code of the 10 commandments . Dont steaL, DONT LIE, DONT MURDER. LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

I KNOW you dont want to hear it, i KNOW you dont want to believe it, but that doest change it.

Go ahead. im ready for your missinformed, spitefull, and ill planed responce now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> miss-understanding #1) i said you hate God. by that i mean MY God. Thats not slander, its a factual statement.


We follow the same God, again you are ignorant.



> You often wonder why we attack your "religion". you claim your a christian, and that you know parts of the Bible, and that you belong to a Christian denomination. that doesnt change that fact that your not a Christian.


I was not aware that we all had to be the same sect to be real Christians.



> you do NOT worship the same God that i do. I worship the God of scripture. The God of the Scripture says that homosexuality is WRONG, and is a sin. you believe its "just the way people are".


I do not believe that it is right. However I know that in a free country you cannot impose your will or religon on anyone, ELSE IT IS NOT FREE!



> You believe its a womans choice to kill her child, and that its just a piece of tissue.


Oh but it is. If a child cannot think, it cannot believe in God. Without God there is no soul, thus a fetus has no soul and is not a person.



> Therefore, whatever god you worship CANOT be the same God that i worship, as your god apparently doesnt think those things are wrong.


So if you do not agree with one part of the Bible you are not a Christian? Do you have any idea how many people you just called hethans?



> if he did, you wouldnt believe they were OK.


I could be wrong, but I thought that you were supposed to convert people by setting a good example and showing them the ways of the Lord. I was not aware that it was our place to force people to follow our ways. I do not remember the part where Jesus stones the prostitute for not following the ways of God.



> Why? Because you dont ACT like a Christian sould, and ou dont BELIEVE what Christians beleve.


There might not be any hope for you trooper.



> You dont believe what i believe, and you and yours hate me and mine for it; as evidenced by your radical comparison to the KKK.


I have been told that I hate God and all those who do not follow and enforce each portion of the Bible are hethans. As well, I apparently hate Christians, and my statement that all conservatives follow the KKK is radical?



> you have eveory right to believe in whatever twisted god you can come up with, but you DONT have the right to try to sensor and legislate my God into oblivion, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT LIBERALS HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS!


Well you refuse to believe that we follow the same God, and apparently mine is twisted but yes actually we do have that right. Do you know why? Because this is a country with the freedom of religon, church and state were always meant to be seperate. If you combine the two you blur the line between a theocracy and democracy, this cannot be allowed to happen.



> BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SENSOR MY RELIGION JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER GUY IS UNCOMFORTABLE DURRING Y PRAYER!


Why should your religon be better? Why should your (really our but whatever you want) religon be allowed to take precedence over all the others? If there is a follower of Islam in the audience should Allah be mentioned as well?



> That doesnt force ANYTING on him, all it does is RESTRICT ME, and my freedoms.


Indeed it does restrict you, but it makes everyone equal and even.



> GUESS WHAT! EVEORY OTHER RELIGION HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN MINE DOES! THEY ALL GET BETTER TREATMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND FROM THE AUTHORITIES, AND FROM SCHOOLS.


Again, great stuff. Do you make this up yourself or did you get the new issue of radical conservative weekly?



> THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FREEDOM OF OTHER RELIGONS. If they are free now, then THEY ALWASE HAVE BEEN. te only difference is that my God is now restricted. Thanks a bunch!


No duh, the ideal situation is to make sure that no religon is seen as better than any other.



> Ill ask you a question: what did the Founders use as justification for all men being created equal? what justification did they use for all men having "unalienable rights"? THE FACT THAT THE CREATOR (GOD) ENDOWED THEM WIT THOSE RIGHTS.


They probably used logical beliefs based on but not directly relating to their religons (Christianity is a very logical religon you know, wouldn't be so popular otherwise). As to unalienable rights, no God did not give them that (not directly at least). The government decides that.



> so you see Tigre, Christianity is what this nation is based on.


I would have a hard time disagreeing with that, however it was not made FOR Christians. It was founded for complete religous freedom of all people (by the way, Jefferson and Franklin both had their doubts about parts of the Bible).



> Christianity is what geve you your rights.


How so? If I was a Christian living in a communist state I would still have to abide by their rules.



> Christianity is what gave you you freedom of religion.


Does my car also give me my car? What a redundant statement.



> The proper implementation of Christianity is what GUARENTEES your rights.


Apparently not if you aren't a Christian.



> its realy to bad that you are so dedicated to tearing down the very thing that gave you, and maintains your rights.


Just equalizing it.



> We are a nation with freedom OF religon, not freedom FROM Religion.


Actually it is, if you are a atheist you are granted the same rights.



