Faith better than atheism in the Oval Office

[The Count]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Meat and potatoes my friend, not Spam.

Well, you know what they say about "one man's meat..."

I'm patiently waiting for you to provide the proper context for those "out of context" quotes you say I posted yesterday. Surely a luminous historical scholar such as yourself would have this information at his fingertips; perhaps stored somewhere in the dungheap of spam you call your "writings".

[Today Now]

The Count wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you know what they say about "one man's meat..."
I'm patiently waiting for you to provide the proper context for those "out of context" quotes you say I posted yesterday. Surely a luminous historical scholar such as yourself would have this information at his fingertips; perhaps stored somewhere in the dungheap of spam you call your "writings".

Is this Jim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[The Count]

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."

this is also from GW's farewell address.

There has been no insertion of god or Christianity into the Constitution since it was written, in other words; no "explicit and authentic act of the whole people" has come to pass. The establishment clause serves as a buttress against any such revisions.

Feel free to quote anyone you want. Feel free to provide your own spin. As I said before, your posts do absolutely nothing to shed any new light or provide any new insights into the intentions of our founding fathers. The over-arching principle that you studiously ignore is that our founders intentionally omitted any reference to god or Christianity when they wrote the Constitution. Why,(if as you say, we are a nation founded upon a Christian belief system) did this happen?

[The Count]

Today Now wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this Jim?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Conspiracy theories abound on the right and the left. I don't give much credence to them no matter where they come from. One I really despise is the assertion from the young radical left that 911 was an inside job. The shrub can't tie his own shoelaces and we're supposed to think that his evil minions were able to plant explosive charges on each floor of the WTC without being discovered. All the video footage of planes crashing into the towers and the Pentagon was faked? Not a single leak from the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that would have to be involved? These are fringe beliefs and the only reason they get so much airplay is that they are under attack from rational middle.

[Learn to Read]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
The "cut and paste" you are referring to when it comes to the Founders, or to the history of the different presidents you find on this or other threads, are cut and paste from my own writings stored on my Word Documents. I hardly believe that to be spam.

When a mailbot sends out the same email over and over it is spam - it doesn't matter whether it is well written, a link to some meaningless UTube video, or text from a chicken pecking on a keyboard. When someone pastes the same thing over and over on numerous threads I consider that to be spamming or "bombing" the thread.

When someone follows up their 8 pages of "writings" with an ignorant I-rumor or ridiculously false assertion I consider that strong evidence that any of the well worded "writings" they previously and repeatedly pasted into the threads were plagiarized.

[Jim Says]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
When a mailbot sends out the same email over and over it is spam - it doesn't matter whether it is well written, a link to some meaningless UTube video, or text from a chicken pecking on a keyboard. When someone pastes the same thing over and over on numerous threads I consider that to be spamming or "bombing" the thread.
When someone follows up their 8 pages of "writings" with an ignorant I-rumor or ridiculously false assertion I consider that strong evidence that any of the well worded "writings" they previously and repeatedly pasted into the threads were plagiarized.

I will accept that I have been duped by a couple different emails sent to me by friends without doing due diligence on them. Or on occasion that they if true or not, were interesting to consider on a deeper level. However, until you actually do any research, or do anything of value I think I will take your criticism with a flat full of salt.

[Jim Says]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
When a mailbot sends out the same email over and over it is spam - it doesn't matter whether it is well written, a link to some meaningless UTube video, or text from a chicken pecking on a keyboard. When someone pastes the same thing over and over on numerous threads I consider that to be spamming or "bombing" the thread.
When someone follows up their 8 pages of "writings" with an ignorant I-rumor or ridiculously false assertion I consider that strong evidence that any of the well worded "writings" they previously and repeatedly pasted into the threads were plagiarized.

Frankly, after I have spent hours researching and writing a piece, I have a desire to offer it up to the widest audience possible. These threads are not the only place I send them, but my reason for being on here is to hope to educate and elevate the discussion. I understand that I won't reach the true ideologue like yourself whose minds are made up no matter how many facts prove you wrong, it is for those who are not completely lost.

[Learn to Read]

The Count wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with your assessment about our founding fathers-they certainly were a conflicted lot, especially when it comes to their religious utterances, but they were above all political creatures of their era. The bottom line is that they struggled mightily to build that wall that separates church and state, which has been upheld by our Supreme Court despite challenges from the opposing camp. I say that wall needs to be raised even higher.

Actually I would argue that overall the separation is about right where it should be - a bit uneven and pot-marked but overall a good wall. There are some areas where the courts have overbuilt the barrier in attempting to banish all references to God or belief from the public realm (clearly not the founders intent) and other areas where specific religious sects have been allowed to knock some fair sized holes - primarily in the area of inserting the church itself into the political spectrum (also clearly not the founders intent).

I keep waiting for the day when candidates will wear "sponsor patches" like race car drivers - I'm certain that (insert name of religious group or council here) would be first in line to sponsor candidate X. I'm also certain that other "non profit" groups would also quickly line up.(getting off-topic here with tax exemptions and political activities - but unlike many people I talk to I believe that ALL such activities should be banned or taxed - not just those by groups with whom I disagree)

[Learn to Read]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
I will accept that I have been duped by a couple different emails sent to me by friends without doing due diligence on them. Or on occasion that they if true or not, were interesting to consider on a deeper level. However, until you actually do any research, or do anything of value I think I will take your criticism with a flat full of salt.

Actually do any research like provide direct evidence proving your posts to be false?(see your ridiculous claim that Obama voted "present" 80% of the time).(or your foolish assertions that he tried to hide his birth certificate or that his parents weren't married)

As usual anyone that disagrees with you must be uneducated. What an arrogant fool you are.

[Learn to Read]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that I won't reach the true ideologue like yourself whose minds are made up no matter how many facts prove you wrong, it is for those who are not completely lost.

Jim, Jim, Jim - if you think me an ideologue whose mind is made up you really do need to learn to read. I am not an Obama or McCain supporter - I find both of them sadly lacking in many areas - and both attractive in others. Unlike you (or as I am beginning to believe - the Count) I am not so foolish as to argue that everything candidate or party X does or says is evil or a lie. If I want to hear that kind of ignorance I can just turn on my radio (thanks to XM I have the option of drivel from both extremes). I prefer honest debate and discussion and find internet rumors and spam to be the lowest common denominator - hence my abhorrence for them.

[The Count]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
Jim, Jim, Jim - if you think me an ideologue whose mind is made up you really do need to learn to read. I am not an Obama or McCain supporter - I find both of them sadly lacking in many areas - and both attractive in others. Unlike you (or as I am beginning to believe - the Count) I am not so foolish as to argue that everything candidate or party X does or says is evil or a lie. If I want to hear that kind of ignorance I can just turn on my radio (thanks to XM I have the option of drivel from both extremes). I prefer honest debate and discussion and find internet rumors and spam to be the lowest common denominator - hence my abhorrence for them.

I don't see where you get the impression that I feel "everything candidate or party X does or says is evil or a lie." It's true that I focus on the areas of disagreement, but there's not much point in debating what I agree with.

[Learn to Read]

The Count wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see where you get the impression that I feel "everything candidate or party X does or says is evil or a lie." It's true that I focus on the areas of disagreement, but there's not much point in debating what I agree with.

Understood - and that was my original impression of you. It is hard to get a true read on someone when Jim is on the other end of the line since - by default - the discussion weaves in and out of sanity.

[Learn to Read]

Note to all non-ideologues.

The other day our resident scholar pasted in a lengthy email that he had received regarding attacks on organized religion. One of the "catastrophes" cited by the author was the DeKalb v. Despain decision.

Can anyone on the thread explain why this decision was correct?

Hints: The school had previously provided organized "prayer time" denoted by the sounding of a bell to begin and end "prayer time".

In response to complaints about "Prayer time", the teacher decided to lead the students in reciting a daily "poem" which went "... thank you for the birds that sing, thank you for everything".

Many of you probably recognize this poem for what it is - one of the first prayers we were taught in Sunday school. This teacher thought that by omitting the word "God" from the "poem" it would be acceptable.(of course the question of exactly who was being thanked is another matter - and the fact that without the word "God" in the final verse it becomes a poorly constructed "poem")

The children in the class definitely recognized the "poem" and (as they had been taught by their parents or church) many folded their hands and bowed their heads as they recited it and several ended it with "Amen".

For the school (and "scholars") to pretend that this was not a prayer led by the teacher is like pretending that the Lord's Prayer would not be a prayer if you left off the words "Our Father".

I believe that the teacher should have led the students in the Pledge of Allegiance (the use of the word "God" does not make something a prayer anymore than the absence of it means it is not a prayer).

[Learn to Read]

Jim Says wrote:

I see that the level of intelligent discourse on this thread has slid to new lows. It would take Herculean effort to raise it to even a kindergarten level. Are all supporters of Obama this clueless, or just those on this thread?

What directory of your computer did you store this brilliant piece of writing in?(I'm certain I've seen that you pasted it in to at least three different threads). Glad you were able to share this insight with as many people as possible after all of your hard work.

