# Famous French Quotes



## zogman

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
--Norman Schwartzkopf

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
--- Regis Philbin

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.
Anonymous

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
--Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
---Jay Leno

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman

:beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You know a lot of people love to hate the French, but I actually think that they are a good people. They have always had superb generals (save one, even when they did not have superb troops), and they have always been the first to recognize and take action upon a humanitarian issue.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Then you should talk to guys that have worked UN relief efforts with them and to the military people that where in Afghanistan. While many of us cussed the Germans for not helping in Iraq at least they stepped up to the plate and took over in other places so that our forces could be deployed into Iraq along with the equipment.

Once again you show a lack of depth on many things and take the media and pundits words as gospel. I prefer to take the voices of those that have been there and done that! No one not two but 30+ that where deployed in the Balkans and Afghanistan and other incidents around the globe over the last 15 years.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Once again you show a lack of depth on many things and take the media and pundits words as gospel. I prefer to take the voices of those that have been there and done that! No one not two but 30+ that where deployed in the Balkans and Afghanistan and other incidents around the globe over the last 15 years.


You realize that there was a time before you were alive, right?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Relevance? We live in a world of today! If you go back in the history of the US, France did supply us with support during our struggle with Brits all the way through the War of 1812.

Now back to the last century and this current one. We more than made up for that during WWI and WWII. Since then few country in Western Europe that proclaim to be a Democracy have been less Pro US. So with all of this and the Food for Oil issues tell me why we should give a fats rats A$$ about this immoral country.

I have lived a few years longer than you and have been blessed to know both WWI and WW II POW's along with some from Korea and Nam and this association has broaden my scope of the impact that our country has had on the world in making things better. Few benevolent acts by France can be pointed to that have impacted the world positively since the mid 1800's.

Yet the list is long for the US and her people. Be glad you live here instead of there and start to gather knowledge to expand your knowledge and thinking instead of looking for things that do not challenge your views of the world.

When you are responsible for another person the world changes. I became much more concerned about the events and actions that are taking place in world. I judge people for what they do, how they act not by race, religion,or sex. I am trying to instill into my children this same value. I also research and read up on things before I form an opinion.

I have for the most part given you the benefit of being young and unexposed to the reality of the world. Yet you have chosen to engage with people that are more than your peers in worldly experience and continue to belittle and insult them.

Humor is different than contemptible comments. It would do you well to figure out the difference.

He are some words of advise to you. When you decide to enter the world of working towards a future goal. Do not look to others to smooth out the path, do not expect Gov to replace personal responsibility for your actions. Do blame others for your failures, learn from them and avoid making the mistakes that led to the failure again.

When seeking to impress be informed and educated and correct. When wearing a cap wear it properly or not at all. Underwear are not a fashion statement. Wear a belt! Tuck in your shirt and keep your appearance neat. Remember to be polite and say thank you.

Men like Plainsmen have been more than patient with you and for this you should be grateful.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> You know a lot of people love to hate the French, but I actually think that they are a good people. They have always had superb generals (save one, even when they did not have superb troops), and they have always been the first to recognize and take action upon a humanitarian issue.


Why doesn't THAT suprise me at all.  :stirpot: :lol: :lol: :lol:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Yet the list is long for the US and her people. Be glad you live here instead of there and start to gather knowledge to expand your knowledge and thinking instead of looking for things that do not challenge your views of the world.


Why do you think I stay here?



> I have for the most part given you the benefit of being young and unexposed to the reality of the world. Yet you have chosen to engage with people that are more than your peers in worldly experience and continue to belittle and insult them.


If this "wordly experience" has driven them to racism, rejection of those different from them, I will continue to insult them every chance I get.

As well, I wish to quote Thoreau

"Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for is has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned any thing of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give to the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith left which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were. I have lived thirty years on this planet and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors." (Walden)


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> As well, I wish to quote Thoreau
> 
> "Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for is has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned any thing of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give to the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith left which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were. I have lived thirty years on this planet and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors." (Walden)


weedhopper......

a couple of observations........ first... every once and a while pull yo head out yo b-utt and take a look around.....that should be refreshing.

second..... walden was an idiot.

turdly......you don't see too many teen age presidents, generals, ceos. there is a reason for it.

lastly..... take two leeches with a glass of warm swamp water and call me in the morning.

pointer


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> If this "wordly experience" has driven them to racism, rejection of those different from them, I will continue to insult them every chance I get.
> 
> )


..........and so will i you.......the only difference is i am good at it. hehehe.

pointer


----------



## Plainsman

Ron Gilmore wrote:


> I have for the most part given you the benefit of being young and unexposed to the reality of the world. Yet you have chosen to engage with people that are more than your peers in worldly experience and continue to belittle and insult them.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> If this "wordly experience" has driven them to racism, rejection of those different from them, I will continue to insult them every chance I get.
> 
> As well, I wish to quote Thoreau


Your quote falls in well with your and Thoreau's thinking. Although environmental activists worshiped Sand County Almanac none of his other writings ever gained such popularity. He was mostly a hermit that could not get along with his fellow man. People of the time considered him irresponsible i.e. never grew up. He died at 44. Some people grow up at 14, others grow up at ----well, never. Twenty one is not a magic age.

"In the 1870s and 1880s, critics attacked Thoreau's character and style of life, accusing him of crankiness and irresponsibility."


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors." (Walden)

When I was 18 and knew everything about everything and thought my Father was an idiot for holding values above profit! Nothing spoken would have changed my mind. It took me being employed by others to realize that his principals and counsel where full of wisdom. A mentor I have had also helped mold my values by examples in his life and words spoken from his past.

Thoreau felt as evident of his writings that he and he alone had the answer to all of mens ills. His disdain for news and laws where of classic liberal thinking. He never realized that actions and sacrifice of others allowed him to be nonproductive. Toiling only to sustain himself and ridiculing those that chose to better there lot in life are classic.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> second..... walden was an idiot.


Walden was a pond...



> When I was 18 and knew everything about everything and thought my Father was an idiot for holding values above profit!


And so thus it is assumed that I am just like you?



> Thoreau felt as evident of his writings that he and he alone had the answer to all of mens ills. His disdain for news and laws where of classic liberal thinking.


That is odd, because he also supported the smallest government possible, and at best no government at all, a belief also supported by you Ron and Plainsman.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> second..... walden was an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Walden was a pond...
Click to expand...

you got me there weedhopper......freudian slip on my part.

better write that one down in bold print weedie.

pointer


----------



## Ron Gilmore

He constantly in his writings belittled those that sought achievement in seeking personal gain. He ridiculed those that followed God. Or those that lived within the rules set by the state or Fed Gov.

His comments on following a just Gov was tongue in cheek as he saw none that where. Even the Ten Commandments where disdained by him in other writings. Whether one is a believer in God or not these principals are just and fair.

So once again taking a portion of what he writes and not the whole as I said in an earlier post about seeking things that only underscore your point of view is shallow and unchallenged of ones intellect.

I read Kerry's book on Nam long before he ever ran for Pres. I have read a number of published papers by Kennedy and others of whom I have a political difference with as not all things Dem are bad nor all things Rep good. I do this mainly to be aware of where they are coming from. Some time you should do this without having a preconceived attitude toward the material you are reading.

I read Hitlers book, Carl Marx, some writings on Gandhi along with biography's of many of our former world leaders. Writings about Lincoln, and Lee and Custer the list is long. Each time I find things that have changed my thoughts about that person place in history and what was the accepted norm about them.

Had I not read Mien Ku mph by Hitler, and the biography of Franklin Roosevelt I would not have know that Roosevelt was an admirer of Hitlers social government model and modified it to create the New Deal. Yet Roosevelt did not admire Hitler the man. These things should be taught in school and not have to be found out on our own. Expanded thinking for young children would lead us to a better society and help remove many of the plagues that we have such as drugs,and violence, and the attitude that others owe you something for nothing!


----------



## Plainsman

> That's odd I don't remember saying any such thing so it must be another of your wild assumptions. Your good at that, well not good but a productive fabricator. I don't like government intruding in my business, but I enjoy what they provide. Education, roads, law enforcement, national security, and most of all federal land to hunt on. I wish there was more federal land, and more federal employees to manage it properly. Surprised MT? You might have known that if you would have asked instead of making unsupported statements. As of late I have noticed you are careless that way. Don't worry to much though, I write it off as immature and not trying dishonestly to mislead people. On the other hand you might of wanted me in here to argue with --- missed me did you?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Or those that lived within the rules set by the state or Fed Gov.


Incorrect, he belittled those who followed laws which were unjust and wrong.



> That's odd I don't remember saying any such thing so it must be another of your wild assumptions.


If you would like the quote I will spend a few hours digging it out of your more recent posts, but I clearly remember you telling me how the liberals wanted a big government that told you how to do everything, to which I replied that the republicans wanted to pry into peoples lives by disallowing gay marriage. You stated that the smaller the government the better. Ring any bells?



> Education, roads, law enforcement, national security, and most of all federal land to hunt on.


Precisely what Thoreau stated, the smallest government possible, only providing the bare essientals such as law enforcement and health services. In a perfect world he stated that he would have liked there to be no government at all, but this is no perfect world.



> On the other hand you might of wanted me in here to argue with --- missed me did you?


But of course! I far prefer arguing with an eloquent idiot :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Perhaps we are looking at big government differently. I perhaps look at big government different than most people. Big government to me is when they intrude into personal lives, and have far to many give away programs. On the other hand I like some of the services and don't mind if they expand. I don't define big government by counting heads to see how many employees there are. And yes, I have stated that liberals love big government, and conservatives like less government. I disagree with the republicans on environmental policy also. If I point out that republicans likes small government and liberals like big government that gives no indication of what I think.

I don't often talk about my disagreements with the Bush administration because I know you will climb all over that. I don't voice a dissenting opinion because there are far more important things to worry about right now. Terrorism, Iraq, second amendment, gay marriage (that will get you going), activist attacks on Christianity, etc etc.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT have you read any of his other writings? Have you read any of the related information on his life and talks? While his writing of Walden is a classic for the time when you analyze his writings and reflections you will see and find that I am correct. Once again the whole picture not just a snap shot.

Less digress and look at Roosevelt as an example. I base what I know of him from the books and articles written about him because I did not live in the same time frame. Without a doubt his policies and phsycology was what shaped our country since and as a result we have what we have today in large part because of him. High tax rates high debt, huge entitlement programs and a morally decaying society.

He did get us through a world war and was the beneficiary of that same war in pulling the US out of the worst economic time in our history. Facts not fiction, but not what is written or talked about in our history books of today.

Most people think the civil war was fought over slavery but in reality it was about state rights vs federal controls. The southern states where more right than wrong on this issue, but a single principled stance on slavery is what we here and read about the most.

Now fast forward to the Vietnam Era. I lived through a good portion of it and while it was a poorly run operation, the goal was met that we entered into it for. To stop the spread of communism in that region of the world.

Next is Reagan, while many preached Dante' he chose the course of elimination of the USSR. The fall of the Berlin wall underscores the fact that his course was the right course.

I list these to point out that a single writing or act does not provide a true view of a person or a country's makeup or true history. That is why you need to seek the true character of Thoreau to see the light of my statements.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT have you read any of his other writings? Have you read any of the related information on his life and talks? While his writing of Walden is a classic for the time when you analyze his writings and reflections you will see and find that I am correct. Once again the whole picture not just a snap shot.


Yes actually. I also read a peice from "Self Reliance". Didn't see that comming did you?



> Less digress and look at Roosevelt as an example. I base what I know of him from the books and articles written about him because I did not live in the same time frame. Without a doubt his policies and phsycology was what shaped our country since and as a result we have what we have today in large part because of him. High tax rates high debt, huge entitlement programs and a morally decaying society.


You are going to blame financial problems on someone who took their administration seventy some years ago? His policies worked like gangbusters in his day. As opposed to riding on a dead man's coattails why can't we have a modern day Roosevelt?



> Most people think the civil war was fought over slavery but in reality it was about state rights vs federal controls. The southern states where more right than wrong on this issue, but a single principled stance on slavery is what we here and read about the most.


Yes, on the state's right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. Boy were they ever right on that issue...


----------



## zogman

Weedhopper,
Define your version of a " a modern day Roosevelt?"

Oh and by the way which one Teddy or Franklin ???????????????