> Just because your religon doesnt like the law of the land doesnt make you exempt from it.


Very true, however these laws do not impose upon religon, it thus doesn't matter.



> Just because your religion says that murder is fine if you had a reaosn, doenst mean you should be exempt from murder charges.


That is because murder is logically wrong, not religously.



> Go ahead. im ready for your missinformed, spitefull, and ill planed responce now.


It is rather obvious that you didn't plan yours.


----------



## desert_dog (Feb 6, 2005)

Tiger, I quoted you,


> How exactly does accepting a forged document indicate a hoax? As well, what are these other major hoaxes created by liberals in past elections?


The first part of my reply pointed out the holes in accepting a forged document indicate a hoax. They had no corroborating evidence and ran the story anyway. In the media this is considered un-ethical. Further, they waited to back down from that position in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I then went on to a few liberal hoaxes. There are many hoaxes(left and right) and I thought I would hit a few.
Yeah, of the 20 or so statements from laugh at liberals 2 are kerry quotes and 1 a letter he signed. It could be mis-leading if you completly ignored the name following each quote and it could have had a better title.
Since I'm here...I think you and trooper are so far out on the ends of the spectrum that there is no way you'll ever agree on anything. I believe the early imigrants to America were separatists. They were called this because they disagreed with the church of england. It sounds to me like trooper claims he wants freedom OF religion but only if you agree with him and you say you should have freedom FROM religion. At some point you would think people would grow up and realize your free to worship anyway you choose with obvious exceptions. What your both missing is that for everyone to have a choice in the matter it also requires you to have a little understanding and tolerance of others choices. When the LDS shows up at my door I don't sue the church and try to legislate against them, I tell them I'm not interested and they can keep the watchtower. 
What makes this a great country isn't that were all the same, it's that through all the differences we are all Americans.
The funny thing to me is I stumbled across this post by accident 6 weeks after it was dead and posted reply pointing out the hoax. I didn't think much of it other then I hate the spread of mis-information.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

desert_dog said:


> What your both missing is that for everyone to have a choice in the matter it also requires you to have a little understanding and tolerance of others choices.


 I don't see how MT is mis-understanding this. Thats his whole point...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass
Of course you can't see it. You agree with him, so in essence you have chosen to be blind to his intolerance. Don't get me wrong, this isn't intended as an insult, what I mean is it is hard to see the failure of those we agree with. The truth is liberals are ever bit as intolerant as anyone else. We are all intolerant. The differences occur with what we are intolerant of, and where we define those lines of intolerance.

The term intolerance has been used by the politically correct crowd to push a political agenda. The media and everyone has got on the bandwagon to give intolerance the same negative connotation as prejudice. The truth however is that we should be intolerant. Intolerant of child abuse, intolerant of theft, intolerant of prejudice. Society as a whole manifests it's hypocrisy often i.e. schools issue zero tolerance policies.

Now lets look at the argument of abortion. Many who claim to be Christian argue with each other, pro and con. Some say the soul is obtained at conception and liberals say that is radical right. Others say that the soul is not obtained until the baby/fetus is capable of conscious thought and conservatives call that radical left. So what is the answer? I think simple. I don't think anyone knows when a soul is obtained, it's just that some are willing to take a chance, and others are not. Some would rather be safe than sorry, while others will risk offending god in favor of ducking responsibility. Personally I am forced to stand against abortion because when tax dollars are used for abortion you make me as a tax payer part of it. I am one of the would rather be safe than sorry crowd.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

adokken said this


> I was in the middle of the Pacific when Roosevelt died and we were devastated. *He didn't lie us into a war like this mental giant*.


I am really not interested in this thread but I am amazed that any citizen of the US especially a war Veteran could have such a low opinion of our President to really believe that he would intentionally lie to get us into a war ( something that has been proven over and over again to be false Bush went with the info available and his take on the situation was the same as the previous administrations and all of congresses.) 
A lie is only a lie if you know it to be false at the time you say it, the intelligence community was incorrect and that was not the fault of Bush or Clinton. 
What really sickens me is that you want to believe this falsehood, I didn't like many of Clinton's ideas and he was a proven liar but I never would of believed he or any President would make the decision to go to war based on political goals its just way to big a decision. Lying about fooling around with some babe I would believe( who wouldn't) but I would never believe that Bill Clinton or any President would lie to send our country to War. *All of our presidents Democrat or Republican love this country and I think they take their oath to protect it seriously.* I am definitley no naive idealist but I have to ask what have we come to as a people to be so jaded the we think things like this. :eyeroll:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I think its funny how the supposedly the democrats use "intolerance" to push a politcal agenda coming from a republican. If any party uses social issues to their benefit, its the republicans. The republicans have managed to get both Wall Street/corporate and blue collar Americans to vote for the same party! Who would have guessed? How? You marry social issues like abortion and gay marriage to your political platform and tute this trumpet as much as you can during the campaign season. People start beliving the republicans actually ARE more Christian than the democrats and all of a sudden the politics of the platform don't mean anything anymore. 
For some reason, (for examples, read above) its "Christian" to be republican in America. I read a newspaper clipping once of a preacher at some Kansas politcal rally who had a sign: "God Hates ****." Wha? This is Christian?

