freethefly 6 #51 February 2, 2008 QuoteThirdly lets look at a fuller Reagan quote "Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Nowhere in the constitution is there a refernce to god. The original pledge of allegiance had no mention of god nor did it mention the United States. Furthermore it was written by the scocialist Francis Bellamy "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Thomas Jefferson was not a christian nor was he a religous man. He did, however, read the bible and believed that Jesus was a real person but, not the son of a god. "In God we Trust" was added to our money in 1955. The big push to make us a nation under god was started in response to communist leaders being mostly atheist. The "Good vs. Evil" tactic. Much of what the religous right spouts today about war and diesease being gods way of punishing us ungodly folks is nothing new. The same rhetoric was used during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Veitnam and now Iraq. Truth being, we are not "One Nation under God" but a nation forced under that umbrella. The indigenous people of this land were not christians but forced to be. It was pounded into our heads back in the 50's onwards as children reciting the pledge each day before class (1953,Democrat from Michigan Rep. Louis Rabaut introduced the bill to place god in the pledge) We see it on our money. We hear politicians spout it. To take a look at all of the references to god one would think we are as fanatical as the islamic extremist. It's not a good thing when everyone might be viewed as such soley because of the country they live in. I think, it's the same problem that many muslim have due to the radicals in their faith or country of origin. Religion devides people far more than it brings them together."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #52 February 2, 2008 Quote I thought it was shite. This one is much better. You're right. It is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #53 February 2, 2008 QuoteDo your own homework. As someone up thread wrote... "Read and learn" That's not how it works. Make a statement and back it up. If you don't do that I'm forced to assume that you're talking complete shit.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #54 February 2, 2008 QuoteIt's a non-lethal effective interrogation method that has provided untold amounts of vital information helping the war on terror. Citation please. QuoteIraq was not an innocent victim. If you remember, the unconditional surrender of Gulf War I. Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the treaty. Iraq was/is hosting terrorist training camps and were before the beginning the global war on terror. Ask any veteran that has been to Iraq. Can you remember the cited reason that we invaded Iraq? QuoteRe: Habeas corpus, do you mean non-US citizens, outside the United States? In Guantanamo? If so, they should be thankful that they are not treated as POW of years past. US citizens in the US as well.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #55 February 2, 2008 QuoteIn academia, this is possible. However, in some societies, compassion is looked upon as weakness. For which, death is easily promulgated. At which time, you decide to pontificate your text book Bravo Sierra to people that have practical knowledge of the worst man can engage in, please advise. What? NB. Using lots of words is only usefull if you can put them together coherently.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #56 February 2, 2008 Quote Quote Do your own homework. As someone up thread wrote... "Read and learn" That's not how it works. Make a statement and back it up. If you don't do that I'm forced to assume that you're talking complete shit. Didn't realize you made the rules. Apparently, it's too difficult for you to type "UN" in the search field. Out of pitty, I did it for you. Here Oh yeah...don't forget to scroll and click. Oh! And don't forget to read! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #57 February 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Just to clarify things a bit: Did you mean "supersede"?*** Opps...Excuse the error. Obviously, you're more concerned with diction instead of content. Why should International Law supersede your 2nd Amendment?*** At the UN last year, entities outside the US tried unsuccessfully to abolish private gun ownership in the United States. Citation please. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3086902#3086902When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #58 February 2, 2008 QuoteDidn't realize you made the rules. Apparently, it's too difficult for you to type "UN" in the search field. Out of pitty, I did it for you. Here Oh yeah...don't forget to scroll and click. Oh! And don't forget to read! I've read it. I see a report on a conference about illicit arms trading which the UN repeatedly clarified was not, in anyway, intended to impact the right of the citizens of any country to legally own guns. So, um, a citation in support of your original claim, please.