Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-11-17, 08:06 PM
Possessed Possessed is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 10-22-16
Posts: 1,980
Possessed is on a distinguished road
Questions Tyler...

1.Who's wrong, Palastinians or Israel?
2. Is Israel a threat?
3. Who would you like to see as President?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-11-17, 08:17 PM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 13,552
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
Here's Tyler listing Isrsel as a threat. On the Israel thread he insisted a two state solution is the only answer. Yet, he tries to say he "never said that" in calling Israel a threat and supporting Palistinians. Nope. Never said that.
I never said a 2 state solution was the only anser. You asked who was a threat to the US, on multiple levels, and who was a threat to global peace. If you think Israel isn't on that list, I'd disagree with you, but I don't understand how that's support for terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-11-17, 08:18 PM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 13,552
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
Nope. Never said North Korea was a 3rd world crap hole we didn't have to worry about... oh. Wait a minute. Yes he did.
I said N Korea was a 3rd world crap hole that S Korea would be able to handle on their own.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-11-17, 08:26 PM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 13,552
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
Questions Tyler...

1.Who's wrong, Palastinians or Israel?
Both. At no point in the discussion regarding the illegality of settlements on occupied territory did I ever say terrorism is okay.

Quote:
2. Is Israel a threat?
To what?

Quote:
3. Who would you like to see as President?
Ron Paul would have been my ideal person but that ship has sailed. What's odd is acting like supporting a past successful governor is any more ridiculous than supporting Stein, Clinton or Trump. This was a terrible election.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-11-17, 08:42 PM
Con_Alma Con_Alma is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 02-24-06
Posts: 1,704
Con_Alma is an unknown quantity at this point
I'm still hoping we see Rick Santorum occupy the executive office one day.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-11-17, 08:42 PM
Possessed Possessed is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 10-22-16
Posts: 1,980
Possessed is on a distinguished road
Tyler, you should be dizzy from spinning by now lol. Wow. In the context of the different topics, you refuse to be pinned down to ANY stated position. It's simply so you can back out and switch around when your position is proven foolish. I said NK was a threat... you mocked that and said they can't touch us if we aren't over there lol. I asked you to list the top five threats to the US... you list Israel in there... and now ask "To what" in relationship to them being a threat. Youre just like warm. Johnson, Rand Paul... both kooks who never got any traction because of the very types of positions (or lack thereof) you've taken here. I'm done. Wasted enough energy on somebody that simply plays semantics and back pedals constantly.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-11-17, 08:48 PM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 13,552
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
Tyler, you should be dizzy from spinning by now lol. Wow. In the context of the different topics, you refuse to be pinned down to ANY stated position. It's simply so you can back out and switch around when your position is proven foolish. I said NK was a threat... you mocked that and said they can't touch us if we aren't over there lol.
Not true. You said they were harassing our troops and I responded.


Quote:
I asked you to list the top five threats to the US...
No you didn't. You asked about the threats to the US AND global peace.

Quote:
you list Israel in there... and now ask "To what" in relationship to them being a threat. Youre just like warm. Johnson, Rand Paul... both kooks who never got any traction because of the very types of positions (or lack thereof) you've taken here. I'm done. Wasted enough energy on somebody that simply plays semantics and back pedals constantly.
You didn't answer my question.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-11-17, 09:31 PM
BlueJayFan BlueJayFan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 11-23-14
Posts: 3,330
BlueJayFan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Con_Alma View Post
I'm still hoping we see Rick Santorum occupy the executive office one day.
Sweet merciful jesus
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-11-17, 10:22 PM
bigkat bigkat is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 10-06-14
Posts: 1,348
bigkat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJayFan View Post
Sweet merciful jesus
is he too religious for you?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-12-17, 01:59 AM
BlueJayFan BlueJayFan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 11-23-14
Posts: 3,330
BlueJayFan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigkat View Post
is he too religious for you?
- Compared the Affordable Care Act to South African Apartheid
- Believes porn causes actual brain damage
- Likened homosexuality to beastiality
- Doesn't believe the right to privacy applies to homosexuals and that sodomy laws should be brought back
- Believes there needs to be restrictions on LEGAL immigration, as the numbers are too high
- Has gone on record saying that a portion of legal euthanizations in Europe are done involuntarily with absolutely no source to back it up (But hey, that worked for Trump I guess)
- Wants to INCREASE the legal penalty for marijuana-related crimes