Its not about voting for whats best for you in your situation anymore, its all about the social/religioius issues. Last week I posted what I thought was a great article on taxes in America in this politics section (affects everyone, not a social issue) and it didn't get hardly any feedback. I started to answer my own posts but still hardly anything. But, if you get something religioius/social going here, the accusation posts start going like wild fire.

I don't think our country will ever be united in anything until we can somehow separate all these social issues from politcal ones.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You agree with him, so in essence you have chosen to be blind to his intolerance.


How is the forcing of equality intolerance? Was it intolerance toward white when the blacks were granted the same rights?



> The truth however is that we should be intolerant. Intolerant of child abuse, intolerant of theft, intolerant of prejudice.


Indeed we should be intolerant of injustice, hence why I feel that all religons should be equal.



> Personally I am forced to stand against abortion because when tax dollars are used for abortion you make me as a tax payer part of it. I am one of the would rather be safe than sorry crowd.


So then why not fight tax money going towards abortion rather than abortion itself?



> I am really not interested in this thread but I am amazed that any citizen of the US especially a war Veteran could have such a low opinion of our President to really believe that he would intentionally lie to get us into a war ( something that has been proven over and over again to be false Bush went with the info available and his take on the situation was the same as the previous administrations and all of congresses.)


Oh come on Bob you aren't that naive are you? His father has a big hand in the oil shipping buisness, Cheney used to and his close associates are still in it. After the story being changed so many times, Osama somehow melding into Saddam, the media ties with the presidency, and the reason to do so I think it is a very distinct possibility that Bush led us into this was knowing full well that Saddam was already disarmed.



> A lie is only a lie if you know it to be false at the time you say it, the intelligence community was incorrect and that was not the fault of Bush or Clinton.


I think that they wanted to believe it. They really made no efforts to check the information and ignored the inspectors who had found nothing.



> All of our presidents Democrat or Republican love this country and I think they take their oath to protect it seriously.


Certainly they all love our country, I however think that some of them love money yet more.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass said


> Last week I posted what I thought was a great article on taxes in America in this politics section (affects everyone, not a social issue) and it didn't get hardly any feedback.


I agree with you on this :beer: I have lost interest in this forum because of this, important issues that affect all of us like taxes, social security ect get very little play. Its frustrating but its a symptom of the real problem which is so few Americans know enough about the real issues facing us to discuss them intelligently, most don't take the time to research these issues in depth and their opinions reflect this ignorance. Congress both repubs and dems rely on this ignorance to keep their power and continue to screw us citizens in the process. Its hopeless


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Because they are already equal. what your pushing is already done. they already have religions freedom in all areas. They can worship however they want wherever they want wenever they want. how are they oppressed? iv heard you ranting and raving on how we need to keep Christianity from oppressing these people, yet i havnt heard a single example as to WHAT your talking about.

This is a free nation yes, but you are never afforded the right to commit crimes against nature, and against others. You still have to act within reasonable laws.

believe whatever you want. Just start acting like you believe SOMETHING. You cant hold two contradicting systems of beliefe. your political beliefs are COMPLETELY opposed to your political views. Choose one or the other. you cant have it bolt ways.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Because they are already equal. what your pushing is already done. they already have religions freedom in all areas. They can worship however they want wherever they want wenever they want. how are they oppressed? iv heard you ranting and raving on how we need to keep Christianity from oppressing these people, yet i havnt heard a single example as to WHAT your talking about.


If Christianity gets preferencial treatment (which it does) that is not equality. Simply because people are not jailed for practicing their religon does not mean religous equality.



> This is a free nation yes, but you are never afforded the right to commit crimes against nature, and against others. You still have to act within reasonable laws.


Agreed completely, laws are based on reason and logic not a religous document (though the two do coincide at some points).



> believe whatever you want. Just start acting like you believe SOMETHING. You cant hold two contradicting systems of beliefe. your political beliefs are COMPLETELY opposed to your political views. Choose one or the other. you cant have it bolt ways.


