History is awesome

[packerconvert]

I'd go back and re-read your post; nothing but stereotyping and innuendo.

And please do tell, how a woman who chooses to be "traditional" is on the wrong side? You guys are nuts thinking every woman has to think like a Democratic male to be on the right side of issues.

Every person, regardless of their sex, minority status, religious affiliation etc has the right to live their lives and vote they way they feel is best for them without some left winger coming along and calling them "Stepford Wives" and stating they are on the wrong side of a "cultural battle." A "battle", like the "War on Women, created by left wing nuts who despise those who do not act, talk and think like elitist, academic despots.

[TW]

I think you missed what I said. I said that some of them were Stepford Wives. Not all of them. You know it's fact, as well as I do.

Here's the real point. Even Lincoln knew that to end slavery, he needed to do it by indicating it through law, not through faith. He knew it would fail if he went with the God given right approach.

This country was founded on the principle that church and state should not mix, yet we have those who think they have a "God given right" to tell others how they must live.

I'm religious, but I'm not an elitist snob who figures it's "my way or the highway." I respect the right of others to worship as they see fit, and to not worship if they see fit. I don't intend to impose my personal beliefs on them because I believe it's a "mandate from God." I believe, that under the Constitution of the US, we all have a right to peaceful coexistence.

What bugs me is how righties can sit here and tell us how they can carry automatic rifles because it's in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but then totally ignore the fact that the forefathers were adamant about separation of Church and State.

[nick20]

Nov 23, 2012 15:13:32 GMT -5 packerconvert said:

Nov 23, 2012 12:58:19 GMT -5 happypacker said:

Congress has very few who are " qualified" ,

That is not the point. I am seeking the answer to whether or not Nick will hold true to his values and place the same litmus test upon President Obama that he has with Romney; namely, that if you do not know your geography, you are not qualified to be President.

Now if it were me being taken to task, I'd just say my candidate mis-spoke while the President is an idiot, but I'm a die hard, very conservative Republican: It's what we do.

Obama was refering to the 57 contests that make up our primary system. those include puerto,rico, the maraianas, Guam, american samoa, the virgin islands and dc. they are not states, on that he was wrong, hoewver, that mistake on his part is a far cry from saying syria borders iran. syria is on the mediterreanean coast, iran is on the persian gulf, and does not touch syria at any point. americans, in general stink at geography, i doubt many people could find afghanistan on a map without help. but being a average schmoe is one thing, you expect presidential candidates to be informed on things like that. i know more about history and geography than most americans, that is true but i expect my leaders to know as much, if not more, on those things than i do. For romney to say such a stupid and obviously incorrect thing, at a debate on what the Us role should be in the world, was unacceptable.people make mis-statements and say stupid things from time to time during campaign, stuff happens. but at a debate you are presenting yourself as a potential president, what you do and say matters and is under increased scrutiny at that point pc.

[packerconvert]

TW: You and I will have to disagree about what the intent of the Founding Fathers was when drafting the constitution as it relates to Religion and State.

Its my understanding that Jefferson and the rest wanted to avoid having the President be the head of a national religion as it was in England with the King being the head of the Anglican church. The Founding Fathers did not want a complete separation of Church and State, in fact, many spoke to the contrary with statements that this nation could not survive without God in it.

When you speak against religion in government, you speak against the very people who signed the Constitution.

Nick20: Stupendous job on walking your statement back, though clearly partisan given your arbitrary measurements of what is Presidential and what is not.

[nick20]

no there was no walking my statem,ent back, quite the contrary I admitted that obamas comment was stup[id, but for me, admitted a very strong democratic it was nbot nearly as stupid as romneys comment.as for your comments on the founders, they wanted seperation of the church, but did not mean elimination of religion from the public sphere.

[TW]

Actually they spoke of God being part of the nation, but not part of the politics of the nation. They wanted freedom of religion.

The name of God was invoked to show truth in what they stated, not in making it the controlling interest of state.

With all the diverse religions that existed in this new country, the fear that one would win out over another was a major factor in separation of church and state. They'd lived through religious persecution and wanted to insure it would never happen here.

That intent was very obvious in the decisions of the time.

[packerconvert]

Again, I disagree.

Back in the day, if your religious beliefs ran afoul with those around you, you could just pick up and go someplace else and no one gave a crap.

Now there is no where to go to pick up and go with your religious beliefs and we now have those in politics trying to root it out of the American fabric completely.

I agree the founding fathers wanted religion out of politics, so that this nation was not ruled by one particular religion, but understanding that does not give leftist goons the right to purge it out of every day society, which they have largely succeeded in doing and ostracize those who do believe in a higher power.