On top of all this lunacy, as you stated, he's one of the most-religious people in politics and seems to have a very hard time grasping the idea of separation of church and state
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-12-17, 08:13 AM
Con_Alma Con_Alma is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 02-24-06
Posts: 1,704
Con_Alma is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJayFan View Post
- Compared the Affordable Care Act to South African Apartheid
- Believes porn causes actual brain damage
- Likened homosexuality to beastiality
- Doesn't believe the right to privacy applies to homosexuals and that sodomy laws should be brought back
- Believes there needs to be restrictions on LEGAL immigration, as the numbers are too high
- Has gone on record saying that a portion of legal euthanizations in Europe are done involuntarily with absolutely no source to back it up (But hey, that worked for Trump I guess)
- Wants to INCREASE the legal penalty for marijuana-related crimes

On top of all this lunacy, as you stated, he's one of the most-religious people in politics and seems to have a very hard time grasping the idea of separation of church and state
Yep, that Rick Santorum.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-12-17, 08:16 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 15,736
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJayFan View Post
.........

On top of all this lunacy, as you stated, he's one of the most-religious people in politics and seems to have a very hard time grasping the idea of separation of church and state
1st Amendment:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Exactly where does the Constitution declare that there must be a separation of church and state? Where does it state that any person must bury their faith and beliefs in order to be a representative of the people in government? There is a concept (as envisioned by several Founding Fathers) that the US would not govern by the tenets of a particular religion, but each of them were guided by their own sense of morals, beliefs, and walk with God. That's a rather thin line of separation.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-12-17, 09:38 AM
Possessed Possessed is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 10-22-16
Posts: 1,980
Possessed is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
I never said a 2 state solution was the only anser. You asked who was a threat to the US, on multiple levels, and who was a threat to global peace. If you think Israel isn't on that list, I'd disagree with you, but I don't understand how that's support for terrorism.
I never asked who was a threat to global peace. I asked you to name our top 5 biggest threats. You chucked Israel on that list. You absolutely expressed that Israel was occupying Palastinian land. But I thought you didn't think there was or should be "a two state solution"? Lol. Dude, at this point you're giving MC Hammer a run for his dancing money.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-12-17, 09:58 AM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 13,552
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
I never asked who was a threat to global peace. I asked you to name our top 5 biggest threats. You chucked Israel on that list.
Oh you didn't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Possessed View Post
So, regardless of threat level or threat method from hacking to sponsoring civil wars with allies ect... name the top 5 threats to the US and global peace.
What's odd is I actually pointed out in my original response to this that you're really asking 2 separate questions. So you thought it, typed it out, and I pointed it out to you, yet you still don't realize it's what you actually said.

Quote:
You absolutely expressed that Israel was occupying Palastinian land. But I thought you didn't think there was or should be "a two state solution"? Lol. Dude, at this point you're giving MC Hammer a run for his dancing money.
I said Israel is occupying land that isn't theirs. The US, the international community and Israel itself has also stated that. Recognizing that doesn't mean that a 2 state solution is the only answer.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-12-17, 10:42 AM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJayFan View Post
- Compared the Affordable Care Act to South African Apartheid
Both oppressive government mandates, I guess. Hyperbole( https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/ )can be dangerous for morons to read, and also dangerous to it's user in the hands of a disingenuous opponent. Personally, I suspect that you qualify as both.

- Believes porn causes actual brain damage
I guess he is referring to endorphins and other hormonal reactions altering the brain when porn is "used" ? They can be profound in a porn addict.

- Likened homosexuality to beastiality
And I imagine that he would put hetero- fornication in the same category. The Bible views all sexual sin as equally damning. His opinion may have no relevance in law, but he's as allowed to have it as you brother is allowed to have a in his . If you want that to discount the possibility of your vote, so be it.

- Doesn't believe the right to privacy applies to homosexuals and that sodomy laws should be brought back.
That's un-American. Link, or shut up.

- Believes there needs to be restrictions on LEGAL immigration, as the numbers are too high.
This is absolutely correct. I support this fully. Provide some of his "limit" numbers, and you may have a legitimate complaint. Again, link, please.

- Has gone on record saying that a portion of legal euthanizations in Europe are done involuntarily with absolutely no source to back it up (But hey, that worked for Trump I guess)
That is your typical move, so.....

- Wants to INCREASE the legal penalty for marijuana-related crimes
That might make sense. Can you be specific, or would that undermine your argument ?

On top of all this lunacy, as you stated, he's one of the most-religious people in politics and seems to have a very hard time grasping the idea of separation of church and state
Mine^ bolded.

