a question for the atheists

[TheJPRD]

You should not be surprised that liberals ignore your questions on the Constitution. As we well know, they do not believe in the Constitution. They think it means whatever they want it to mean. Hence our current situation in which, the rule of law is now rule by the ruling elite. And anyone who demands it be abided by, as it was intended by the Founders, is considered a fool, racist, sexist, homophobe, and a crazy extremist.....my how America has changed thanks to the progressives and the statists, who have turned it into a Kleptocratic police state....

Liberals have been well indoctrinated by poor schools and corrupt, leftwing-media advocates. They can come to hate it if they're ever able to discover that it really means what it says, and what we Conservatives have told them it means! Unfortunately, very few of them are intellectually capable of understanding anything that's not brief and simple-minded; you know, intricate concepts like "change" and "fair shares" being spouted by such mental giants as Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama. Anything more complex than that, and they tilt!

I'm most disappointed by the inability (or perhaps it's unwillingness) of leftists to actually debate issues. In a classical debate, one side starts with a premise, and the other side argues the opposing point of view. Such debate is often helpful in coming to intelligent conclusions. Unfortunately, liberals usually begin with baiting tactics, personal ridicule, issue-avoidance, and sometimes with outright lies. One need only look at the recent Presidential debates to see those tactics. They weren't even debates. I attempted to being such debates here several times with no success in a taker. Not surprising! I've tried in the past to keep posts civil, but the left soon begins the usual tactics once they recognize that they're out of their league. shame.

 

[Openmind]

Duh, I'm a funny guy! Anytime you'd like to challenge my statistical skills, please feel free to do so. To this point, I've seen nothing here that would convince an intelligent person that I'm statistically unskilled. It's not 100% impossible for a person to be wrong 100% of the time, so it's not 100% "ridiculous" ; note the new personal attack on the messenger by saying that he's ridiculous??? I believe I used the expression "virtually 100% of the time", meaning that it's not an absolute.

You may be thinking of the oft-stated "rule of thumb" that "Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut"? I'll stay alert to the possibility that you or one of your liberal cohorts may eventually find a nut. Didn't happen this time though!

Dear, stating that a comment is ridiculous is in NO WAY a personal attack in any forum! Now IF I had said YOU were ridiculous, it would have been a mild insult. . .

But, as I said before, I am bored with your comments, so unless you find a more interesting subject to debate than how "brilliant" you are at being the only one "understanding" George Washington's true intent in spite of his own words. . .I don't think we have much to say to each other. TATA!

 

[Gipper]

Liberals have been well indoctrinated by poor schools and corrupt, leftwing-media advocates. They can come to hate it if they're ever able to discover that it really means what it says, and what we Conservatives have told them it means! Unfortunately, very few of them are intellectually capable of understanding anything that's not brief and simple-minded; you know, intricate concepts like "change" and "fair shares" being spouted by such mental giants as Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama. Anything more complex than that, and they tilt!

I'm most disappointed by the inability (or perhaps it's unwillingness) of leftists to actually debate issues. In a classical debate, one side starts with a premise, and the other side argues the opposing point of view. Such debate is often helpful in coming to intelligent conclusions. Unfortunately, liberals usually begin with baiting tactics, personal ridicule, issue-avoidance, and sometimes with outright lies. One need only look at the recent Presidential debates to see those tactics. They weren't even debates. I attempted to being such debates here several times with no success in a taker. Not surprising! I've tried in the past to keep posts civil, but the left soon begins the usual tactics once they recognize that they're out of their league. shame.

I think you may be expecting too much from leftists. IMO conservatives and leftists have a very difficult time communicating or debating. This is because they reason with their emotions and we by thinking. It is as if we are from two different planets and never the twain shall meet.

 

[Lagboltz]

You should not be surprised that liberals ignore your questions on the Constitution. As we well know, they do not believe in the Constitution. They think it means whatever they want it to mean. Hence our current situation in which, the rule of law is now rule by the ruling elite. And anyone who demands it be abided by, as it was intended by the Founders, is considered a fool, racist, sexist, homophobe, and a crazy extremist.....my how America has changed thanks to the progressives and the statists, who have turned it into a Kleptocratic police state....

My how you have a gift for hyperbole.

 

[Lagboltz]

Liberals have been well indoctrinated by poor schools and corrupt, leftwing-media advocates. They can come to hate it if they're ever able to discover that it really means what it says, and what we Conservatives have told them it means! Unfortunately, very few of them are intellectually capable of understanding anything that's not brief and simple-minded; you know, intricate concepts like "change" and "fair shares" being spouted by such mental giants as Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama. Anything more complex than that, and they tilt!

