a question for the atheists

[cashmcall]

Do you have a good source for that quote? The following is what I found at the University of Virginia. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state1.html Some blogs say that your quote was altered from Washington's original. This is an excerpt:

Among other things, the phrase, " a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite", is missing from your quote. And "which would include their own government." was added.

Also it looks like here he is considering protection from Indians. Perhaps your version of the quote was also said by Washington, but you need to find a reputable source.

well lag..I am more than a little disappointed in Goerge..thanks for bieng civil about it...refreshing

 

[Openmind]

ALL SOLDIERS ARE HEROES....AND IF YOUR SON IS A MARINE..When does a Marine stop being a Marine? When he gives up his uniform? When he sells his skills to the biggest offer (even if it is "Blackwood?" Or when he dies? ASK HIM

And. . .have you KNOWN a French Patriot? Have you seen one die to save his country from the Nazi invasionDid you see how many marines died to save France not even there own country? Have you seen any French green beret fight side by side with the US Marines to (AGAIN TO SAVE THEIR OWN COUNTRY)? Have you even EXPERIENCED the French patriotism? HAVE YOU?..YOUR THE ONE WHO GOES TO FAR..the french are wonderful, and my beloved MARINES SELL OUT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER
How can you speak with such contempt about athe UNITED STATES MARIMNE CORPWhich you obviously know nothing about..

No, dear, all soldiers are NOT heroes. . .but they can become heroes giving the right circumstances. I do not believe that most of our young men go into the military with the intention of "saving America," but rather as a means to make a living in difficult time. . .and, because most of them are really good, really proud people, they do become heroes if they are given the chance. And still, some dies, not BECAUSE they CHOOSE to die for their country, but because they are unlucky and get hit by a bullet. And some become heroes because, instead of hiding behind a rock, they put themselves at risk to save a comrade. . .but I do not believe that that many young men "decide" to give their life for their country!

My son still think of himself as a Marine, although he has been out of the corps for over 15 years. However, he also sees the Marines as a "brotherhood" of noble men (and women), that come together and grow together, more by "chance" than by real intent. He would still give his life for one of his "brothers," but he would NOT "sell" his skills to an outfit such as "Blackwater," (I'm sorry, I believe I said Blackwood earlier. . .that was my mistake!). If he had not gotten married to an Australian woman, he would have STAYED in active duty in the Marines. . .but he would NOT sell his soul to a money making killing machine. If that offends you. . .too bad. That's the way it is!

And, yes, I have known a "French patriot." He is now dead, but he did fight in the war in Algeria (no, he didn't give his life to that war. . .in fact he had a good, fruitful life after his military service and had two sons and 4 grand children).

Re: the French Green Berets (also known as Naval Commandos) you may think of them as "WWII" commandos, but they are actually still active, and they are the equivalent of US Marines Special forces. Their training and their assignments often crosses with the US Special forces, but they are mostly active in Africa. I believe you could gain some knowledge (instead of, once again, belittling another country because of your ignorance of that country) of that special force and their most recent accomplishments. They are highly trained in very difficult circumstances (as are our special forces) and take pride in fighting for their country. . .to LIBERATE other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_commandos_(France)

And, you are correct. . .I have never (personally) been an US Marine, although my son is. . .and my husband is a 12 years Navy veteran. So. . .I do not know as much as they do about either the Marine Corps or the Navy. . .but I am not quite as ignorant as you would like to believe. I have, AT THE LEAST, a better idea of what our Marine Corps accomplishments are than YOU have about the French Commandos!

You really seem to work an awful lot on "NATIONAL PRIDE," which is not bad in itself, it is good to be proud of one's country. . .as long as that pride doesn't blind you to the need for IMPROVEMENT and to OTHER countries' rightful claim to pride!

 

[Openmind]

well lag..I am more than a little disappointed in Goerge..thanks for bieng civil about it...refreshing

I don't think you should be disappointed in George! In fact I think you should be proud of him! He was a man of great intelligence and vision, not blinded by arrogance and unfounded believe in unattainable dreams.

He was an outstanding leader of people. . . with open eyes!

 

[Lagboltz]

well lag..I am more than a little disappointed in Goerge..thanks for bieng civil about it...refreshing

I avoid blogs, or liberal (and conservative) sites for reliable info. It is amazing how quickly misinformation gets propagated. Sometimes www.snopes.com will sort out something that's widespread but fishy. They are quite reliable and objective. If you haven't done so, it's worth taking a look. They didn't cover your Washington quote, but did have others.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe I understand your stand better than you give me credit for.

It appears not... You're fine with government banning products and services that you do not approve of, and would not use, but what you're threatening to ban is something I care a lot about and would very much like to preserve my freedom to keep and bear it. You don't "want" a partial or late term abortion, so letting government ban those things is no loss to you. Try thinking of something you actually love being threatened by a government ban of that product or service and then we might be able to relate on the same level.

 

[Openmind]

It appears not... You're fine with government banning products and services that you do not approve of, and would not use, but what you're threatening to ban is something I care a lot about and would very much like to preserve my freedom to keep and bear it. You don't "want" a partial or late term abortion, so letting government ban those things is no loss to you. Try thinking of something you actually love being threatened by a government ban of that product or service and then we might be able to relate on the same level.

You mean you "love" your gun too much for even trying to keep people who are a danger to the community from obtaining that gun? And when did I even MENTION banning ownership of a gun for RESPONSIBLE (verified to the full extend of possibilities) owners.

Yourself have admitted that some people should NOT be gun owners. . .and yet you would fight even stricter controls of gun licensing, although this would NOT take away your gun?

I LOVE my freedom to make decisions about my own body, and I value that for all other women too. But I do understand that excessive use of abortions do happen, and I am willing to give up that part of the "freedom of a woman to make decision about her own body" to avoid those excess.

You may not see a similarity. . .but I wonder if maybe it is because you are wearing blinders?

 

[Lagboltz]

well lag..I am more than a little disappointed in Goerge..thanks for bieng civil about it...refreshing

BTW. It wasn't George that let you down, it was your fellow conservative who altered the quote that let you down.

 

[cashmcall]

I avoid blogs, or liberal (and conservative) sites for reliable info. It is amazing how quickly misinformation gets propagated. Sometimes www.snopes.com will sort out something that's widespread but fishy. They are quite reliable and objective. If you haven't done so, it's worth taking a look. They didn't cover your Washington quote, but did have others.

I have used snopes many times..Thanks..And I was kidding about George..

 

[GenSeneca]

You mean you "love" your gun too much for even trying to keep people who are a danger to the community from obtaining that gun?

It's those deranged individuals who are the problem, not the firearm. Besides, if he can't get that specific type of gun he'll get a different one to kill people... Will you then demand that weapon be banned as well? It seems you would.

And when did I even MENTION banning ownership of a gun for RESPONSIBLE (verified to the full extend of possibilities) owners.

The only legislation being offered is a revamped 'assault' weapons ban.

Yourself have admitted that some people should NOT be gun owners. . .

That's correct, some people should not own or use a firearm. What is being proposed does nothing to target those individuals, instead it bans certain weapons from everybody - including responsible gun owners.

and yet you would fight even stricter controls of gun licensing, although this would NOT take away your gun?

Unless you're confused on the term "licensing", I don't see how that would make a difference. None of the mass shooters were licensed for Concealed Carry. Also, as I mentioned, the only "solution" being proposed is a renewed "assault" weapons ban, which is not the same thing as 'stricter controls of licensing'.

I LOVE my freedom to make decisions about my own body, and I value that for all other women too. But I do understand that excessive use of abortions do happen, and I am willing to give up that part of the "freedom of a woman to make decision about her own body" to avoid those excess.

You still miss my point entirely, you're not giving up anything by taking that position. If given the option, would you get a late term/partial birth abortion? I would very much like to continue to have the option of purchasing an "assault" weapon - and I'm putting the word in quotes because what's being proposed considers pretty much anything but a - single shot- 22 calibre - bolt action rifle- to be an "assault" weapon.

You may not see a similarity. . .but I wonder if maybe it is because you are wearing blinders?

Let's keep this civil and have none of that.

 

[TheJPRD]

well lag..I am more than a little disappointed in Goerge..thanks for bieng civil about it...refreshing

Cash, don't be disappointed in George! As I've remarked many times, America's progressive Democrats are wrong virtually 100% of the time. When it appears that one of our Conservative principles has been proven wrong, we will always discover that such "proof" presented against us is illusory and oversimplified.

There are innumerable sources that support my contentions below, but to satisfy the leftist community, I selected PBS as the source for both links. The quotes are from Washington's Farewell Speech. http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/milestones/farewell_address_read3.html

Washington's comments were all based on the accepted norms of his day. Washington believed that "morality" and Judeo-Christian principles were absolute necessities among our citizens if our Republic was to live long and prosper. In other words, it's upon such moral pillars as personal responsibility, integrity, honesty, objectivity, self-reliance, and a strong sense of honor upon which our Republic was built, and upon which it's survival depends! To support my contention, I offer the following quote: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


Whereas George may have agreed that some gun-control might be good for the nation, it would be with the prerequisite that a Constitutional Amendment would be needed first! Leftists have accomplished their gun-control measures surreptitiously through activist judges and illegal legislation; "usurpation" in Washington's words! Washington believed that Constituional Amendment was necessary to change the founders' intended Constitutional guarantees! As is most often the case, George was right in his belief! I offer the following quote: "If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The above two beliefs of Washington are 100% consistent with our Conservative position that (1) our Constitution means what it says, and our Rights guaranteed in it cannot be restricted in any manner but with Constitutional Amendment, and that (2) with a principled and moral citizenry, we'll have fewer people who'd kill others for any reason other than self-defense.