With regard to the separation of church and state, it's obvious to any intellectually honest person that the "Liberal" interpretation of separation has sought to remove all semblance of the religious liberties that the Founding Fathers sought to protect in the Constitution. We have strayed so far from obvious original intent that it is ridiculous. Just because a line cannot be brightly drawn, the irreligious left has trampled all over those liberties. It's shameful.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-12-17, 12:48 PM
BlueJayFan BlueJayFan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 11-23-14
Posts: 3,330
BlueJayFan is on a distinguished road
1. Comparing South African Apartheid, of which 21,000+ people died and people were segregated and discriminated against because of their skin color to a universal health care bill is ludicrous and not at all appropriate.

2. No scientific info that states it causes actual brain damage. It's like the autism/vaccine debate. There's no link between the two and anyone claiming there is a link is speculating or is flat out wrong.

3. The Bible is a book of fiction or allegorical fiction. If you're going to use that to base you homophobia, you better follow all aspects of it (ostracizing women on their periods, stoning adulterers, etc.). You don't get to cherry pick.

4.
Quote:
In 2003, then-Sen. Santorum (R-Pa.) defended anti-sodomy laws in an interview with the Associated Press because “they were there for a purpose.” He added, in a quote that became infamous, “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” Santorum then developed a “Google problem“ with the highest search results for his name linking back to a page created by gay rights activist and author Dan Savage associating his name with a sexual neologism.

“This is not about gay marriage, it is about changing what is right and wrong and fundamentally changing what people of faith can say and do in society,” said Santorum to Dean. “The ultimate objective here is to drive faith out of the public square, to drive morality out of the laws of this country, to secularize our society with a different set of values.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1030513.html

Quote:
Santorum, a lawyer, said that was not an expression of intolerance. "It is simply a reflection of the law," he said, saying Justice Byron White articulated that view in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with homosexuality.

In the AP interview, Santorum criticized homosexuality as he discussed a pending Supreme Court case over a sodomy law in Texas.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ays/index.html



5. Limiting the legal immigration numbers does nothing but encourage illegal immigration. It's a lose-lose.

6. It's a quote from him, from which there are no sources for his claim. It's just a typical religious nut trying to throw ludicrous things out there to scare/swing people on the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-12-17, 12:54 PM
fish82 fish82 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 10,603
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Santorum isn't ever going to come within 1000 miles of the white house...so it seems like a pretty pointless topic to argue about.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-12-17, 01:27 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish82 View Post
Santorum isn't ever going to come within 1000 miles of the white house...so it seems like a pretty pointless topic to argue about.
No doubt.

My particular focus is on the style of the guy that doubled down on doofus in his rebuttal.

He may as well have reminded us that ice cream is boneless, or that the corner mechanic's shop refused to quote him a price on cutting his lawn.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-12-17, 02:46 PM
CCRider CCRider is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 10-25-13
Posts: 869
CCRider is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo View Post
No doubt.

My particular focus is on the style of the guy that doubled down on doofus in his rebuttal.

He may as well have reminded us that ice cream is boneless, or that the corner mechanic's shop refused to quote him a price on cutting his lawn.
You mean the doofus you just got schooled by?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-12-17, 04:08 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 15,736
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJayFan View Post
1. Comparing South African Apartheid, of which 21,000+ people died and people were segregated and discriminated against because of their skin color to a universal health care bill is ludicrous and not at all appropriate. Unless you happen to be one of the 200 Million or so people that were forced to pay for Obamascam and had their civil rights taken from them. Putting 200M people in literal slavery for a political ideology.......

2. No scientific info that states it causes actual brain damage. It's like the autism/vaccine debate. There's no link between the two and anyone claiming there is a link is speculating or is flat out wrong. And you provide no evidence otherwise, and even you would have to admit that addiction is a recognized potential byproduct of porn....... that is not speculation, that's born out by claims by the AMA.

3. The Bible is a book of fiction or allegorical fiction. If you're going to use that to base you homophobia, you better follow all aspects of it (ostracizing women on their periods, stoning adulterers, etc.). You don't get to cherry pick. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's so. You don't even understand the lessons of the Bible and fail to account for new vs old testament and to understand the role that God had.

4. Not sure the point you were trying to make, Santorum is equally entitled to his opinion and to try to get his ideas across as anyone else. The only reason you take your position is because his is in opposition of yours. Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't make it right.

5. Limiting the legal immigration numbers does nothing but encourage illegal immigration. It's a lose-lose. No it isn't, but somehow you think people have a right to move here. They don't. It is by our giving and benevolent nature we allow people from other places to come here. If we stopped ALL immigration, it would mean that we want those from other nations to solve the problems that are causing people to want to leave and not bring their piddly-azz problems to this country. Not good and not bad, just a different angle to look at it.

