|
In response to...
Keyser Söze wrote:
Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. I was referring to the constitution. Where does it say no religion? |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 2:12 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. Harry proclaimed Israel to be a Jewish nation. The leaders of Israel, including the current prime minister, describe Israel as a Jewish state. |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 7:09 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. Wimp. -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. It does not say one nation under Jesus. One national under Allahu Akbar neither. What ever God floats your boat. Including the Prince of Atheism. Is inclusive of all deities. |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 10:06 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. It does not say one nation under Jesus. One national under Allahu Akbar neither. What ever God floats your boat. Including the Prince of Atheism. Is inclusive of all deities. Not relevant or accurate. Those who pushed for the inclusion of the phrase were christians. Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 6:33 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 10:06 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. It does not say one nation under Jesus. One national under Allahu Akbar neither. What ever God floats your boat. Including the Prince of Atheism. Is inclusive of all deities. Not relevant or accurate. Those who pushed for the inclusion of the phrase were christians. Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Thank the Jehovah Witnesses for getting the words removed. -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:09:04 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. Again, how many of the religious conservatives here have forced their view on you? That's about the dozenth time I've asked you that question, for which you seem not to have sufficient balls to provide an answer. Yet you persist with the same excuses for your bull****. It's not your politics, Krause, it's your behavior. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 8:49 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:09:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. Again, how many of the religious conservatives here have forced their view on you? That's about the dozenth time I've asked you that question, for which you seem not to have sufficient balls to provide an answer. Yet you persist with the same excuses for your bull****. It's not your politics, Krause, it's your behavior. Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. Keyser Harry Soze expects *all* to follow lockstep in his footprints. While it's great that he singlehandedly reset the tone of the newsgroup, it can't be expected that we forget all the damage he's done. -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. === Have nice day yourself. That said, when someone spends years leaving a trail of bull**** behind them, they shouldn't expect the smell to instantly disappear just because they've been wearing a diaper for a few days. That's not an insult - it's a fact. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 1:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. === Have nice day yourself. That said, when someone spends years leaving a trail of bull**** behind them, they shouldn't expect the smell to instantly disappear just because they've been wearing a diaper for a few days. That's not an insult - it's a fact. How this newsgroup "smells" in 2015 will be up to you and others who either put on a diaper (to steal your thought) and refrain from flinging personal insults at other posters or...don't. Your behavior here is up to you, no one else. I'm heading out to a range this afternoon for a few hours to try out a few firearms mods I started over the holidays and just completed. Have nice day. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 2:05 PM, wrote:
On 4 Jan 2015 19:16:09 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? It is a church masquerading as a state... Now that is funny! The only thing "funny" is watching you atheists justify spending billions of federal dollars promoting this religious state and then getting your pantries in a wad if someone wants to put up a nativity scene at no cost to the government. One more time: I am not an atheist. One more time: This country has a long history of supporting nations with official and semi-official religions. One more time: If you want to put up a nativity scene, do it on private property. Have nice day. |
In response to...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 10:06 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. It does not say one nation under Jesus. One national under Allahu Akbar neither. What ever God floats your boat. Including the Prince of Atheism. Is inclusive of all deities. Not relevant or accurate. Those who pushed for the inclusion of the phrase were christians. Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Very relevant. May have been pushed by Christians, but does not specify the God. Hell, even includes the God of bankruptcy. |
In response to...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 10:06 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. It does not say one nation under Jesus. One national under Allahu Akbar neither. What ever God floats your boat. Including the Prince of Atheism. Is inclusive of all deities. Not relevant or accurate. Those who pushed for the inclusion of the phrase were christians. Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 12:25 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. Your pleading falls on deaf ears. We have begged you for the very same consideration for years here, over a decade. Usually when you do something like this, there is an alternative reason and when that is done you will revert back to your old self... Good luck though, my bets are on about three more days tops... |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 1:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/5/15 1:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. === Have nice day yourself. That said, when someone spends years leaving a trail of bull**** behind them, they shouldn't expect the smell to instantly disappear just because they've been wearing a diaper for a few days. That's not an insult - it's a fact. How this newsgroup "smells" in 2015 will be up to you and others who either put on a diaper (to steal your thought) and refrain from flinging personal insults at other posters or...don't. Your behavior here is up to you, no one else. I'm heading out to a range this afternoon for a few hours to try out a few firearms mods I started over the holidays and just completed. Have nice day. Well, we are all talking about sextants and boats in other threads. If you are gonna' be cool from now on, cool but it sounds like the same old "do as I say harry" here.. do what you gotta' do, we will do what we gotta' do.... |
In response to...
|
In response to...
|
In response to...