Say what?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As long as the subject is somewhat on religion I am trying to remember a previous thread. I was disappointed in the removal of the ten commandments from a court in one of the southern states. Sorry, can't remember which one. Anyway, the judge would not follow orders of a higher court and has been removed. Someone said that it wouldn't be fair because a Moslem walking into that court wouldn't feel like he was going to get a fair trial. I don't understand that. Would not someone who sees commandments against theft, murder, and such feel that this court had high standards? If he was guilty I could see where he might be sweating.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Alabama, and the judge is now a politician. He took an oath to enforce the laws not only the ones he agreed with and was rightly kicked out. And no I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments but there are elements of the Christian religion that are just as extreme as the Muslim extremists and they should be just as feared.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

How is this preferential treatment? the reason you see it more is because there are more Christians, not because anything is getting better treatment.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bobm said:


> Alabama, and the judge is now a politician. He took an oath to enforce the laws not only the ones he agreed with and was rightly kicked out. And no I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments but there are elements of the Christian religion that are just as extreme as the Muslim extremists and they should be just as feared.


If the muslim was allowed to show his version of the ten commandments there as well no would would harp, that however wouldn't fly.



> How is this preferential treatment? the reason you see it more is because there are more Christians, not because anything is getting better treatment.


Simply because there are more of us doesn't mean that we should get preference over other religons. There are more whites than blacks in this country but we give them the same rights too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger
If the muslim was allowed to show his version of the ten commandments there as well no would would harp said:


> One of us is confused MT. The story of Moses is in the Torah, the Koran, and the Bible. The ten commandments are also the same in all three. I think you made the comment before that a Moslem would be offended. My question again is why?


----------



## desert_dog (Feb 6, 2005)

I gotta agree with plainsman on this except for my taxes equating to abortion. If we didn't pay for the poor girls that got knocked up and don't want to deal with their mistake, that would be prejudice.  
MT quote


> Agreed completely, laws are based on reason and logic not a religous document (though the two do coincide at some points).


If we left out the words commandment and god and called them rules to a logical life would it suit you better?
Don't kill, steal, comit adultery, curse and we will be closed on Sundays. 


> If a child cannot think, it cannot believe in God. Without God there is no soul, thus a fetus has no soul and is not a person.


Like animals, young children aren't born "self-aware". They gradually become self-aware and start to believe in God because they are told to. Therefore, by your definition, killing young children is not really a crime and the only way to be prosecuted is if they can prove the child believed in God. And it is definitly open season on atheists. You seem to try to use logic, but in this case your logic is flawed. BTW, there have been cases where criminals have been convicted of murder for the death of a fetus, which makes your definition not in tune with the law too.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Simply because there are more of us doesn't mean that we should get preference over other religons. There are more whites than blacks in this country but we give them the same rights too.


 oke:

Um...Ok. yea, i agree eveoryone should have the same rights, but you dodged my question. HOW are we getting preferential treatment?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Like animals, young children aren't born "self-aware". They gradually become self-aware and start to believe in God because they are told to. Therefore, by your definition, killing young children is not really a crime and the only way to be prosecuted is if they can prove the child believed in God. And it is definitly open season on atheists. You seem to try to use logic, but in this case your logic is flawed. BTW, there have been cases where criminals have been convicted of murder for the death of a fetus, which makes your definition not in tune with the law too.


The argument here is whether killing a fetus is the removal of a soul. Athiests do not believe in a soul. It is the ability to believe in God that makes something alive, not the belief itself.



> Um...Ok. yea, i agree eveoryone should have the same rights, but you dodged my question. HOW are we getting preferential treatment?


Simple, if when God is stated Allah can be stated as well it is equality. If in a speech God is mentioned but no other God is mentioned even after requests to mention them, it is inequality.



> If we left out the words commandment and god and called them rules to a logical life would it suit you better?
> Don't kill, steal, comit adultery, curse and we will be closed on Sundays.


For the lions share yes. The basic rules such as those against murder and stealing would make perfect sense but the rules directly relating to Christianity would have to go such as not cursing and adultery.



> You seem to try to use logic, but in this case your logic is flawed. BTW, there have been cases where criminals have been convicted of murder for the death of a fetus, which makes your definition not in tune with the law too.


That is because it can eventually become a life, at the discretion of the mother. As stated before, if I break my TV its ok. If you break my TV it is not.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Simple, if when God is stated Allah can be stated as well it is equality. If in a speech God is mentioned but no other God is mentioned even after requests to mention them, it is inequality.


Ok. When does this happen? Every time iv ever heard of someone requesting something like this, they are either bolth mentioned, or neither is mentioned (wit neither being most common). By your definition thats equality. They bolth get the same time when people take the time to ask.

im still not following you MT; how is their religious freedom oppressed?


----------