6. It's a quote from him, from which there are no sources for his claim. It's just a typical religious nut trying to throw ludicrous things out there to scare/swing people on the issue.
I'm responsible for the bolded points made above.

That's his job as a politician, to represent his constituents and to try to get laws passed based on their needs and desires. He represented a lot of people for a long time, that must scare the bejeezus out of you that there are millions of people that have an opposite belief set than you do and would elect him to office.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 01-12-17, 04:10 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 15,736
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCRider View Post
You mean the doofus you just got schooled by?
You might look up both Doofus and Schooled. You have the analysis back'ards.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-12-17, 06:15 PM
CCRider CCRider is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 10-25-13
Posts: 869
CCRider is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
You might look up both Doofus and Schooled. You have the analysis back'ards.
Just looked it up...nope, still dead on with my original analysis..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-12-17, 06:48 PM
BlueJayFan BlueJayFan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 11-23-14
Posts: 3,330
BlueJayFan is on a distinguished road
So you're arguing apartheid, which was created to destroy, hurt, and segregate, is comparable to a health care bill that has helped tens of millions of people battle things ranging from the common cold to aggressive forms of cancer?

Addiction =/= actual brain damage, as Santorum has suggested.

The Bible IS a work of allegorical fiction. Snakes talk, whales eat people and they survive, giants exist, burning bushes talk, etc. Ffs, someone is nailed to a piece of wood until they die and "rises" from the dead 3 days later. It is allegorical fiction. I went to Catholic school and was taught the Bible for 13 years. I know about and understand plenty about it.

Is it un-American for Santorum to think homosexuals don't deserve the right to privacy, like cabez said, or is he simply allowed to think what he wants and we shouldn't care (despite him being high up in the political world)? If you think the latter, who DOES deserve the right to privacy according to you? Are certain people entitled to it simply because of who they love? Where is your logic? Where is Santorum's?

We are a nation of immigrants. Your ancestors immigrated here, as did mine, as did everyone in this thread's (unless you're 100% Native American). Your ancestors likely came here trying to better themselves and to give their children/grandchildren better lives than they had, whether that be financially or whatever. Your describing of "piddly azz" problems probably includes the exact reason many of our ancestors migrated here in the first place.

SWM making a fool of himself yet again.

Last edited by BlueJayFan; 01-12-17 at 06:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-12-17, 07:56 PM
Crusaders Crusaders is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-06-04
Location: Not Cincinnati
Posts: 32,184
Crusaders is on a distinguished road
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-12-17, 10:16 PM
jmog jmog is online now
All American
 
Join Date: 05-11-12
Posts: 1,924
jmog is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusaders View Post
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States
I can't understand why you wouldn't include the Danbury Baptist's letter to President Jefferson for context?

Oh wait, yes I can, because as soon as the first letter that Jefferson was replying to is used for context it becomes obvious Jefferson was only talking about how the government would not ban their religion. He was not saying that nothing remotely religious is ever allowed near the government.


Quote:
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States—and all the world—until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you—to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge

Eph'm Robbins The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson [4][5]

[Emphasis added]
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-12-17, 10:24 PM
Crusaders Crusaders is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-06-04
Location: Not Cincinnati
Posts: 32,184
Crusaders is on a distinguished road
Apparently "thus building a wall of separation between church and State" requires that context
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-12-17, 11:22 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCRider View Post
You mean the doofus you just got schooled by ?
If that is what you call post #76, you're pretty foolish. I haven't read you in here for a while, but IIRC, I'll go with foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-12-17, 11:26 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCRider View Post
Just looked it up...nope, still dead on with my original analysis..
Did you just remember your password, or have you been too busy working on cold fusion ?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-12-17, 11:43 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
I can't understand why you wouldn't include the Danbury Baptist's letter to President Jefferson for context?

Oh wait, yes I can, because as soon as the first letter that Jefferson was replying to is used for context it becomes obvious Jefferson was only talking about how the government would not ban their religion. He was not saying that nothing remotely religious is ever allowed near the government.
That is how they preach to their converted. Ignore the spirit of a thing, search for a bit of something that seems to support their point, and put it out there. Why would they keep looking for actual truth, when truth isn't what they really want ?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-12-17, 11:45 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 23,656
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusaders View Post
Apparently "thus building a wall of separation between church and State" requires that context
For such a metaphor ? Yes, it does. That should be obvious.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Attorney Lee Plaska get Massillon off the OHSAA HOOK??? IUDOGS Football 1 08-17-16 10:07 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz