Originally posted by gordontravels:
I have to disagree that this country was founded on descent. The main reason this country found itself in revolution was because King George III, the Mad King, wasn't in control of his own government and he and Queen Caroline were virtual prisoners in their own castle. His advisors and court were busy lining their pockets. In order to do better with their bottom line they were taxing the colonies to the point of poverty and making profit impossible. They were taking the most common commodities such as tea and increasing the taxes on it beyond any financial necessity. This was called Taxation Without Representation by colonists that had no voice in the expanded monarchy that controlled their purse and destiny. Thus, revolution ensued.
After this country gained it's independence from the English the Bill of Rights assured certain freedoms including those you cite in your post. Having fought for my country under an oath I took to protect those freedoms and knowing that that oath has never expired, I have no problem with anything in our Bill of Rights including freedom of speech, peaceful assembly or the proper avenue to redress grievances. I also have no prejudice toward race or religion in any way.
I also have stated here that the individual that wrote the letter that began this thread has every right to the opinion in that letter just as I have the right to disagree. Nowhere do you find me saying anything about his religion or wanting to establish laws to harm his choice or practice of any religion he may want to belong to or even establish himself if he wishes. He only speaks of his God and doesn't even mention a particular religion.
As far as your last comment; isn't this is a political forum? Isn't it? Is your last comment what you consider to be a debate tool or maybe a debate ender? If you consider that proper language for debate in this forum maybe I've come to the wrong place. I'll wait and see. If this is acceptable to those who operate this forum, I am ready to find another venue for my political opinions.
I apologize for my last comment. Your probably right. This is not the forum that.
My intial objection to your critique of the first post, was the labeling of it being, a
tirade. Thus infering a flaming type of tome. I didn't see anything there that could even be construed as flaming.
My other objection, was that you seemed to be taking what he said out of context, with your issue of how he used God in his arguement. Thinking that his point was that there are actually two Gods is incorrect. To me, he seemed to be making the point that the President is a major hypocrit who doesn't walk his talk. Which is right on the money.
Another thing I object too, is this notion that the President is beyond reproach of criticizm as a result of his actions. If we cannot take our government to task when we feel they are wrong, we are back to a monarchy or beginning a dictatorship. Its called checks and balances.
He broke the law to start this war, he's the most secretive President in history, he's about as far away from a Christian as you can get, and he's one of the most arrogant Presidents weve ever had. I believe Nelson Mandela called him an arrogant asshole after they had met. When you look at how we are now viewed by the rest of the world, I cannot believe this guy has not been impeached. But since we have piece of $hit neo's rubber-stamping everything he does, and a Congress with no balls, I'm beginning to think Americans are just too dumb to care.
He should be tried for War Crimes against Humanity.
As soon as these bullshit Christians get control of the country, there off around the world starting wars. You do not walk with God if you believe in this war. You cannot have a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, and think you live your life in a Christ-like manner. It is either one or the other. On this issue, their is no inbetween. If you think there is, then riddle me this Batman, "How would Jesus have bombed Fallujia?"