----------



## Ron Gilmore

"Yes, on the state's right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. Boy were they ever right on that issue..."

Once again you show your lack of understanding about history. I encourage you to do a little more digging.

You know Gore and Jesse Jackson implied that all Rep believe that they should be allowed to own one!

That is a much more accurate assessment of the issues than your statement.

Glad you read some of Self Reliance, but dig a little deeper little Weed Hopper as the truth is still not been discovered by you. Might be worth reading Carl Marx also, and the teaching of Charmain Mau! Then compare them to Thoreau and maybe just maybe the light will flicker enough to show you a new path in your journey through the darkness.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

zogman said:


> Weedhopper,
> Define your version of a " a modern day Roosevelt?"
> 
> Oh and by the way which one Teddy or Franklin ???????????????


Well being that as mentioned he pulled us out of a world war, that leaves but Roosevelt.

A modern day Roosevelt would be a man willing to come up with his own revolutionary ideas about how the country should be run as it benefited America, not his pocketbook.



> Once again you show your lack of understanding about history. I encourage you to do a little more digging.


How about instead of saying "You are stupid, read more", You share with the class exactly what happened?



> Glad you read some of Self Reliance, but dig a little deeper little Weed Hopper as the truth is still not been discovered by you. Might be worth reading Carl Marx also, and the teaching of Charmain Mau! Then compare them to Thoreau and maybe just maybe the light will flicker enough to show you a new path in your journey through the darkness.


The problem is that the "truth" is when I finally see the republican light. I will not see the republican light.


----------



## Plainsman

It becomes more difficult each day to take you serious. Your writing indicates intelligence, so you have the ability to understand. Therefore you are either naïve, even for a 16 year old, or you are stubborn and refuse to think about anything you do not already believe. Why debate with someone in total denial. You quote people you know little of, and when Ron points it out you want him to tell you all about it instead of putting some effort into it yourself. I am disappointed in how much you have regressed since the election. Get over it.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> A modern day Roosevelt would be a man willing to come up with his own revolutionary ideas about how the country should be run as it benefited America, not his pocketbook.


revolutionary ideas???

he took most of his social ideas from hitler.

if he had a big enough nut sack......he would have took on the germans and the japanese long before he did thus averting pearl harbor.

later after he was out of his gourd.....he gave away half of europe to stalin while churchill was rasin hell about it.
yeah he had some revolutionary ideas alright.

hitler should have tried rollin into poland when george w. bush was president.

pointer


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> zogman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weedhopper,
> Define your version of a " a modern day Roosevelt?"
> 
> Oh and by the way which one Teddy or Franklin ???????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Well being that as mentioned he pulled us out of a world war, that leaves but Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

M_T I don't know what you are talking about here either. Wilson was President at the end of WW1, so that would leave WW2 and Franklin Roosevelt, but surely you would have done some research here and learned that FDR did not "pull" us out of WW2, we ended that war by defeating both Japan and Germany, one of which we bombed into the stone age. Can you figure out which one? And just who was it that ordered those bombs dropped?
I think that it would be a good idea for you to go back to history class, and maybe pay attention this time. Or are you going to say that you were making a joke here too.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

huntin1 said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zogman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weedhopper,
> Define your version of a " a modern day Roosevelt?"
> 
> Oh and by the way which one Teddy or Franklin ???????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Well being that as mentioned he pulled us out of a world war, that leaves but Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> M_T I don't know what you are talking about here either. Wilson was President at the end of WW1, so that would leave WW2 and Franklin Roosevelt, but surely you would have done some research here and learned that FDR did not "pull" us out of WW2, we ended that war by defeating both Japan and Germany, one of which we bombed into the stone age. Can you figure out which one? And just who was it that ordered those bombs dropped?
> I think that it would be a good idea for you to go back to history class, and maybe pay attention this time. Or are you going to say that you were making a joke here too.
> 
> huntin1
Click to expand...

My fault, wrote pulled us out instead of pulled us thru as Ron said. I actually did quite a bit of reading about Truman last year, but I suppose that I'm a moron for one grammatical error.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> My fault, wrote pulled us out instead of pulled us thru as Ron said. I actually did quite a bit of reading about Truman last year, but I suppose that I'm a moron for one grammatical error.