Whenever a Conservative fears that the left has caught him/her with a "gotcha", he/she just hasn't thought-through the position fully and discovered the leftist errors!

 

[cashmcall]

Cash, don't be disappointed in George! As I've remarked many times, America's progressive Democrats are wrong virtually 100% of the time. When it appears that one of our Conservative principles has been proven wrong, we will always discover that such "proof" presented against us is illusory and oversimplified.

There are innumerable sources that support my contentions below, but to satisfy the leftist community, I selected PBS as the source for both links. The quotes are from Washington's Farewell Speech. http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/milestones/farewell_address_read3.html

Washington's comments were all based on the accepted norms of his day. Washington believed that "morality" and Judeo-Christian principles were absolute necessities among our citizens if our Republic was to live long and prosper. In other words, it's upon such moral pillars as personal responsibility, integrity, honesty, objectivity, self-reliance, and a strong sense of honor upon which our Republic was built, and upon which it's survival depends! To support my contention, I offer the following quote: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


Whereas George may have agreed that some gun-control might be good for the nation, it would be with the prerequisite that a Constitutional Amendment would be needed first! Leftists have accomplished their gun-control measures surreptitiously through activist judges and illegal legislation; "usurpation" in Washington's words! Washington believed that Constituional Amendment was necessary to change the founders' intended Constitutional guarantees! As is most often the case, George was right in his belief! I offer the following quote: "If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The above two beliefs of Washington are 100% consistent with our Conservative position that (1) our Constitution means what it says, and our Rights guaranteed in it cannot be restricted in any manner but with Constitutional Amendment, and that (2) with a principled and moral citizenry, we'll have fewer people who'd kill others for any reason other than self-defense.

Whenever a Conservative fears that the left has caught him/her with a "gotcha", he/she just hasn't thought-through the position fully and discovered the leftist errors!

Very well said my friend..But he was right about my quote..

 

[Openmind]

Very well said my friend..But he was right about my quote..

Glad to see that you don't fall into the blaming game that seems prevalent with defeated conservatives!

Some people can NEVER accept they make a mistake. . .it has to be the "opponent's" mistake in some way! I am really happy about your mature attitude about this, and I respect that.

Obviously, this is an issue that is easy enough to prove, so it is a little stupid for the other poster to even try that "blaming game!"

 

[cashmcall]

Glad to see that you don't fall into the blaming game that seems prevalent with defeated conservatives!

Some people can NEVER accept they make a mistake. . .it has to be the "opponent's" mistake in some way! I am really happy about your mature attitude about this, and I respect that.

Obviously, this is an issue that is easy enough to prove, so it is a little stupid for the other poster to even try that "blaming game!"

The statement you made is kinda is wrong....jprd was correct in every thing he said..he never said lag was wrong, he just showed the other side of the coin..

 

[TheJPRD]

Glad to see that you don't fall into the blaming game that seems prevalent with defeated conservatives!

Some people can NEVER accept they make a mistake. . .it has to be the "opponent's" mistake in some way! I am really happy about your mature attitude about this, and I respect that.

Obviously, this is an issue that is easy enough to prove, so it is a little stupid for the other poster to even try that "blaming game!"

As Cash noted, I was not saying that Lagboltz was wrong in his description of the Washington quote, nor was I blaming him for pointing out the error. I stated in my post that Washington's outlook on the Constitution and his philosophy of the laws of our Republic are the exact principles embraced by today's Conservatives. Our founders disagreed from time to time on a variety of issues. Of ultimate importance, however, is their universal agreement that our Constitution is the heart of our law, that our Rights come from God alone, and that those rights may not be modified in any manner other than by the Amendment process. This is why we Conservatives despise Judicial activism, as it's nothing more than what Washington called "usurpation" in his Farewell Speech.

It is not "blaming" to discuss Washington's overall philosophy on the Constitution itself, the necessity of Amendment to change those God-given Rights, and his belief that morality and religion are the critical pillars of our Republic. My post expanded upon Washington's philosophy so that other posters were not confused about his position. I was simply noting that although our GOP nominee for President was defeated in November, our Conservative positions remain as true today as they were when our founders wrote the Constitution! I made NO mistake! If you believe otherwise, please correct me?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your rights come from god alone?

And you accuse democrats of inaccuracy?

You are medieval

You base your entire world view on crumbling mythology