On 1/5/15 3:29 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/5/2015 12:25 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. Your pleading falls on deaf ears. We have begged you for the very same consideration for years here, over a decade. Usually when you do something like this, there is an alternative reason and when that is done you will revert back to your old self... Good luck though, my bets are on about three more days tops... I'm not pleading for anything. I'm simply pointing out that the tone of this newsgroup is entirely in the hands of its posters. |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/5/15 2:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:42:43 -0500, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Harry is right, I was in the DC public school system when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. We said that every day, right before the lord's prayer. Our grammar school dumped the prayer and the pledge was dumped during junior high. I can remember doing both in grammar school. You could tell who were the Catholics and who were the Protestants because the end of the Lord's Prayer was different. |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/5/15 2:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:42:43 -0500, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Harry is right, I was in the DC public school system when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. We said that every day, right before the lord's prayer. Our grammar school dumped the prayer and the pledge was dumped during junior high. For no reason really either. We never had any problem with kids who didn't pray, or say the pledge. The stories are just there to suit an agenda.... |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 3:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:09:10 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:05 PM, wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 19:16:09 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? It is a church masquerading as a state... Now that is funny! The only thing "funny" is watching you atheists justify spending billions of federal dollars promoting this religious state and then getting your pantries in a wad if someone wants to put up a nativity scene at no cost to the government. One more time: I am not an atheist. A distinction without a difference if you carry their political agenda. One more time: This country has a long history of supporting nations with official and semi-official religions. I asked for examples, particularly in the last 50 years after the atheist/agnostic movement became a political force. The top 5 in military aid are Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt. That in one theocracy and 4 military dictatorships, 2 which are controlled by the US pentagon (maybe 3 depending on how you score Egypt) I would ditch all FIVE. When you expand that to humanitarian aid you see SE Asia and Africa represented. We gave over $4 billion to Vietnam and $3 billion to Turkey, then the numbers start falling off fast. . You asked for examples of nations we have helped *despite* their having official or semi-official state religions. Your query was not on how much the aid we give them costs. Nations where the Muslim religion is official include: Afghanistan, Algeria (Sunni), Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros (Sunni), Egypt, Iran (Shi'a), Iraq, Jordan(Sunni), Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia (Sunni), Maldives, Mauritania (Sunni), Morocco, Oman, Pakistan (Sunni), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia (Sunni), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Have we helped any of those nations? :) |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 6:41 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/5/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:42:43 -0500, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Harry is right, I was in the DC public school system when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. We said that every day, right before the lord's prayer. Our grammar school dumped the prayer and the pledge was dumped during junior high. For no reason really either. We never had any problem with kids who didn't pray, or say the pledge. The stories are just there to suit an agenda.... The reason, as later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is that school prayer violates the Constitution. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 8:13 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:39:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/5/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:42:43 -0500, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Harry is right, I was in the DC public school system when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. We said that every day, right before the lord's prayer. Our grammar school dumped the prayer and the pledge was dumped during junior high. I can remember doing both in grammar school. You could tell who were the Catholics and who were the Protestants because the end of the Lord's Prayer was different. The presbyterians were different than the one we learned in school. (I played baseball for them for a while) The sponsor of our Little League team was the Greist Manufacturing Company...they made parts for sewing machines. No prayers. |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/5/15 8:49 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:09:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 4:42 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Just stating a bit of history. The phrase in question is a perfect example of how religious conservatives force their view on those who believe differently. Again, how many of the religious conservatives here have forced their view on you? That's about the dozenth time I've asked you that question, for which you seem not to have sufficient balls to provide an answer. Yet you persist with the same excuses for your bull****. It's not your politics, Krause, it's your behavior. Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. What did you find insulting? Are you attempting to show that your behavior does *not* promote friction - which you seem to desire? |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. If you call my comment about your politics versus behavior a *personal* insult, to 'prove' some agenda of yours, then you're displaying a much, much thinner skin than you actually have. |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:21:33 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/5/15 8:13 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:39:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/5/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:42:43 -0500, Poquito Loco wrote: On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? Harry is right, I was in the DC public school system when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. We said that every day, right before the lord's prayer. Our grammar school dumped the prayer and the pledge was dumped during junior high. I can remember doing both in grammar school. You could tell who were the Catholics and who were the Protestants because the end of the Lord's Prayer was different. The presbyterians were different than the one we learned in school. (I played baseball for them for a while) The sponsor of our Little League team was the Greist Manufacturing Company...they made parts for sewing machines. No prayers. Was it because they were afraid you'd take them to court? :) |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:46:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 3:44 PM, wrote: I asked for examples, particularly in the last 50 years after the atheist/agnostic movement became a political force. You asked for examples of nations we have helped *despite* their having official or semi-official state religions. Your query was not on how much the aid we give them costs. Nations where the Muslim religion is official include: Afghanistan, Algeria (Sunni), Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros (Sunni), Egypt, Iran (Shi'a), Iraq, Jordan(Sunni), Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia (Sunni), Maldives, Mauritania (Sunni), Morocco, Oman, Pakistan (Sunni), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia (Sunni), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Have we helped any of those nations? :) Helped? maybe none of them. Threw some bribe money? yeah a few of those, I am not sure you can call what we are doing in most of them anything but military adventurism or propping up a military dictator we like. When any of them have encroached on their neighbors or oppress a religious minority, we attack them. You have to say our current Iraq adventure is to insure more religious tolerance. Some of your examples like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt, are just getting our money as a reward for not attacking Israel or overtly supporting anyone who does. We orchestrated a coup in Egypt recently, just because the democratically elected government was "too muslim" and not Israel friendly enough for us. In the case of the oil states, we are not giving them a dime. They are paying us top dollar for military hardware and training. (the classic 50 state jobs program) If you are going to try to make the false equivalency between the $50 -60 million we give places like the Maldives and Comoros, virtually all food and medicine to the $6 billion we give israel, mostly arms, I call bull**** Yeah, I've read your comments about Israel before. Our opinions differ. |
In response to...
On 1/5/15 8:45 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. If you call my comment about your politics versus behavior a *personal* insult, to 'prove' some agenda of yours, then you're displaying a much, much thinner skin than you actually have. The issue is not the thickness of my skin; it is whether you are going to post personal insults here. |
In response to...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:22:37 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 1/5/15 8:45 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. If you call my comment about your politics versus behavior a *personal* insult, to 'prove' some agenda of yours, then you're displaying a much, much thinner skin than you actually have. The issue is not the thickness of my skin; it is whether you are going to post personal insults here. Again, what did you find insulting? Are you attempting to show that your behavior does *not* promote friction - which you seem to desire? |
In response to...
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:22:37 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 8:45 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:25:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 12:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:15:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Ahh, so you are reverting back to the Herring who posts personal insults. How sad. === No one has posted more personal insults to this group than you. That's not an insult - it's a fact. It's your choice whether you want to be part of the solution here or part of the problem. I haven't tossed a *personal* insult at anyone here in weeks. Neither you, Herring, nor several others can honestly say that. Have nice day. If you call my comment about your politics versus behavior a *personal* insult, to 'prove' some agenda of yours, then you're displaying a much, much thinner skin than you actually have. The issue is not the thickness of my skin; it is whether you are going to post personal insults here. Again, what did you find insulting? Are you attempting to show that your behavior does *not* promote friction - which you seem to desire? I see no reason to discuss personally insulting posts. I'm not personally insulting anyone. You are in charge of you here. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 8:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:36:38 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:13 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:33:31 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Actually they have dropped the whole pledge. Patriotism is seem as a bad thing these days. I don't see any connection between reciting that pledge and patriotism. Had the pledge been adopted by Congress in 1842 instead of 1942, do you think its recitation would have kept the Southern states from seceding? No but I think it was part of the patriotism that defeated the nazis and the nips. It gave a lot of us an appreciation for what we have here.... |
In response to...