Not at all, at least not for one grammatical error. Some of your ideas lately are kind of moronic though. 

huntin1


----------



## mr.trooper

"and they have always been the first to recognize and take action upon a humanitarian issue."

--Realy...is that why they recently mowed down a crowd of unarmed protesters in the Ivory coast? is should sent you that video some time.

"Why do you think I stay here?"

--Good question

"And so thus it is assumed that I am just like you?"

--No, it assumed that your just like eveory other teenager on the planet

"and at best no government at all, a belief also supported by you Ron and Plainsman."

--Thats called Anarchy, and its NOT supported by anyone on this forum.

"Incorrect, he belittled those who followed laws which were unjust and wrong."

--The problem is that he, like the majority of his trancendental optamist breterin, had no moral compass whatsoever, so he is incapable of making accurate judgements on what was just. Was it "just" for im to be a lazy bum with no job who just mooched off his friends for his whole life? it was according to his own warped thinking. someone like that cant make accurate judgement on fairness.

"I far prefer arguing with an eloquent idiot"

--Verry open minded and understanding of the Democrat...who likes to accuse us of being intollerant.

""truth" is when I finally see the republican light. I will not see the republican light."

--Again, stubron and stone hearted. you dont believe in absolute truth anyway, so according to you there is no ligt.

"but I suppose that I'm a moron for one grammatical error."

--you call all of us morons for many, many things, misspelling included. so why arnt you?

Plainsman

"It becomes more difficult each day to take you seriously"

--I never did. the first post i read on this sight, before i even joined, was all i needed.

What do you say Tigre, shall we continue?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> --Realy...is that why they recently mowed down a crowd of unarmed protesters in the Ivory coast? is should sent you that video some time.


Please do, you know we Americans have been known to do such things before as well. No one is perfect.



> "And so thus it is assumed that I am just like you?"
> 
> --No, it assumed that your just like eveory other teenager on the planet


You have assumed incorrectly.



> "and at best no government at all, a belief also supported by you Ron and Plainsman."
> 
> --Thats called Anarchy, and its NOT supported by anyone on this forum.


Actually the smallest government possible is supported by many conservatives on this board, as has been stated. Anarchy is lawlessness. Thoreau's perfect world relied upon moral law to take the place of government enforced law, and is thus not the same.



> --The problem is that he, like the majority of his trancendental optamist breterin, had no moral compass whatsoever, so he is incapable of making accurate judgements on what was just. Was it "just" for im to be a lazy bum with no job who just mooched off his friends for his whole life? it was according to his own warped thinking. someone like that cant make accurate judgement on fairness


This is proof as to just how little you know about what you speak. Thoreau was a man motivated by morality. Try reading "Civil Disobedience", you might learn a little.



> --Verry open minded and understanding of the Democrat...who likes to accuse us of being intollerant.


I tolerate each and every one of you, else I would not be here.



> --Again, stubron and stone hearted. you dont believe in absolute truth anyway, so according to you there is no ligt.


I disagree with the way that the conservatives are running their buisness these days, and there is no way that I would agree with them. In the future if the they become more moderate, thinking, and reasonable I could see changing my feelings about the party, but at this rate the republicans becoming more moderate is unlikely for quit a while.



> --you call all of us morons for many, many things, misspelling included. so why arnt you?


Because I make an effort to make my posts legible. When someone stares at a fact, and tosses thought to the wind, or when they make no effort to make a post which at least makes some sense, I have no qualms with calling them a bad name.



> --I never did. the first post i read on this sight, before i even joined, was all i needed.


And you call me stubborn? Sheesh, the intolerant right rides again.


----------



## zogman

Holy Moly Weedhopper, all this about a couple of jokes about the french. Get on a train to Nodak we can go call coyotes this Saturday at -25 with a light breeze making the wind chill -40. I garentte it will cool your jets :lol: 
I'll bring the hot chocalate. Your bp must be in the danger zone :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So Weedy did you take these posts into your teach today and have him help you right your response! Not bad!

I have one question for you to think about. Where do you think the moral law the Thoreau dreams about finds its way into his thinking?

Now once again the reason people came to North America from Britain. The reason they came to paraphrase you was to start a new country. I would like you to show some writings of the 1600's and 1700's that indicate a new country!