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #59 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteDidn't realize you made the rules. Apparently, it's too difficult for you to type "UN" in the search field. Out of pitty, I did it for you. Here Oh yeah...don't forget to scroll and click. Oh! And don't forget to read! I've read it. I see a report on a conference about illicit arms trading which the UN repeatedly clarified was not, in anyway, intended to impact the right of the citizens of any country to legally own guns. So, um, a citation in support of your original claim, please. Hey, it's on an NRA site so it must be correct. Send more money to the NRA!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #60 February 3, 2008 Quote Hey, it's on an NRA site so it must be correct. Send more money to the NRA! As a professor, you certainly know how to cross reference. However, we both know you're just being impertinently bold.How about we go straight to the UN website, since you don't find the NRA site objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #61 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Hey, it's on an NRA site so it must be correct. Send more money to the NRA! As a professor, you certainly know how to cross reference. However, we both know you're just being impertinently bold.How about we go straight to the UN website, since you don't find the NRA site objective. Well shit, if you want to make my point for me! "There are some widespread misconceptions regarding the goals of the UN small arms Review Conference as well as the intentions of the United Nations and its Member States. The following points address these common myths: MYTH: The Conference is being convened to draft a global treaty to ban ownership of firearms. FACTS: The Review Conference is not about banning small arms or prohibiting people from owning legal weapons. The Review Conference will not be negotiating any treaty to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and lights weapons (SALW). The United Nations Programme of Action on small arms does not prescribe or suggest any action against the legal trade, manufacture, possession or ownership of weapons. Each sovereign State determines its own laws and regulations for the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms by its citizens. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over such matters." Do you have a link to any material that supports your allegation, or just more stuff that blows it out of the water?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuote That's not how it works. Make a statement and back it up. If you don't do that I'm forced to assume that you're talking complete shit. Didn't realize you made the rules. Apparently, it's too difficult for you to type "UN" in the search field. No, it's the way intelligent people engage in debate. You're asking Jakee to debate a point you won't even clearly state. Others here like that strategy - you can keep changing your point in your rebuttals. Personally I think you're having a fun day with a 12 pack in front of the computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #63 February 3, 2008 >The US is inherentely good. The US is no more "inherently good" than islam, or catholicism, or the democrats, or the UN. We are as good as we choose to be. History has shown that we often _do_ decide to be good, and protect the rights of the weak, help the needy, refrain from unnecessary violence etc. Sadly, history has also shown that we sometimes aren't so good, and do things like attack other countries for selfish reasons, remove rights from the powerless, abandon our own rights for a feeling of security, and place economics over justice. The lesson here is that we CAN be good if we want to. We have to want to, and we have to guard against giving in to our fear and greed. History has shown that we are able to do that - I hope we can return to that standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #64 February 3, 2008 Quote No, it's the way intelligent people engage in debate. You're asking Jakee to debate a point you won't even clearly state. Others here like that strategy - you can keep changing your point in your rebuttals. My post was in reply to Kallend, not jakee. I would not ask a person that has to go to their local police station to sign out their hunting rifle and return it when they're finished. However, in debates, it's easy to pick and choose material to support your point of view. Take your pick Also, show where I've changed my views in this discussion. Quote Personally I think you're having a fun day with a 12 pack in front of the computer. Well, you've just narrowed down about 90% of this site! It's times like these that really bring out the Hillary in Libs. "Give me liberty or give me death" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #65 February 3, 2008 See attached REF this whole thread. "It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 February 3, 2008 Quote Also, show where I've changed my views in this discussion. You've yet to identify your point, so it's impossible to tell if you changed to another point. (which btw, is not the same as changing your view) Instead you gave another google search, which again leaves it unclear what UN action you're talking about. Here's a hint- pick a date or a resolution with a name on it. Otherwise, hard to tell if you're talking about black helicopters, or a real problem like the corruption in Iraq's oil sales during the 90s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #67 February 3, 2008 Quote Also, show where I've changed my views in this discussion. Quote You've yet to identify your point, so it's impossible