I'm most disappointed by the inability (or perhaps it's unwillingness) of leftists to actually debate issues. In a classical debate, one side starts with a premise, and the other side argues the opposing point of view. Such debate is often helpful in coming to intelligent conclusions. Unfortunately, liberals usually begin with baiting tactics, personal ridicule, issue-avoidance, and sometimes with outright lies. One need only look at the recent Presidential debates to see those tactics. They weren't even debates. I attempted to being such debates here several times with no success in a taker. Not surprising! I've tried in the past to keep posts civil, but the left soon begins the usual tactics once they recognize that they're out of their league. shame.

My how you are so obsessed with what Washington said. It seems you really really want it debated. OK. In post 175 you provided two quotes.

The first says that George thinks national morality cannot prevail without religious principle. That is a statement of personal belief in his farewell address. That's fine for you George W., but I'm not religious, and am satisfied with the way we do secular law, except for the sluggards in Congress.

The second quote basically says Constitutional changes should be done by Amendment. Sure. Let's amend it.

Other than that I really don't know what you want debated.

 

[TheJPRD]

My how you are so obsessed with what Washington said. It seems you really really want it debated. OK.

My, how you are so unconcerned with what Washington and our other founders believed and said. You and most other liberals prefer to have things the way you feel they should be, rather than what our founders intended things to be. That said, please proceed to debate.

In post 175 you provided two quotes. The first says that George thinks national morality cannot prevail without religious principle. That is a statement of personal belief in his farewell address. That's fine for you George W., but I'm not religious, and am satisfied with the way we do secular law, except for the sluggards in Congress.

He was speaking of "morality" and "ethics" as understood by the founders. To a large extent, it was religion that set those founding principles. Your reply, however, is typical of the American leftwing; i.e., that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, and screw the principles upon which our nation was founded if they don't fit with your concepts of "right" and "wrong". You should thank nature's God that we Conservatives don't agree with you about that! I'll put the brains of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, and our other founders up against any politician (or physicist) today. Unfortunately, leftist politicians keep convincing themselves that they know best. "Morality" and "Ethics" are hard to come by in today's politicians, especially in those now running the Senate and the Executive branch.

The second quote basically says Constitutional changes should be done by Amendment. Sure. Let's amend it.

I fully agree! However, that's not what progressive Democrats do when they don't like the laws. They appoint liberal Justices who interpret the founders' Constitutional intent in whatever manner necessary to make the law what they want it to be. That tactic is tyranny, and is NOT what the founders intended. Rather than having the Legislators pass controversial laws and suffering the potential wrath of their constituents, they surreptitiously do it through corrupt courts.

Other than that I really don't know what you want debated.

I was trying to debate "original intent of the Constitution" and the requisite for strong national principles of "right" and "wrong". You and other liberals here have yet to debate anything! Why don't you address the questions inherent in the posts I made?

1. When all of the primary sources support our conservative positions on Constitutional interpretation, what argument justifies ANY opposing interpretations?? Please don't pull that old "times-are-different-now" argument. If times are different, then Amend the Constitution as required by law!!!

2. When our founders unanimously declared that our nation's prosperity, security, and longevity depended upon a solid foundation of Judeo-Christian morality and work-ethics, how do you justify any opposing views??

The ball is in your court now. Don't drop it!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your founders weren't perfect

Therefore what they did wasn't perfect

So it could easily be wrong

Like you frequently are

The way you interpret the right to bear arms is wrong and or stupid as it results in more deaths of US citizens than all wars combined.

Oh and there is no god so all that judeo-christian stuff is just the hijacking of morality by mythologists like you

I have to say that I would expect better from someone who takes such a pompous and egotistical stance as you do

(I wouldn't really)

Now, talk to me about the statistical likelihood of being able to walk on water

In fact, give us a demo

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Jprd I love the way you assert my wrongness and follow it up with proof like 'rights don't come from governments they come from god'

As i said, you base everything on a ludicrous mythology and go around telling everyone else they are wrong for not buying it

It is risible

And what is all this 'take me to the woodshed' shit?

Is that where you take guys to give em some 'religious education'?

 

[Gipper]

My how you have a gift for hyperbole.

This is how it looks from my perspective.

• Anyone who thinks a huge, uncontrolled, statist central government is good, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks trillions of dollars of deficit spending is not a BIG problem, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks murdering babies in the womb is a woman's right, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks the Constitution is a "living document," can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks the ever expanding welfare state is perfectly good, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks liberalism is good, even after decades of failures, can't be too smart.
• And....anyone who thinks socialism is an effective form of governance, can't be too smart.