See at the time it was a British colony,ruled and taxed by Britain and was considered part of the British Empire. They where expanding Britain not making a new country. History did not just start in 1774! So are you working on your Easter assignment!


----------



## mr.trooper

"When someone stares at a fact, and tosses thought to the wind, or when they make no effort to make a post which at least makes some sense, I have no qualms with calling them a bad name. "

--THERE! THERE IT IS! Finaly! a lisence to rib you even harder!

i should stop. im going over-board again. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> So Weedy did you take these posts into your teach today and have him help you right your response! Not bad!


Wow Ron your attempts at tearing at me are getting weaker and weaker. I am actually disappointed.



> Now once again the reason people came to North America from Britain. The reason they came to paraphrase you was to start a new country. I would like you to show some writings of the 1600's and 1700's that indicate a new country!


It was to start a new country which would allow for religous freedom. NOT Christian freedom (alone), NOT a country ran by the Christians, but a haven for any people oppressed based on their religon.



> Now once again the reason people came to North America from Britain. The reason they came to paraphrase you was to start a new country. I would like you to show some writings of the 1600's and 1700's that indicate a new country!
> 
> See at the time it was a British colony,ruled and taxed by Britain and was considered part of the British Empire. They where expanding Britain not making a new country. History did not just start in 1774! So are you working on your Easter assignment!


If you are going to paraphrase me at least get the information right to begin with.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

It was to start a new country which would allow for religious freedom. NOT Christian freedom (alone), NOT a country ran by the Christians, but a haven for any people oppressed based on their religion.

Read the part I underlined! Weedy this was a British Colony. Not a new country! See what I am getting at! This country was founded for a lot of reasons one of which was the freedom to choose what religion they wanted to follow. IE Protestant or Catholic[ Church of England style] we did not have a single Muslin or Buddhiest that where part of the framers of the Constitution.

See they did not want a State sponsored Church to be setting the rules and policy for the nation. You are trying to apply modern day interpretations to the words, of those of years past. You need to read the history of Britain at this time, also the books on the Spanish Inquisition,the Crusades and see what a single religion that is endorsed IE Catholic or Lutheran brought about. However Christianity is a separate issue within this.

I took a Theology class in college. It would clear a lot of the misconceptions that you have on this time in our country's history. Few nations today do not have a favored religion that affects its makeup and the US is no different. Moral guidance was the basis for using the Ten Commandments as a starting point.

Many Middle Eastern country's have many of the punishments and rules taken from the Koran. India and others also. Yet here in the US it is not a crime to be Muslin or follow the teachings of Buddha or any other teaching. Yet this country remains 75% Christan after 200 years and it is part of our fiber as a society just as the framers thought it would be!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Read the part I underlined! Weedy this was a British Colony. Not a new country! See what I am getting at! This country was founded for a lot of reasons one of which was the freedom to choose what religion they wanted to follow. IE Protestant or Catholic[ Church of England style] we did not have a single Muslin or Buddhiest that where part of the framers of the Constitution.


How hard headed could you possibly be? It was created as a place for freedom of ALL religon. It does not matter whether the creators were muslim or christian or taoists, it was created to house ALL of them.



> See they did not want a State sponsored Church to be setting the rules and policy for the nation. You are trying to apply modern day interpretations to the words, of those of years past. You need to read the history of Britain at this time, also the books on the Spanish Inquisition,the Crusades and see what a single religion that is endorsed IE Catholic or Lutheran brought about. However Christianity is a separate issue within this.


They did not want to see anyone obey any rules of religon that they did not believe in. You are trying to mold clear words to fit your own argument.



> I took a Theology class in college. It would clear a lot of the misconceptions that you have on this time in our country's history. Few nations today do not have a favored religion that affects its makeup and the US is no different. Moral guidance was the basis for using the Ten Commandments as a starting point.


Favored? How can you possibly say that one religon is favored in a land of freedom of religon? Why should we be able to oppress people who follow the religous minority simply because their beliefs differ? Are you attempting to regress America because it sure sounds like it.



> Many Middle Eastern country's have many of the punishments and rules taken from the Koran. India and others also. Yet here in the US it is not a crime to be Muslin or follow the teachings of Buddha or any other teaching. Yet this country remains 75% Christan after 200 years and it is part of our fiber as a society just as the framers thought it would be!


You are comparing us to countries who chop peoples hands off for petty crimes such as stealing. Why are you content with America just being better than the countries which we are currently fighting? How is the fact that we do not jail people based on their thoughts make it better that we are telling people what they can and cannot do in their personal lives, though it affects no one else, based on a something that they may not even believe in?


----------



## Plainsman

They did not want to see anyone obey any rules of religon that they did not believe in.

That has got to be the most illogical statement you have made to date. Some people have no religion at all, so it's anything goes. They are the captains of their own souls, but they navigate with no compass. They most certainly wanted people to follow the laws that were based on the Ten Commandments. Those that didn't follow the more serious laws stood on a gallows and got their neck stretched, believers or not.


----------



## buckseye

"I think we should take Iraq and Iran and combine them into one country and call it Irate. All the ****** off people live in one place and get it over with." 
---Denis Leary


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Quote: 
See they did not want a State sponsored Church to be setting the rules and policy for the nation. You are trying to apply modern day interpretations to the words, of those of years past. You need to read the history of Britain at this time, also the books on the Spanish Inquisition,the Crusades and see what a single religion that is endorsed IE Catholic or Lutheran brought about. However Christianity is a separate issue within this.

MT wrote!
They did not want to see anyone obey any rules of religon that they did not believe in. You are trying to mold clear words to fit your own argument. Do yo know what the Federalist Papers are! Have you read any of Jeffersons writings, or Franklins for that matter. If you do which I doubt you wil as it may burst your bubble. The intent and reason was to avoid a State Run Church from affecting policy and leadership in this country!

It was not about any other idea! You talk of being dense, I have a 13 year old daughter who could find this info today at her School libriary you with all your worldy reading and knowledge should be able to do so! I am moulding nothing simply putting forth the information that you should have been exposed to already.

For some reason MT I bet if you where driving nails into a board and hit your fingers with the hammer it would be the hammers fault! You will not seek the truth, you insteadkeep trying to bail water out of a ship full of holes.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> That has got to be the most illogical statement you have made to date. Some people have no religion at all, so it's anything goes. They are the captains of their own souls, but they navigate with no compass. They most certainly wanted people to follow the laws that were based on the Ten Commandments. Those that didn't follow the more serious laws stood on a gallows and got their neck stretched, believers or not.


You honestly believe that all laws are based on religon? That would be the most ignorant statment. There are social laws based on how action effect others and themselves, which have no basis of religon. Morality is possible without religon.



> For some reason MT I bet if you where driving nails into a board and hit your fingers with the hammer it would be the hammers fault! You will not seek the truth, you insteadkeep trying to bail water out of a ship full of holes.


In what way does this relate to anything? It sounds like you just want to make a rip because you realize that you cannot force someone to believe in something, and have decided to go back to the conservative roots.


----------



## Plainsman

I must admit that I have made a goof up on this thread. I was giving Thoreau credit where credit was not due. I was trying so hard not to completely knock one of MT heroes that I gave Thoreau credit for "A Sand Count Almanac: which was actually written by Aldo Leupold. Sorry for the mistake. Thoreau was not known for much more than irresponsibility and even more irresponsible statements.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

My heros? You assume so much plainsman, and yet comprehend so little.


----------



## mr.trooper

Said the silly 16 year old to the sage. lets all drop this topic. its fruitless as per usual.


----------



## Plainsman

I agree Trooper, this is arguing and not debate.


----------



## jamartinmg2

zogman said:


> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
> --- General George S. Patton
> 
> "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
> --Norman Schwartzkopf
> 
> "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain
> 
> "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
> ---- Marge Simpson
> 
> "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
> --- Regis Philbin
> 
> Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.
> Anonymous
> 
> "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
> ---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
> 
> "You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
> --Conan O'Brien
> 
> "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
> ---Jay Leno
> 
> "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
> --David Letterman
> 
> :beer:


Zog..... You forgot one.

"We surrender! We surrender!"
--Unknown French General quoted as the first German soldiers crossed over the French border in WWII.


----------