to tell if you changed to another point. (which btw, is not the same as changing your view) Umm, but you wrote earlier... Quote ...you can keep changing your point in your rebuttals. Make up your mind! Are you mentally challenged or just ignorant? Quote Instead you gave another google search, which again leaves it unclear what UN action you're talking about. Here's a hint- pick a date or a resolution with a name on it. I can pick one, or I can pick ten on that link alone. I don't feel the need to spoon feed you your opinion. Or do you need me to spell it out in one syllable words? I KAN DU DAT 2. O-K? I believe my point/view has been crystal clear throughout this entire thread. Quote Otherwise, hard to tell if you're talking about black helicopters, or a real problem like the corruption in Iraq's oil sales during the 90s. Perhaps you should read the entire thread and if that fails, work on reading comprehension. However, if you would like to discuss the UN's corrupt oil for food program, we can do that too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #68 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote No, it's the way intelligent people engage in debate. You're asking Jakee to debate a point you won't even clearly state. Others here like that strategy - you can keep changing your point in your rebuttals. My post was in reply to Kallend, not jakee. I would not ask a person that has to go to their local police station to sign out their hunting rifle and return it when they're finished. No, it was in reply to me. That was why it had Re: [jakee] in the subject line and had my words quoted in the body of the text! Quote However, in debates, it's easy to pick and choose material to support your point of view. Take your pick So far the only solid information (not opinion or propaganda) that I have found in the pages of links you have posted shows that the UN conference above was not in any way about stopping the citizens of any country legally owning guns. Frankly, I don't even know under what authority you think the UN could even attempt to override the 2nd amendment. Personally I think it shows a profound misunderstanding of what the UN is and what it can and can't do. Now, can you please link to a specific piece of information that backs up (not destroys, like the last one) your allegation that the UN wants to ban your guns?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #69 February 3, 2008 QuoteI can pick one, or I can pick ten on that link alone. I don't feel the need to spoon feed you your opinion. Or do you need me to spell it out in one syllable words? I KAN DU DAT 2. O-K? Pick one. I looked at the first link in the NRA search page and the first link in the UN search page and guess what, they both specifically support me and show you to be wrong (care to respond to the quote I put in a previous post?). Again, if you can't provide any information in support of your allegation (and keep providing search pages with links to articles which undermine your allegation) then I'll have to assume you were talking bollocks.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 February 3, 2008 QuoteNowhere in the constitution is there a refernce to god. No, there is not. It is, however, well known from the writings of the founders that t Quote"In God we Trust" was added to our money in 1955. The big push to make us a nation under god was started in response to communist leaders being mostly atheist. The "Good vs. Evil" tactic. Actually, no, it was in 1864. Another reference you may have forgotten can be found in the 4th verse of the national anthem (penned in 1814, in case you've forgotten). QuoteTo take a look at all of the references to god one would think we are as fanatical as the islamic extremist. No, actually nobody thought it a problem until the increased influence of the communist party. For that matter, the atheists seem to be a lot more 'extreme' about the issue from my experience.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #71 February 3, 2008 At the end of the day, all you're really doing by repeating this fraudulently-attributed rant is using the guise of patriotism to spew bigotry. How novel. Nobody's ever done that before. OK, moving along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #72 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Psst... the website isn't American. Pssst..But this thread is about American politics. WTF? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #73 February 3, 2008 Quote ... If some of the smaller, poorer members of NATO can only help in a rear-echelon capacity that's one thing. You people are the second largest country in the alliance; you need to help out more. Personally, I do agree to a certain degree. But, that opinion has nothing to do with actual thread. Could perhaps be an idea for a poll even I doubt that US aliens would participate in that. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #74 February 3, 2008 One of the main problem, as I see it, is that most people in the world do NOT want to be seen as pupets of the US of A - Clearly his Tonyness was more difficult to embaress and lwpt right in (not that he put hime self in any danger or course). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #75 February 3, 2008 >Are you mentally challenged or just ignorant? Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