And please I do not mean to insult anyone, its just one man's opinion backed by reality and truth.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Lots of opinions

Pretty much all wrong

The lives of the majority have improved the more a country moves away from the right

And before you bang on about china and Russia they never shared the wealth evenly and they were totally corrupt

But in general, as countries move to the left the majority get better education, better healthcare, better nourishment, better protection from the evil rich etc

So pretty much everything you say above is crap

Luckily it is being evolved out of the species as old right wingers approach death

And they have to do so with a black president introducing healthcare for all

Happy extinction dinosaur

 

[TheJPRD]

Edited for content

 

[Lagboltz]

My, how you are so unconcerned with what Washington and our other founders believed and said. You and most other liberals prefer to have things the way you feel they should be, rather than what our founders intended things to be. That said, please proceed to debate.
......
I was trying to debate "original intent of the Constitution" and the requisite for strong national principles of "right" and "wrong". You and other liberals here have yet to debate anything! Why don't you address the questions inherent in the posts I made?

1. When all of the primary sources support our conservative positions on Constitutional interpretation, what argument justifies ANY opposing interpretations?? Please don't pull that old "times-are-different-now" argument. If times are different, then Amend the Constitution as required by law!!!

2. When our founders unanimously declared that our nation's prosperity, security, and longevity depended upon a solid foundation of Judeo-Christian morality and work-ethics, how do you justify any opposing views??

The ball is in your court now. Don't drop it!

Yes, I am much less concerned with G.W. than you are.
I started interest in Taoism, and Buddhism decades ago, and have been very active in Tai Chi. The Tao Te Ching, was written in the 6th century BC in 81 paragraphs with 5000 Chinese characters.

These ancient excerpts are to show that a concept of God or Christianity is not needed to discover virtue.

Chapter 8. http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu08.html
5 In meditation, go deep in the heart.
6 In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
7 In speech, be true.
8 In ruling, be just.
9 In business, be competent.
10 In action, watch the timing.
11 No fight: No blame.

This excerpt from Chapter 31 summarizes my view on assault rifles and why I want to see the 2nd amendment modified.
http://www.egreenway.com/taoism/ttclz31.htm

Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.
Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.
Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.
So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

The precepts of the Tao Te Ching are very succinct and have no room for people like Jerry Falwell who thinks AIDS is God's punishment and no room for Paul Broun on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who said evolution embryology and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pit of hell".

I much prefer the ideals of Taoism over Christianity. I would be happier if our founders were Taoists.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, I am much less concerned with G.W. than you are.
I started interest in Taoism, and Buddhism decades ago, and have been very active in Tai Chi. The Tao Te Ching, was written in the 6th century BC in 81 paragraphs with 5000 Chinese characters.

These ancient excerpts are to show that a concept of God or Christianity is not needed to discover virtue.

Chapter 8. http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu08.html
5 In meditation, go deep in the heart.
6 In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
7 In speech, be true.
8 In ruling, be just.
9 In business, be competent.
10 In action, watch the timing.
11 No fight: No blame.

This excerpt from Chapter 31 summarizes my view on assault rifles and why I want to see the 2nd amendment modified.
http://www.egreenway.com/taoism/ttclz31.htm

Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.
Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.
Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.
So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

The precepts of the Tao Te Ching are very succinct and have no room for people like Jerry Falwell who thinks AIDS is God's punishment and no room for Paul Broun on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who said evolution embryology and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pit of hell".

I much prefer the ideals of Taoism over Christianity. I would be happier if our founders were Taoists.

I must say that I have no knowledge of Taoism, but from the above summary, I do like it. I have a little knowledge of Buddhism, and I like it a lot also. These seem closer to spiritual beliefs than man made dogmas. It certainly contradicts the false belief that so many hold dear that there is no moral except in Christianity!

I have always believed that one could be a believer or a non-believer, but that if one follows his/her conscience, he/she will embrace true morality, whether or not it fits exactly with religious dogmas.

 

[Openmind]

You should not be surprised that liberals ignore your questions on the Constitution. As we well know, they do not believe in the Constitution. They think it means whatever they want it to mean. Hence our current situation in which, the rule of law is now rule by the ruling elite. And anyone who demands it be abided by, as it was intended by the Founders, is considered a fool, racist, sexist, homophobe, and a crazy extremist.....my how America has changed thanks to the progressives and the statists, who have turned it into a Kleptocratic police state....

You are so full of delusions!
Oh well. . .since you are happy with your mind in Lala land, it really is a moot point for me!

 

[Openmind]

This is how it looks from my perspective.

• Anyone who thinks a huge, uncontrolled, statist central government is good, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks trillions of dollars of deficit spending is not a BIG problem, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks murdering babies in the womb is a woman's right, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks the Constitution is a "living document," can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks the ever expanding welfare state is perfectly good, can't be too smart.
• Anyone who thinks liberalism is good, even after decades of failures, can't be too smart.
• And....anyone who thinks socialism is an effective form of governance, can't be too smart.

And please I do not mean to insult anyone, its just one man's opinion backed by reality and truth.

And I would say that anyone who takes this list of ridiculous "criteria" seriously. . .can't be too smart!
But, you have the right to your opinion as I have mine!