KC wrote:
On 1/5/2015 8:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:36:38 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:13 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:33:31 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Actually they have dropped the whole pledge. Patriotism is seem as a bad thing these days. I don't see any connection between reciting that pledge and patriotism. Had the pledge been adopted by Congress in 1842 instead of 1942, do you think its recitation would have kept the Southern states from seceding? No but I think it was part of the patriotism that defeated the nazis and the nips. It gave a lot of us an appreciation for what we have here.... There was no liberty and justice for all in 1942. There still isn't. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
In response to...
On 1/5/2015 10:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
KC wrote: On 1/5/2015 8:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:36:38 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:13 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:33:31 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Actually they have dropped the whole pledge. Patriotism is seem as a bad thing these days. I don't see any connection between reciting that pledge and patriotism. Had the pledge been adopted by Congress in 1842 instead of 1942, do you think its recitation would have kept the Southern states from seceding? No but I think it was part of the patriotism that defeated the nazis and the nips. It gave a lot of us an appreciation for what we have here.... There was no liberty and justice for all in 1942. There still isn't. But at the same time I believe there is equal injustice for all... races, creeds, genders, persuasions... |
In response to...
KC wrote:
On 1/5/2015 10:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: KC wrote: On 1/5/2015 8:09 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:36:38 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 2:13 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:33:31 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Fortunately a growing number of public schools have recognized the religious *******ization of "the pledge" and have dropped it from morning student activities. Religious expressionism has no place in the public schools. Actually they have dropped the whole pledge. Patriotism is seem as a bad thing these days. I don't see any connection between reciting that pledge and patriotism. Had the pledge been adopted by Congress in 1842 instead of 1942, do you think its recitation would have kept the Southern states from seceding? No but I think it was part of the patriotism that defeated the nazis and the nips. It gave a lot of us an appreciation for what we have here.... There was no liberty and justice for all in 1942. There still isn't. But at the same time I believe there is equal injustice for all... races, creeds, genders, persuasions... He is using a play on words. Japanese internment camps. Actually had some Germans interred also. |
In response to...
On 1/6/2015 12:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:21:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 8:38 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:46:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/5/15 3:44 PM, wrote: I asked for examples, particularly in the last 50 years after the atheist/agnostic movement became a political force. You asked for examples of nations we have helped *despite* their having official or semi-official state religions. Your query was not on how much the aid we give them costs. Nations where the Muslim religion is official include: Afghanistan, Algeria (Sunni), Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros (Sunni), Egypt, Iran (Shi'a), Iraq, Jordan(Sunni), Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia (Sunni), Maldives, Mauritania (Sunni), Morocco, Oman, Pakistan (Sunni), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia (Sunni), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Have we helped any of those nations? :) Helped? maybe none of them. Threw some bribe money? yeah a few of those, I am not sure you can call what we are doing in most of them anything but military adventurism or propping up a military dictator we like. When any of them have encroached on their neighbors or oppress a religious minority, we attack them. You have to say our current Iraq adventure is to insure more religious tolerance. Some of your examples like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt, are just getting our money as a reward for not attacking Israel or overtly supporting anyone who does. We orchestrated a coup in Egypt recently, just because the democratically elected government was "too muslim" and not Israel friendly enough for us. In the case of the oil states, we are not giving them a dime. They are paying us top dollar for military hardware and training. (the classic 50 state jobs program) If you are going to try to make the false equivalency between the $50 -60 million we give places like the Maldives and Comoros, virtually all food and medicine to the $6 billion we give israel, mostly arms, I call bull**** Yeah, I've read your comments about Israel before. Our opinions differ. I understand but it is hard to deny that US tax dollars are being used to "establish" religion there. No it's not... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com