[Reading is Fundamental]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
What directory of your computer did you store this brilliant piece of writing in?(I'm certain I've seen that you pasted it in to at least three different threads). Glad you were able to share this insight with as many people as possible after all of your hard work.

Yes, this is what Jim resorts to when he knows he is proven wrong. Then he copies and pastes it in many different places, to make sure his "followers" see it.

[The Count]

Learn to Read wrote:

Note to all non-ideologues.
The other day our resident scholar pasted in a lengthy email that he had received regarding attacks on organized religion. One of the "catastrophes" cited by the author was the DeKalb v. Despain decision.
Can anyone on the thread explain why this decision was correct?
Hints: The school had previously provided organized "prayer time" denoted by the sounding of a bell to begin and end "prayer time".
In response to complaints about "Prayer time", the teacher decided to lead the students in reciting a daily "poem" which went "... thank you for the birds that sing, thank you for everything".
Many of you probably recognize this poem for what it is - one of the first prayers we were taught in Sunday school. This teacher thought that by omitting the word "God" from the "poem" it would be acceptable.(of course the question of exactly who was being thanked is another matter - and the fact that without the word "God" in the final verse it becomes a poorly constructed "poem")
The children in the class definitely recognized the "poem" and (as they had been taught by their parents or church) many folded their hands and bowed their heads as they recited it and several ended it with "Amen".
For the school (and "scholars") to pretend that this was not a prayer led by the teacher is like pretending that the Lord's Prayer would not be a prayer if you left off the words "Our Father".
I believe that the teacher should have led the students in the Pledge of Allegiance (the use of the word "God" does not make something a prayer anymore than the absence of it means it is not a prayer).

I find the use of the term "god" in the Pledge of Allegiance far less onerous than something akin to "Christian nation", however, it must be remembered that the original version of the pledge did not contain any religious refrence at all. The phrase "under god" was inserted into the text in 1954, and was a reaction to the anti-Communist hysteria gripping the nation in the early '50s. I don't feel that the removal of all religious symbolism from the public sector is necessary, i.e. all references to god or religious figures, as these tend to be relatively benign. However, when legislators and judges start inserting references that are specific to certain religious denominations (the Ten Commandments or school prayer, for example), the line has been crossed. E Pluribus Unum!

[Reading is Fundamental]

Good Night Bush:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

[Learn to Read]

Reading is Fundamental wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, this is what Jim resorts to when he knows he is proven wrong. Then he copies and pastes it in many different places, to make sure his "followers" see it.

And so your reasning for plastering the good night bush link all over?

[Jim Says]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually do any research like provide direct evidence proving your posts to be false?(see your ridiculous claim that Obama voted "present" 80% of the time).(or your foolish assertions that he tried to hide his birth certificate or that his parents weren't married)
As usual anyone that disagrees with you must be uneducated. What an arrogant fool you are.

Out of 500 plus posts you find two that you find factual fault with. The birth certificate was simply my response to another poster saying that it would be interesting to see if it was being withheld. Someone then showed that allegedly his bc is on his website, and I didn't say one thing or another about the bc other than if it was being withheld it would be interesting to see. Sorry if that bugged you.
The other 80% I have to admit was simply laziness, I was simply repeating what John Edwards said about him. Thinking that a democrat would never lie about another.

[Learn to Read]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Out of 500 plus posts you find two that you find factual fault with. The birth certificate was simply my response to another poster saying that it would be interesting to see if it was being withheld. Someone then showed that allegedly his bc is on his website, and I didn't say one thing or another about the bc other than if it was being withheld it would be interesting to see. Sorry if that bugged you.
The other 80% I have to admit was simply laziness, I was simply repeating what John Edwards said about him. Thinking that a democrat would never lie about another.

I provided you with a couple quick examples - not the entire list of your goofy statements. I should have known your stupidity would be some one else's fault - bet that is the first time you ever claimed Edwards as a source for anything.

And - as I previously pinted out - you asserted that his birth certificate was being witheld (not that it would be interesting to find out if it was) and you made this claim in drect response to my statement that state law re: citizenship was irrelevant for determining whether or not he could run for president. You raised the issue - no one else (maybe you have miltiple personalities?) and I showed you the link to his birth certificate. Upon seeing his birth certificate you then claimed that (apparanetly because his mother's maiden name was listed in the space for mother's maiden name) it supported your other ridiculous I-rumor that his parents weren't married at the time.(but since I never do any research or fact checking I'm certainly not qualified to discuss such matters with the Scholar)

Like I said before - I don't play with the mentally ill - and since you appear to be in relapse ...