Misguided Priorities Of The Left

The Democrat party in this country is misguided and has priorities that are backwards. Two simple examples to demonstrate the foolishness of the left. Call this a “teaching moment.”

The country is being invaded by illegal aliens and the federal government has not done a thing to stop the invasion. The federal government has an obligation under Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution to protect the states from invasion. The feds are failing miserably in that duty. The most that politicians from either party can come up with is some sort of amnesty program to reward those who broke the law to get here. The federal government has been so impotent that states have had to take matters into their own hands.

The state of Arizona, a state with around a half a million illegal aliens, recently passed a law allowing local police officers to, with strict guidelines, check the immigration status of anyone they believe to be in the state (and therefore the country) illegally. The liberals have gone nuts over this and Barack Obama and his regime are working on the matter. First Obama and his mouthpieces have denounced the law, talked about how stupid it is and then told us how it could be abused by police officers. These progressive morons want us to believe that the state of Arizona should scuttle its law because it might be abused.

As an aside, maybe we can repeal income taxes because Congress could abuse its authority to take them. Come to think of it, it has. We could use this reasoning on any law and it would make as little sense about those as it does with regard to this one.

Arizona had to act because the federal government would not. The politicians in DC are too busy trying to figure out how to appease illegals and make them part of a voting block to give Democrats a perpetual majority. Illegals are taking over this country because politicians are tweaking how to get votes.

But Big Dog, what is the misguided part of all this? Well, besides the stupidity at the federal level, here is where the Democrats are misguided.

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, has all the resources at his disposal looking at the Arizona law to see if it violates the Constitution (which means they are looking for ways to say that it does) and is looking for ways to negate the law. Yes, the federal government is considering suing Arizona.

The Democrats in this regime are so misguided that they will send people to harass the state and its government while ignoring the illegals who are breaking the law. Most people would say the Arizona law is a wake up call for the feds to get their act together. Not with this group. No way. They are too busy working to undermine the state. Think of it this way. The people of this regime are so misguided that if they send people to Arizona it will not be in the form of help to get the border under control, it will be in the form of lawyers who will sue the state.

The above example involves the state of Arizona and its unique situation. But how does this issue affect the rest of us and how is the government misguided in that regard?

Under the Arizona law, immigrants are required to have their papers with them at all times (this is also federal law) and to show them when asked to do so. The feds think this is profiling and racist and that it is unfair. You know, people of color will be singled out and we don’t do this to others.

Glad you asked. The health care takeover bill that Obama and the Democrats rammed down our throats requires people to prove they have health insurance. The IRS will be the enforcement agency and we will be required to indicate on our tax returns that we do have health insurance. In other words, the IRS will be asking us for our papers. Under the health care bill, in order to be a citizen in good standing in America, in order to be here legally, we must have health insurance. Without health insurance we will not be citizens in good standing.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the IRS will be demanding to see proof that we are here legally and they can do so without the same amount of reasonable suspicion required in Arizona. And since illegals don’t usually file income taxes they will not be asked for their proof. How dare the government profile the taxpayers like that.

The amazing thing is that the feds will go out of their way to protect immigrants from being asked for their papers but will require the rest of us to show ours.

This is another misguided effort on the part of Democrats. Come to think of it, maybe we should repeal this law because it might be abused…..

I hope this “teaching moment” was helpful in demonstrating how the Democrats have their priorities all wrong and how they would rather fight American citizens than go after illegals.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

86 Responses to “Misguided Priorities Of The Left”

  1. Schatzee says:

    I hate to even go here but I could have sworn I heard Holder use the term “slippery slope” when commenting on the Arizona law. YIKES. Not the slippery slope allegation…

    I don’t see the problem here really. It’s okay for police to stop people and do field interviews asking them personal questions. Police can stop you and ask for your insurance and driver’s license to make sure that you are legal to drive on the roads. I really don’t see how this is any different. I went to a vacation spot not long ago and the majority of the young people employed in the area stores and restaurants were clearly not from here. They were not people of color – I wasn’t profiling based on their looks. They barely spoke English and that for me was a pretty good sign.

    I think this should be something that anyone should be allowed to do. We’re all citizens and responsible for our country. They want us to pitch in and volunteer and all that. Let’s volunteer to check on the status of people we encounter and make sure that they are properly documented and doing what they need to do to be in OUR country legally.

    Now that is volunteering I would happily sign up for. The next step is ensuring that those found to be in violation of our laws are deported expeditiously and the borders secured so they don’t get back in.

    • Darrel says:

      A volunteer Gestapo. Conservative dream come true.

      D.
      ————
      “…the American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag since the end of the Middle Ages…”
      –H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: A Selection, referring to conservatives of his day

      • victoria says:

        I wouldn’t move to a country where I disliked it’s people Darrel. I have a question for you, do you fly the Canadian flag at your house or the American flag? Do you consider yourself American or Canadian still? Because the “hateful” “sniveling” conservatives in this country want to see this country still in existance for everyone and our children. Even for those of you who consider us so hateful and what is it–poltroonish. “I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”–“Voltare” That is what America is about. And Voltare disliked Christians but at least he had an understanding of freedom. That is not something I would say about the left in this country right now. I would not say that about Canada right now either when you can find yourself in court for having the temerity to criticize the Muslims. But you have to shut the oposition up when honest debate won’t work.

      • Darrel says:

        VIC: “I wouldn’t move to a country where I disliked it’s people Darrel.”>>

        DAR
        I wouldn’t either. I think Americans are great btw. I also think Mencken was talking about the Tea Party, regressive, constituents of his day.

        VIC: “I have a question for you, do you fly the Canadian flag at your house or the American flag?”>>

        DAR
        I’ve never owned a flag and probably never will. I was raised in a (uniquely American) religion that did not allow patriotism. Period. As a student I actually had to remain seated during the anthem, etc. That wasn’t easy.
        I left that superstition at an early age (and took a few with me) but some of it rubbed off. Tribalism is largely a learned trait and it is quite possible to not partake. It has it’s uses but it also causes a lot of troubles in the world. I didn’t understand the extreme devotion to the flag until I saw the movie “Saving Private Ryan.”

        VIC: “Do you consider yourself American or Canadian still?”>>

        DAR
        Three years ago I became an American. From 50 feet in the air, we all look the same. Political lines are temporary human inventions and some choose to not get too invested/attached to them. Maybe, even probably, someday people will consider themselves citizens of the world first. I like what Paine said: “The world is my country, to do good, my religion.”

        VIC: “I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”–”Voltare”>>

        DAR
        A common mistake, but actually Voltaire didn’t say that. Consider:

        ***
        “The phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. …

        Link
        ***

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Does it matter as much who said it as does what was actually said?

          The sentiment is an important one.

        • Adam says:

          Sentiment is good but let’s not pretend the source is of no matter. It matters a lot. The name lends weight and credibility to the sentiment you are expressing. This is just like all the false quotes by Jefferson that make their way around or the quote often attributed to Churchill which he did not say. Accuracy in this case means something.

        • victoria says:

          Yea, Adam, just forget the part about the phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. Let’s just remain stupid about that.

          DAR
          Three years ago I became an American. From 50 feet in the air, we all look the same. Political lines are temporary human inventions and some choose to not get too invested/attached to them. Maybe, even probably, someday people will consider themselves citizens of the world first. I like what Paine said: “The world is my country, to do good, my religion.”

          Let me paraphrase: heh, I moved here and became American but I could take it or leave it. My loyalty and allegiance does not lie with this country.

          Of course that stands to reason you didn’t have any for Canada either or you probably wouldn’t have left. This is not tribalism and I think if you came down from your 50 ft. perch up there with the other elitists you would see that.

        • Darrel says:

          VIC: “Let me paraphrase: [insults and distortion]>>

          DAR
          No need to change and distort my comment and put words into my mouth. You asked a question and I answered forthrightly.

          Perhaps it might be useful if you were to mix in just a little substance with the insults?

          VIC: “This is not tribalism…”>>

          DAR
          I think you’re right. “Nationalism” would be more accurate word here. You appear to be very nationalistic. I am not. I wasn’t indoctrinated to be that way at a young age as many people, especially Americans, are. Oh well.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            We are not indoctrinated, we are brought up to respect the laws and our borders. You might not like borders or think they are archaic constructions but all countries have them and all subdivisions have them. The property where your house is has boundaries and I am sure if someone showed up and started building a house and tapping into your power and water you would have them removed. National borders are the same thing on a larger scale and the world does not care if Darrel thinks they are passe. If you don’t think so then try entering Iran, China, or North Korea illegally.

            And that it the other point, no matter what you think, the law is the law and we need to follow the law. It is interesting that you are so quick to say that government has the right to force people to buy health insurance and that it is the law and they must do it but you dismiss quaint ideas like immigration laws and respect of the borders. I guess you can pick and choose what you like to obey.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “the world does not care if Darrel thinks they [National borders] are passe.”>>

              DAR
              But Darrel didn’t say and doesn’t believe they are passe. He said they are temporary human inventions and it might be an idea to not be so attached to them and pretend as if they were like a universal law (i.e. gravity).

              Bigd: “you dismiss quaint ideas like immigration laws and respect of the borders.”>>

              DAR
              Never have. I know first hand the US immigration laws are a mess and I think the US should have control of, and enforce, it’s borders.

              Maybe if we weren’t fighting all of those glorious wars on the other side of the world we could afford to control our borders?

              D.

  2. MissPolite says:

    The Democrats and Obama are going to keep focusing on this as long as they want to.
    Where was the help for Tennessee when they were flooded?
    What about strengthening the borders?
    Or even trying to help solve the oil rig crisis?
    Where is Obama anyway?
    You would think that the POTUS would have more important things to do than speak at colleges and hint about censoring the internet.
    Obama and the Dems love victims, so they can use them for their own political gains.
    What have they ever done for people of color aside from shacking them in cracker boxes and make them fat and lazy?
    Absolutely nothing!

    • Blake says:

      What I want to know is that FDR’s BIG contribution, the TVA, was supposed to eliminate the flooding in Tennessee and the river valleys, so what happened? Did a progressive project NOT work as advertised?
      I am shocked, SHOCKED, that this is so-
      The truth is that this is what the Obi-won Owebama wants- to begin to “regulate” the content of the Internet- to silence dissenting voices, and then, also to know where and who you are- the better to tax your internet access- that is coming also- but it IS mainly about control.
      The teleprompter in chief has the thinnest skin of anyone I have ever known.
      I would LOVE to cuss him to his face- a pleasure I will doubtless be denied, but he needs it- he really, REALLY does.

  3. The Left’s priorities aren’t what you think they are, BD. Nor are they marching away from them. Our problem on the Right is that we assume that, in some misguided way, the Left wants to do good things for America, ends of which we would generally approve even if we disagree with the means. They’re uninterested in objective, verifiable problems; they’re simply after as much power as they can grab. Take the BP oil platform explosion and the resulting underwater gusher as a case in point.

    A great writer and thinker put it most directly:

    “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against — then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. there’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]

    Conservatives have allowed the Left the presumption of good intentions for far too long. If that notion hasn’t been disproved by the Obamunists, it never will be.

    • Darrel says:

      FRAN: “A great writer and thinker… [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]”>>

      DAR
      This is truly rich with irony. A snatch of fiction cited from that old atheist cult leader Rand? And to what end? To make a point against accumulating power? Accumulating power and money through slavish devotion to selfishness and greed (while eschewing the moral abomination of altrusim) is High Holy Doctrine and rule Numero Uno in the Rand Cult. No need to guess about their motivations! They state it plainly. It’s enough to make a republican blush. Almost.

      D.
      —————–
      “The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. The purpose of man’s life is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.”

      –This is the “great writer and thinker” Ayn Rand suggesting that Francis may indeed, be a zombie.

      • Ah, so therefore any writer/thinker whom you generally admire, you therefore agree with on everything? Darrel, my boy, you are truly a tool. I hope you’re better at tuning pianos than you are at discriminating, rational thought.

      • Darrel says:

        FRAN: “Ah, so therefore any writer/thinker whom you generally admire, you therefore agree with on everything?”>>

        DAR
        Nope, didn’t say that. It figures you would disagree with her point (a pretty good one actually) about you being a zombie.

        Francis always calls me names when he gets stuck. He calls me names a lot. But I don’t mind. We all do the best we can.

        D.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Adam, I will be concerned with attribution more than sentiment when you guys go after those who misquote the right as vidorously as you do the folks on the left.

    The untrue quotes attributed to Limbaugh (Bunny did that as well). The Gibbs lie about what Michael Brown said. The lie about being at war for 100 years that the left attributed to McCain.

    I understand how it is more important to you to know where a quote about dying defending you right to say something to which the offender objects is more important than actually defending the right.

    You guys have trouble defending the rights of those with whom you disagree. You are the first to point out how you think something was taken out of context when your messiah is quoted but remain silent when people like Limbaugh is smeared with outright lies.

    A true defender of rights is especially careful to defend the rights of people he disagrees with.

    And the Rand quote is spot on and can easily apply to what is happening today. The book accurately portrays how things end up when progressives run the insane asylum…

    • Adam says:

      Yes, once again we see an argument about facts or correctness turn into a debate about the right to be incorrect or nonfactual. No rights are being infringed. Your side just loves to play the victim. But we all know that facts have a well known liberal bias so I can see why you might make such a mistake.

      • Big Dog says:

        My side likes to play the victim? Yes Adam, my side is the one claiming that Hispanics will be targeted in Arizona and that the poor illegals are victims who are trying make a better life. My side touts the poor blacks as victims of the rampant racism in this country. My side invented affirmative action to help the victims who were never held as slaves at the cost to those who never owned slaves. My side made the homosexuals victims when they are anything but.

        The victim groups come from the left. It is how you sell that failed ideology.

    • Darrel says:

      ADM: “once again we see an argument about facts or correctness turn into a debate about the right to be incorrect or nonfactual.”>>

      DAR
      Exactly. Once again Bigd is reduced to defending errors and inaccuracy rather than the other way around. How ridiculous. He is reduced to attacking those who simply ask for information to be true and accurate.

      Bigd: “I will be concerned with attribution more than sentiment when you guys go after those who misquote the right as vidorously as you do the folks on the left.”>>

      DAR
      And do you have any evidence for this claim? No, of course you don’t. You just made that up. Completely. And it’s insulting and false. People peddling bogus quotes is a peeve of mine and I roast them all, right left and center. The problem is your side is absolutely up to it’s eyeballs in pseudo-history based upon this sort of crap (I can bury you in examples), so when I simply check them for accuracy I find the error rate is astonishingly high.

      This is true not only of quotes but also political rumors spread by your side.

      If you would like several, specific examples of me correcting bogus quotes, our freethinker forum has many examples.

      D.
      —————–
      A recent example, sent to a person who posted:

      1/20/10

      “I notice you have this as a quote at the bottom of your message:

      “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.” Thomas Jefferson

      DAR
      Actually, that was said by John Adams. Religious skeptics and atheists use this a lot but I highly recommend you DON’T use it because it is taken completely out of context. Here is the context:

      “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.” –John Adams

      So obviously, he was making the exact opposite point.”
      ***

      When I caught the Freedom From Religion Foundation using that quote out of context, I wrote them a letter.

      • Big Dog says:

        You gentlemen have taken this whole thing out of context. I never said we should not have proper attribution but you are using the incorrect attribution to ignore the sentiment. And just so the slow among you will know, I did not defend using a wrong attribution and have not been left defending something untrue.

        At no time did I say it was OK to have a wrong attribution. What I said is that you are ignoring what was stated and focusing on the attribution. So Darrel and Adam, quit trying to make a claim that is untrue. I did not defend something that was an error or was untrue. I said it did not matter who said it, the sentiment that was expressed was the important point.

        And yes Darrel, at no time did you defend Fox News for the lie and incorrect quote Gibbs attributed to Michael Brown. And the left used the 100 years of war misquote (Darrel refuted the claim from the left) and continued to use it. Keith Olbermann misquotes every day and NON of you defended Rush Limbaugh when he was denied a football team because people lied about quotes he supposedly made. NO ONE has ever shown a tape or transcript that has him saying those things and all sources trace back to a “did you hear what Limbaugh said” quote.

        Whether you like him or not you should defend him against misquotes if you are truly what you say you are.,

        And you would not misrepresent my position.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “And the left used the 100 years of war misquote (Darrel refuted the claim from the left) and continued to use it.”>>

        DAR
        As usual, you misremember. That wasn’t even a misquote. McCain actually what was attributed to him. Best to be careful what you actually say during campaign season.

        Here is what I REposted in just February, that last time you said this:

        Rewind:

        ***
        Bigd: “I think the 100 year lie that the left told about McCain and Iraq was supported by this group…”>>

        DAR
        That’s not what I remember. But let’s check and see.

        From my records, July 7-8, on this forum:

        ***FLASHBACK***

        Bigd: “Obama… convinced people that McCain said it would be OK to be in the war for 100 years (a blatant lie).”>>

        DAR
        I thought that was a cheap shot since I understood how McCain meant it.

        Factcheck has a overview of it here.

        They give it two Pinocchios, which seems about right (four being a whopper).

        If that one is a “blatant lie” you must have been really upset when McCain ran with, and wouldn’t back down from this smear:

        “Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”
        –McCain “Education” Ad, September 7, 2008.

        Fact checker gave that one three Pinocchios.

        ***

        DAR
        So we see, you misremember. And to be clear, the comment about McCain wasn’t a lie [or a misquote]. He actually said that. But I thought it was a cheap shot because I understood he didn’t mean it in the way they used what he actually said. This is why politicians have to carefully watch what they *actually* say.

        It’s far worse of course to attack someone for something they didn’t *actually* say. I have pointed out several of those around here.

        D.
        ————
        “Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English.” –cited by Bigd, not remotely true [NEVER retracted].

        ***End Flashback

        I am not familiar with the “Gibbs quote.”

        If Olbermann “misquotes every day” you shouldn’t have had any trouble giving at least an example.

        Limbaugh has said lots of racist stuff. Let me know if you would like a very long list of documented, verified examples.

  5. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog, please don’t talk about me and not let me comment. So tacky.

    PEACE

  6. Big Dog says:

    Bunny, you comments are moderated. When you write things insulting people’s names or throw inane insults then you will never see the light of day.

    When your comments are at least respectful of people then they will be approved.

    And tacky is coming to someone else’s property and acting like an ass.

  7. Bunny Colvin says:

    Cool. BLAKE’s comment that we should “kill ALL ‘druggie people'” and “conquer Mexico” is, hands down, the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen anyone around here write for quite some time. This is no small feat.

    VictorIA- thanks for the props. Flawed as I may be, I do admit when I’m wrong. I’m crossing your name off of my list of haters. You’re ok with me.

    PEACE

    • Blake says:

      Then perhaps you should read the El Excelsior editorial of March 1983- I forget the exact date- that called for Mexico to “flood the US” with immigrants in order to take back the Southwestern US- that is also a barrel of laughs.
      And I believe that what I said, and I have been prertty consistant on this- is that all addicts should get treatment (they have three strikes at getting clean before they serve prison time), but ALL dealers should be executed- no exceptions.
      And if you are caught bringing stuff in- well, you are a dealer.
      As far as conquering Mexico, that was tongue in cheek, although I think we would do a FAR better job than the Mexicans have been, or there would not be so many seeking a new life here, would you not agree?
      And as far as me being entertaining in any way, you are welcome.

  8. victoria says:

    Darrel,
    You say I insulted you in my last post. What was it that insulted you—that I suggested you might not have any allegiance to this country? (later you say “You appear to be very nationalistic. I am not.) There are a lot of people in this country right now from all over and I have heard some of them our President included who called us dismissive and derisive among other things. Others who are waving the flag of the country they originated from rather than this one. Would you say that the various domestic terrorists in recent times such as the Fort Hood shooter had a love for this country and an allegiance to it and the freedoms that are provided here?
    I’ll tell you what America is—it is men and women who have sacrificed and fought and died to give you and everyone else who lives here freedom. It is that pure and simple. Freedom to live where you want, to work where you want, to be what you want, to eat what you want and buy what you want and own what you want and to go to sleep in peace and safety. It is not given to you by the president or the congress or the senate or by judges or by any elected official and it is not passed down through your genetics. This country and government was established through blood sacrifice by God fearing people. A lot of people on the left are too panty wasted to face that fact but it is true. I have a daughter in Iraq and face that fact every day and will until she comes home. So you sir—you insult me–with your casual blithe condescending comments about seeming nationalistic like your so above it all and so much more intelligent than that. Those who would steal your freedom don’t give a crap about your intelligence level or lack thereof and would stop at nothing. (and are stopping at nothing in Washington)And you live here under the umbrella of freedom (actually the last vestiges of freedom) provided to you by others and find nothing of value to be patriotic about. I find that absolutely stunning. A bunch of white supremacists–that is apparently what America is to our president and also a bunch of greedy Wall Street criminals is what he has gotten people to concentrate on when it comes to this country. There were a whole lot of white folks who died in the civil war that won the slaves their freedom as there was in the civil rights era and they were the same type of people that founded this country and gave the president the opportunities that he utilized. And I’ll tell you there is nothing sniveling or poltroonish about those kind of people including Big Dog, my daughter and those who are with her or any who have served in the past or present from the Revolution, Civil War, World War I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and now this war which is not being called a war anymore. And you come here and insult everyone and you have never served nor are you even willing to serve or fight for anyone or anything really except your own point of view. So please don’t talk to me about insults.

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: What was it that insulted you—that I suggested you might not have any allegiance to this country?>>

      DAR
      Yes.

      VIC: (later you say “You appear to be very nationalistic. I am not.)>>

      DAR
      Emphasis on “very.”

      VIC: America is—it is men and women who have sacrificed and fought and died to give you and everyone else who lives here freedom.”>>

      DAR
      While that is certainly true, it is also true that most of America’s wars were not about that.

      I’ll go through them one by one if you like. Unfortunately, it would take a very long time. Many of these wars were stupid and unnecessary.

      VIC: This country and government was established through blood sacrifice by God fearing people.”>>

      DAR
      No lots of them, especially the leading founders, were freethinkers, deists, and did not “fear God.” Lot’s of people in the military today don’t believe in God (like Voltaire).

      VIC: A bunch of white supremacists–that is apparently what America is to our president>>

      DAR
      Wow.

      VIC: There were a whole lot of white folks who died in the civil war that won the slaves their freedom”>>

      DAR
      Yes, the progressives fighting the backward regressive conservatives of the day. Thank goodness we won that one too. It still goes on (progress) and we’re still winning.

      To finish, if someone were to point out that I mis-attributed a quote, I would simply have said, thanks, and made a note of it. Not a big deal until you make it a big deal.

      D.

      • victoria says:

        Yes, the progressives fighting the backward regressive conservatives of the day. Thank goodness we won that one too. It still goes on (progress) and we’re still winning.

        It was the Southern Democrats of the day that supported slavery. The same Democrat party that has tried to portray itself as “Progressive” now. The same Democrat party that still contains an ex-Ku Klux Klan member and the same Democrat party that up until after Kennedy opposed any civil rights bill put before it. And now it tries to portray itself as a lover of all diversity while exascerbating every single difference and line between Americans and the foreigners who come here to make more of a base for themselves instead of any real true concern for them. And you are a liar to try and portray otherwise.

      • Darrel says:

        VIC: “Southern Democrats of the day that supported slavery.”>>

        DAR
        Right, when they were chock full of your backward hatefilled regressive conservatives. Then those knuckle-dragger Dixiecrats left the Demos and went into the current configuration of your republican party. It’s doubtful that you do not know this.

        This country has a group of lunatic fringe that is racist, religiously confused, backward and stupid. They tend to clump. Current leadership is a rough conglomeration of Rush/Beck/Palin. Sometimes, over the decades, this loose knit group of anti-human, anti-society, lower limbic driven simpletons join one party, then switch to the other. They are in your group, never mine, and it matters not one whit what political name they hide under. They are yours and they will continue to be marginalized in the future. Watch for it. Their greatest fear? Sunlight and Truth Sticks.

        VIC: “the same Democrat party that up until after Kennedy opposed any civil rights bill put before it.”>>

        DAR
        Ah, so you accidentally slip and reveal you were aware of the change. So you are just being obtuse. Good humor but it fools no one.

        D.

      • Darrel says:

        You’ll have to be more specific.

    • Darrel says:

      Here’s something nice and patriotic for you to read Victoria. It’s a little outdated but it’ll cheer you up.

      The Americans by Gordon Sinclair.

      You can read a bit about the history of this here.

  9. Big Dog says:

    McCain said he had no problem with us being in Iraq for 50 or 100 years if the hostilities had ended just like we are in other countries. The left said he had no problem with being at war for 100 years.

    Fact Check is not a reputable source. They work hand in hand with other leftist groups (Media Matters) to promote the liberal/progressive agenda. Best not to use their words as the last say on the matter.

    Whether Limbaugh said something racist or not is a matter of interpretation. The real issue, the one you avoided, is if he actually said the things attributed to him when he was interested in buying a football team. That si the matter at hand, it was a lie and you avoided it.

    I wrote about the Gibbs comment. Perhaps you were too busy worrying about a Voltiare reference to notice.

    The Reid reference is based on an interpretation of what he said. However, you defended his comments about Obama as being non racist. Your position on whether Limbaugh has said racist things is tenuous when you defend Reid. People lose standing when they defend Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan (and a bevy of other progressives) for their racist remarks and then justify smears against people like Limbaugh using words he never said.

    Lies?
    “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emsxENhidqA&feature=related”>Here.

    Here

    Olbermann does this routinely. He is a moron and a hack.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: McCain said he had no problem with us being in Iraq for 50 or 100 years>>

      DAR
      Exactly right. So this was NOT an example of a misquote as you try to pretend. It was a matter of context. Your example, while irrelevant, fails.

      All of this is completely irrelevant to the fact that you are still trying to spin some absurd childish kind of tit for tat defense of Victoria’s tiny error. Olbermann could misquote 20 times a day (you provide not one example of course) and this would still be irrelevant.

      Bigd: “They work hand in hand with other leftist groups (Media Matters) to promote the liberal/progressive agenda.”>>

      DAR
      Said the kettle to the pot. What hypocrisy. I have never found a factual error on MM or fact check, and they back up their claims with verifiable references. Your posts are filled with errors, and you rarely reference your claims.

      Bigd: Limbaugh …buying a football team.>>

      DAR
      Limbaugh is such a racist that football teams won’t even allow themselves to be associated with him. That’s your free market at work baby. Want regular people to play with you? Don’t be a hate filled racist. Football is not obligated to associate with racist blowhards. Limbaugh’s racism was cemented when he made his McNabb boo.

      Bigd: The Reid reference is based on an interpretation of what he said.”>>

      DAR
      No, it is a flat out lie that you perpetuated as a quote and continue to fail to acknowledge.

      Bigd: “…when you defend Reid.”>>

      DAR
      I defended Reid from a completely made up, entirely dishonest quote you continue to fail to retract.

      D.
      —————–
      Flashback time:

      Bigd: “If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.”

      The comment you cited:

      “Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English.”

      What Reid actually said:

      “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t–I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.” WSJ

      No reference to Thomas’ race whatsoever.

      All referenced here.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Since we were not at war for a very long time and the borders were still a mess and Congress ignored them it is a stretch to say maybe we could have fixed them if we were not paying for wars.

    If we were not paying for social programs we could fix the borders.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Most of the Founders were not freethinkers or deists. They believed in God and the claim made by Darrel is the rewriting of history espoused by the progressive movement to recast those who founded this nation.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Most of the Founders were not freethinkers or deists.>>

      DAR
      The primary founders, the famous guys with the brains behind the operation, were deists, heretics and freethinkers. Like me. It is your side that tries to rewrite this history and incidentally, they often do it with completely bogus quotes. I bet Victoria has loads of them.

      Try defending the Christian Nation myth and I’ll roast it to a crisp.

      As one lady put it:

      “The obvious first step in seeking out our nation’s origins is to read its founding documents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity. There is also no reference to any Christian church-Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist-nothing. Not a word, nor a hint. If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it.” –Judith Hayes

      Start here for a taste:

      Founding Fathers Would Howl If Called Christian.

      D.
      —————-
      “One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.” –The
      Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.

      • victoria says:

        “A lie if told often enough becomes truth.”

        Except to those who know history and the truth.

      • Big Dog says:

        “There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” –Peter Muhlenberg, from a Lutheran sermon read at Woodstock, Virginia, 1776

        Lutheran, is that a Christian religion?

        As for you 1968 claim (wow, 42 years old?) it would tend to be a misleading thing. Probably none of the presidents was an Orthodox Christian. That is a branch believed to have descended right from the Church of St. Paul and the Orthodox Church considers itself the one true Catholic and apostolic church. They exclude the other Christian religions from being the Orthodox Church (including the Roman Catholics).

        This is a Red Herring. The reality is, the First six presidents either belonged to a Christian religion or professed to be Christians. Can you dispute this? I think not:

        1 George Washington– Episcopalian[9]

        2 John Adams– Unitarian,[10] originally Congregationalist[11]

        * The Adamses were originally members of Congregational churches in New England. By 1800, all but one Congregationalist church in Boston had Unitarian preachers teaching the strict unity of God, the subordinate nature of Christ, and salvation by character.[citation needed] Adams himself preferred Unitarian preachers, but he was opposed to Joseph Priestley’s sympathies with the French Revolution, and would attend other churches if the only nearby Congregational/Unitarian one was composed of followers of Priestley.[12]
        * Adams described himself as a “church going animal”.[11]

        3 Thomas Jefferson– no specific affiliation[13][14]

        Main article: Thomas Jefferson and religion

        * Jefferson was raised Anglican and served as a vestryman prior to the American Revolution,[15] but as an adult he did not hold to the tenets of this church.[13]
        * Modern Unitarians consider Jefferson’s views to be very close to theirs. The Famous UUs website[16] says:

        “Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley’s Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley’s theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the Trinitarian theology. His work, the Jefferson Bible, was Unitarian in theology…”

        * In a letter to Benjamin Rush prefacing his “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus”, Jefferson wrote:

        “In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798–99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”[17]

        4 James Madison– Episcopalian[18]

        * Although Madison tried to keep a low profile in regards to religion, he seemed to hold religious opinions, like many of his contemporaries, that were closer to deism or Unitarianism in theology than conventional Christianity. He was raised in the Church of England and attended Episcopal services, despite his personal disputes with the theology.[19]

        5 James Monroe– Episcopalian

        * Monroe was raised in a family that belonged to the Church of England when it was the state church in Virginia, and as an adult attended Episcopal churches.[20]
        * “When it comes to Monroe’s …thoughts on religion”, Bliss Isely comments in his The Presidents: Men of Faith, “less is known than that of any other President.” Monroe burned much of his correspondence with his wife, and no letters survive in which he discusses his religious beliefs; nor did his friends, family or associates write about his beliefs. Letters that do survive, such as ones written on the occasion of the death of his son, contain no discussion of religion.[20] Franklin Steiner categorized Monroe among “Presidents Whose Religious Views Are Doubtful”.[21]
        * Some sources classify Monroe as a deist.[20]

        6 John Quincy Adams– Unitarian[22]

        * Adams’s religious views shifted over the course of his life. In college and early adulthood he preferred trinitarian theology, and from 1818 to 1848 he served as vice president of the American Bible Society.[23] However as he grew older his views became more typically Unitarian, though he rejected the more rationalist views of Joseph Priestley and the Transcendentalists.[23]
        * He was a founding member of the First Unitarian Church of Washington (D.C.).[23] However he regularly attended Presbyterian and Episcopal services as well.[23]
        * Towards the end of his life, he wrote, “I reverence God as my creator. As creator of the world. I reverence him with holy fear. I venerate Jesus Christ as my redeemer; and, as far as I can understand, the redeemer of the world. But this belief is dark and dubious.”[23]

        LINK

        Obviously your reference, the Start Here one, is wrong. As can be seen by their writings, these guys did believe in a personal God and were part of Christian religions. Even Jefferson expressed that he was a Christian.

        The Founders would be turning over in their graves if they knew people thought they were not…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “the First six presidents either belonged to a Christian religion or professed to be Christians. Can you dispute this?”>>

          DAR
          Yes. And I already did. You provide a cut and paste from wiki and the claim: “your reference, the Start Here one, is wrong.”

          That’s it.

          You didn’t address a single point in my little article by Rev. William Edelen (an active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years and Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology).

          So let’s look at these presidents.

          Bigd: “1 George Washington– Episcopalian”>>

          DAR
          George Washington was a deist who attended an Episcopalian church occasionally. He was a politician and obviously belonging to such group would assist with that sort of thing. He specifically DID NOT partake of the sacraments. Why not? That’s certainly what a Christian would do.

          Some definitions. With rare exceptions Christians believe in a personal, living God. This makes them theists. A theist is defined as one who believes in a personal, living, God.

          Deists do not believe in a personal God and generally had no opinion about his condition, living, dead, indifferent.

          Washington was a deist, not a theist, not a Christian.

          Reference:

          “George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
          From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

          As my good friend once noted:

          “The entry “Deism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Paul Edwards, editor) lists Washington as a deist. Since this is a standard and highly respected reference work, it creates at least a strong prima facie case that he is correctly so classified.” –Greg K., Ph.D

          I have lots more on Washington.

          Bigd: “2 John Adams– Unitarian”>>

          DAR
          I was a Unitarian for awhile. Their title comes from the fact that they don’t believe in the trinity, thus they don’t believe Jesus is God. How can you be a “Christian” if you don’t believe “Christ” is God?
          When I attended our local Unitarian Universalist fellowship they took a poll and found about 1/2 were atheist, 1/4 agnostic were and the rest considered themselves some kind of nominal liberal Christian (no creeds, no doctrines required).

          John Adams wrote a lot and he liked to talk about religion. He never claimed to be a Christian. Not once. The following quote from him should make it clear that was a Deist.

          “God has infinite wisdom, goodness and power; he created the universe; his duration is eternal, a parte ante and a parte post. His presence is as extensive as space. What is space? An infinite spherical vacuum. He created this speck of dirt and the human species for his glory; and with deliberate design of making nine-tenths of our species miserable for ever for his glory. This is the doctrine of Christian theologians, in general, ten to one. Now, my friend, can prophecies or miracles convince you or me that infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power, created, and preserves for a time innumerable millions, to make them miserable forever, for his own glory? Wretch! What is his glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these awful questions. My answer to them is always ready. _I believe no such things_. My adoration of the author of the universe is too profound and too sincere. The love of God and his creation-delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existance- though but an atom, a molecule organique in the universe- are my religion”.

          [John Adams, in a latter to Jefferson, Sept. 14, 1813, from “Christianity and the Constitution: The Founding faith of our Fathers” John Eidsmoe ISBN: 0-8010-3444-2]

          Well this is getting longer than I intended. Let me know if you would like me to go through the rest of them, or in depth on a specific one and I will. Bottomline, Unitarians, Deists etc., are not orthodox Christians although at times they perhaps had some overlapping beliefs. An Episcopalian church was also a good hide out for Deists. Our local Episcopalian church has two ministers. Neither one is a theist.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. John Adams — Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

            • Darrel says:

              [quote]”The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” –John Adams[/quote]

              DAR
              And what are those “general principles” he is talking about? Ask a different Christian, get a different answer. Ask a deist, get a very different answer.

              Based on his writings, I think the “general principles” he is referring to are the basic moral questions most of humanity agree on regardless of religion. Don’t murder, steal, “do unto to others” etc. How did nearly all societies figure this out and why did they all make rules against these things? Because people don’t like to be murdered or have their stuff stolen. The golden rule as stated by Jesus is very nice, but it wasn’t remotely original. Most Christians don’t know that it was said by nine other people centuries before Jesus borrowed and repeated it (or his anonymous biographer attributed it to him).

              That Adams, like his buddy Jefferson, would like to pick out what he thinks are the “general principles” of Christianity (however defined) and then think they are good, is no surprise. I would probably agree with them too. But we don’t know what they are. He didn’t give them in your quote.

              We know John Adam’s did not consider the United States **in any sense** founded on the Christian religion because he personally signed a treaty that said so (and treaties have the same force as law).

              The Treaty of Tripoli:

              “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
              [Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
              interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
              –Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

              LINK

              D.
              ————-
              “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
              –John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

              Jefferson cut 90% out of his Bible. Looks like Adams would have cut most of it out too.

            • Darrel says:

              OOPS, I should have checked more thoroughly. Turns out Bigd’s quote from John Adama’s is a very sneaky patchwork concoction. Bogus. What a wonderful example of what I have been talking about, the importance of accuracy, and how common these corrupted things get passed around (this one is all over).

              See the very thorough explanation of this here:

              Adams and the General Principles of Christianity

              Excerpts:

              “This is a patchwork of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning:

              …The omissions here are easily significant enough to give this extract the red designation.

              [snip]
              …What did he mean by “the general principles of Christianity”? He doesn’t spell them out in the letter, but they are principles held in common by a diverse range of beliefs, including “Roman Catholics, … Presbyterians, Methodists, … Universalists, … Deists and Atheists ….” In other words, Adams had in mind the common system of morals held by all humankind throughout history. And far from giving it the unique status implied by the patchwork quotation, he couples “the general principles of Christianity” throughout with “the general principles of English and American liberty”.

              DAR
              Wow. Exactly as I said earlier, without knowing the full quote from Adams and how this quote was a complete distortion.

              Thanks for helping me learn something new today Bigd.

              D.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Probably none of the presidents was an Orthodox Christian. That is a branch…”>>

        DAR
        You misunderstand the quote. It doesn’t refer to Christian Orthodox, but rather a normative Christian who believes in the standard main tenants of Christianity. For instance, Unitarians do not believe in the trinity and thus are not orthodox in their Christian beliefs.

        I’ll get to rest later.

        D.
        ————–
        The nation has offended Providence. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgment of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a
        people, of His government, or even of His existence. The [Constitutional] Convention, by which it was formed, never asked even once, His direction, or His blessings, upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God.”
        (Address by Yale Seminary President Timothy Dwight, July 23, 1812)

  12. victoria says:

    Dar here is a history lesson for you blow by blow:

    http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

  13. Big Dog says:

    Really Darrel? So the race filled remarks of players and other owners make no difference. As far as Limbaugh goes, as usual, you duck the issue.

    You also, again, misquoted me. You cut off what I said about McCain’s words. Let me type slower for you. He said as long as there were no hostilities.

    The left said that John McCain wanted to be at war for 100 years. That is not out of context, it is a misquote. He never said that.

    Darrel, it was much nicer when you were not here. Feel free to go any time you wish.

    • Darrel says:

      “left said that John McCain”

      DAR
      To show a misquote, you need to provide the misquote. You don’t do this. And it’s irrelevant anyway.

  14. Big Dog says:

    The Founders often mention the Supreme being and though you might think that makes them Deists it would be inaccurate. Most deists believe that the Supreme being, of God, does not interfere in human affairs.

    The writings of the Founders contain many references to divine providence which is a description of God’s intervention in our lives.

    The Founders did not have to mention Christ, all of the religions being practiced were Christian religions.

    And they wrote an amendment that specifically kept government from imposing any one religion on the people. How Christian of them to demonstrate tolerance, a tolerance that no longer exists because of organizations like the ACLU and people like progressives who have allowed the First Amendment to be bastardized and associated with words that it does not contain.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “writings of the Founders contain many references to divine providence which is a description of God’s intervention in our lives.”>>

      DAR
      You are mistaken.

      “Classical deism held that a human’s relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention.”

      I encourage you to read more about Deism, and it’s variations.

      I don’t think the Founders in question were Deists because they mentioned a “Supreme being,” I think so because they either said they were, or modern scholarship considers that they Deists were, based upon their writings and behavior.

      Bigd: “Founders did not have to mention Christ,”>>

      DAR
      It’s not too much to expect Christians to mention Christ or that they were Christian, if they were.

      Bigd: “…all of the religions being practiced were Christian religions.”

      DAR
      Wrong. Deists, Unitarians, not Christian. Attending an Episcopalian church does not equal being a Christian. I am thinking of joining our local one.

      Bigd: they wrote an amendment that specifically kept government from imposing any one religion”>>

      DAR
      Right. They were very familiar with the history, of, Christianity.

      Bigd: “How Christian of them to demonstrate tolerance,”>>

      DAR
      You have it backwards. Christians of the day were specifically NOT known for their tolerance. Hence the need for this law to protect the infidels and even Christians from each other. I can bury you in quotations about this, from the very founders in question. One of many:

      “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” -James Madison ,1813

      Bigd: “…a tolerance that no longer exists because of organizations like the ACLU”>>

      DAR
      Normal mainstream Christians, not the wacked out fundies, are much more tolerant today than in the past. That’s just a reality. It’s an accommodation they must make as they continue to decline.

      The ACLU is a wonderful, most American, institution that is extremely effective at protecting civil liberties. Through countless hours of indoctrination through boneheads like Rush, your head has become filled with lies and misinformation about that organization. Ironically, the phrase “I don’t agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” should be, could be on their mast head.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Really Darrel? The ACLU usually ignores violations that do not fit their agenda. They fight Christianity tooth and nail and allow Islam a free pass especially when it is attacking Jews.

        They want open disclosure but refuse to allow their own databases to be seen and they go after organizations collecting information when they themselves collect it.

        Their founder said that COMMUNISM was the goal of the organization.

        You keep worshiping them. As for me, I hope the next terror attack is at their headquarters…

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “The ACLU usually ignores violations that do not fit their agenda.”>>

        DAR
        Let’s see an example. I can match your cherry picks ten to one with counter examples which refute your claim.

        The ACLU defends civil liberties across the board. Some people (you know who you are), are so simple you look at a couple examples you disagree with and then have an emotional response. Perhaps you don’t like when they defended the KKK’s right to protest or the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to go door to door, etc. The ACLU’s record of being the nation’s “…guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country…” is nigh impeccable.

        Bigd: “Their founder said that COMMUNISM was the goal of the organization.”>>

        DAR
        You are peddling misinformation. Their response:

        ***
        Q: Does the ACLU have Communist roots? Was co-founder Roger Baldwin a Communist?

        No, Roger Baldwin was not a communist. Like many of his contemporaries, he observed and wrote about the social and political issues in the early years of the Soviet Union, but later he wrote, “The Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, a traumatic shock to me, ended any ambivalence I had about the Soviet Union, and all cooperation with Communists in united fronts.”

        Throughout the organization’s history and particularly during the McCarthy era, the ACLU, its members, staff and founders have been accused of being communists. The ACLU has no political affiliations and makes no test of individuals’ ideological leanings a condition of membership or employment. Members and staff of the national ACLU and its affiliates may be Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Federalists, Libertarians, or members of any other political party or no party at all. What the ACLU asks of its staff and officials is that they consistently defend civil liberties and the Constitution.

        LINK.

        D.
        ———
        Have you been reduced to inserting derogatory pictures into my comments? Really?

  15. Big Dog says:

    Yes, the fact that Rand wrote a book all those years ago that slammed Socialism and extolled the virtues of Capitalism and that what she wrote is mirrored in what is taking place today.

    That would make people Zombies…

    I like the way Darrel dismisses the book because of who it was written by.

  16. victoria says:

    Big Dog if you want a site to go to regarding the Founding Fathers go to http://www.wallbuilders.com. There is quote after quote after quote by them regarding their beliefs. It is interesting how rabid Darrel becomes when it comes to this or anything regarding God or Christianity. He can rage against the truth until the end of time and write long diatribes with quotes from all his athiest freethinking authors and put on a show of debunking everything Christian but it changes nothing. Now that I have mentioned this site to you, I am sorry because you will be subjected to more long posts and diatribes trying to debunk it all and it could take pages and pages. I hope not.

    • Darrel says:

      Yes Victoria, I am very familiar with the Wall Builders and especially their devotion to bogus quotes and the most blatant misinformation. Try using their info and see how it holds up. No scholars take those clowns seriously, and with good reason.

      Their founder admitted they had been peddling bogus quotes for years. I have an excellent article about this but you probably wouldn’t read it, so I won’t waste our time.

      D.

  17. Big Dog says:

    There are many Christian religions. The Orthodox Christian Church is one of them and all others outside of it were not considered Orthodox including the Roman Catholic and all the others. If you are using the word orthodox in the generic then you have a point. Yes, some of them did not follow the orthdoxy of Christianity.

    However, all of the religions (including Unitarian) are Christian religions and all of them belonged to on except Jefferson who attended church regularly and professed he was a Christian.

    This is not a religious site and I don’t want long drawn out debates where you cut and paste an encyclopedia. I have no belief that just because a book is highly regarded that it is correct. The progressives have been rewriting history for a long time to remove religion from this country in order to push it closer to their goal of Communism. This is the goal of the ACLU and they continue to work on it.

    The only time that the progressives use religion is when they want something. Pelosi and he violation of the left’s interpretation of Church and State and Kerry and his we have religious organizations on board. Those violate the left’s idea of church and state because they want something. Funny, both of them still receive Communion and they are pro abortion.

    Matters not, you can cut and paste all you want. Washington went to church (a Christian one) regularly and he ordered his men to attend services to give thanks to God on a number of occasions.

    You talk about this in the writings blah, blah. It is important to remember that these people came from a place where folks were executed for not following the state religion. It only makes sense they would try to keep any strict religion from governing the country but do not mistake this for what they believed.

    Many historians suppose Washington was a Deist but Washington never referred to himself as such. If you are going to say he was not a Christian because he did not mention Christ then he could not have been a Deist since he never mentioned that.

    The reality is, you and your ilk parse words to make an invalid point. You use orthodox to minimize their religion as if to say that since they were not this they were not really Christians.

    Many Christians belong to a number of different Christian religions and a lot of those folks do not attend church regularly.

    One would be Barack Obama. He attended a church that claimed to be Christian but was not really and now he does not go to church on a regular basis. I think he is waiting for the Mosque to be built in New York.

    Darrel,

    DO NOT start back to cutting and pasting multiple paragraphs from whatever resources. If I want to read them I will buy or download them. But I am not going to allow you to do as you have done in the past and obscure things with cut and paste playtime. You use the same things that are misleading and often repetative. It often contains remarks by someone you agree with that you present as the only expertise on the case and that is just not so.

    I have figured you out. You cut and paste tons of BS and often obscure or move away from the original argument. You do this by using half of people’s quotes to misrepresent what they said and then attack that. You are quite skilled at that but I am on to you and will not be allowing all this to continue.

    If you want to cut and paste, do it at your place.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: If you are using the word orthodox in the generic then you have a point.>>

      DAR
      That was the point of the Britannica quote.

      Bigd: However, all of the religions (including Unitarian) are Christian religions>>

      DAR
      I was a Unitarian. They have roots in Christianity but they aren’t Christians. They have no creed. As I said, 3/4 of our local fellowship was atheist/agnostic. They are also the highest educated religious group in the US (last I checked).

      Bigd: Jefferson who attended church regularly and professed he was a Christian.”>>

      DAR
      You are being as deceptive with his quote as those who didn’t give all of McCain’s context. Jefferson SPECIFICALLY said, in the quote you gave:

      “…to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”

      Let me explain. Jefferson did not believe Jesus to be divine, or that he claimed to be divine, he didn’t believe any of the miracles or miracle claims (he cut all of that “dung” our of his Jefferson Bible), but he thought Jesus had most excellent moral precepts and is saying here that he is Christian ONLY IN THE SENSE he thinks Jesus meant anyone to be a Christian, and that is, by following his moral precepts.

      It’s complicated, I know. You might not get it unless you have read a lot of Jefferson. He was purposely sneaky in regard to his religious beliefs (as was Washington and Adams). For rather obvious reasons.

      Bigd: where you cut and paste an encyclopedia.”>>

      DAR
      What a hypocrite. Your cut and paste above, from an encyclopedia, is far larger than anything I have posted! (and it was a good quote). I quoted ONE sentence from an encyclopedia.

      Bigd: these people came from a place where folks were executed for not following the state religion.”>>

      DAR
      Exactly! And some states were well on their way to doing that. Cutting peoples ears off etc.

      D.

  18. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, you are a master at distortion. You said that they wrote the Amendment specifically preventing government from establishing religion because they were familiar with Christianity.

    No, they were familiar with government. They know that governments that use religion are a problem. Muslim countries ring a bell? England back during that time ring a bell?

    This is the pattern you use when you are arguing a point. You throw out an untruth and then you defend it or move on as if you expect people to just believe you because you know how to cut and paste.

    Why would so called deists have to “hide” in a Christian church? There is no religious test for office in this country (except when liberals question a Mormon or a Jew) and these people were free to worship (or not) as they saw fit.

    Why did it matter?

    But using the word orthodox and claiming that these “other” religious institutions were great places to hide is all good for you make believe world but there is no proof they were hiding there or that they were not Christians. None of them said I am not a Christian.

    • Darrel says:

      If you are going to accuse me of an “untruth” you should have the decency of stating what it is. You don’t.

      Bigd: “Why would so called deists have to “hide” in a Christian church?”>>

      DAR
      Because it was politically damaging to not be considered a Christian. Look what they did to Paine who didn’t play the game. This still goes on today.

      Bigd: “There is no religious test for office in this country…”>>

      DAR
      Wrong.

      “Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.”

      US News.

  19. Big Dog says:

    Thanks Victoria. The interesting thing is Darrel never tries to debunk the religion of Islam. He specifically targets Christianity.

    Adam is the same way. Let a few guys get arrested for saying they are militia and they are right wing Christian morons (one of them was a registered Democrat and the others not registered in any party) but let a guy shoot 13 soldiers or try to detonate a car in NY and they will not say it is radical Islam.

    Even Eric Holder could not say it.

    He would say Right wing Christian militia pretty fast though…

    • Darrel says:

      I haven’t targeted Christianity in this thread. Not once. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth and being accurate with regard to the beliefs of the founders.

      This is in contrast to Victoria’s little group of myth makers.

      D.
      —————-
      Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship

      David Barton’s
      “Christian Nation” Myth Factory
      Admits Its Products Have Been Defective

      Read here.

  20. Big Dog says:

    The other thing Victoria, is that people like Darrel have to do thing in pieces. He made his claim about the first 6 presidents as if they were the only Founders. The were 6 of them but there were a lot of people who founded this country and a lot of them, as you showed with your link, were Christians.

    We were founded as a Judeo-Christian nation and that is easy to see.

    The progressives need to work to remove religion so they can get us to Communism.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “claim about the first 6 presidents as if they were the only Founders.”>>

      DAR
      Nonsense. The one sentence quote specified the first six presidents to inform that it only refers, to the first six presidents. Couldn’t be clearer. Pretty curious for a “Christian nation” eh?

      Bigd: lot of people who founded this country… were Christians.”>>

      DAR
      Of course they were. Easily the majority of them. And no one said otherwise.

      Bigd: We were founded as a Judeo-Christian nation…>>

      DAR
      It’s just that no one remembered to mention that in any of the founding documents.

      Amazing!

      D.
      ———–
      “The obvious first step in seeking out our nation’s origins is to read its founding doc**ents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity.” –Judith Hayes

  21. Big Dog says:

    The ACLU would be happy to represent the KKK. It is an anti black/anti Jew organization with a goal of making America a Communist nation. Their words, their goals.

    Yes, the routinely dismiss or ignore things particularly when the right is involved. They are a leftist group that cherry picks Amendments to wage civil liberty discussions on.

    And I have a new feature. I can give the dunce award or the bravo award to comments.

  22. Big Dog says:

    Victoria, Darrel always has an excellent article from some liberal or anti religious organization that “refutes” everything you believe. It is only so because he agrees with it.

    Prove the quotes do not exist. That is your charge Darrel.

    You like to attribute things based on what some guy said rather than reality but prove the quotes are a lie.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Prove the quotes do not exist. That is your charge Darrel.>>

      DAR
      Ah, that’s not how the science works. You have it exactly backwards. The onus is upon the one who asserts that so and so, said such and such. Surely you know this.

  23. Big Dog says:

    Hypocrite Darrel? Here you go again distorting. When I say cut and paste an encyclopedia I did not refer to your little 42 year old quote, I meant the amount of information you cut and paste is equal to an encyclopedia. You cut and paste a lot of CRAP to distort things and make the argument fuzzy. You deliberately throw mud into the water to cloud things up, you deliberately quote out of context and you do this to make it look like you actually know what you are talking about.

    And I can NEVER be a hypocrite with regard to MY site. I pay the bill so I get to post what I want.

    You want to write your own words that are paragrpahs long you go for it but you are not going to be cutting and pasting a novel to obscure stuff.

    NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I am on to how you work. Keep your crap at your site.

  24. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, did I say there is no religious test in the STATES of this country or did I say IN THIS COUNTRY. Once again you distort things to try to prove a point that is non existent. In the COUNTRY where people run for NATIONAL offices there is no religious test and event he AR law you cite cannot be used to keep anyone from running for the House or Senate of the US.

    Get it right Darrel. No, you are wrong on this as you and the others try to rewrite history.

    And point out where you are wrong. Been there, done that. You just slide by with some other half truth and distortion.

    It is common for you.

    • Darrel says:

      So you were aware that states (in this country) have religious tests?

      • Big Dog says:

        I was not aware of Arkansas having such a law. I was aware that Maryland, Tennessee and Texas had them (as well as a few others I can’t remember) but I thought they were considered archaic because of the 14th Amendment though I am not aware of any being challenged in court.

  25. Big Dog says:

    You called miracles by Jesus DUNG in this thread though you are careful to say this thread because you have attacked Christianity in plenty of others. Even this one really when you said that leaders did not want an official religion because they were familiar with Christianity.

    Yes, you have made subtle attacks.

    No, you are distorting plenty of things. Then again, you are good at that. Learned it from the warmers who hid the decline.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “You called miracles by Jesus DUNG in this thread”>>

      DAR
      No, you are confused. I mentioned that Jefferson referred to the Bible as a dunghill with a few diamonds in it. Also, he didn’t believe in the miracle claims in the Bible.

      *I* didn’t call the Bible, or miracles, or anything “dung” in this thread.

      D.
      —————
      “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
      –Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

  26. Big Dog says:

    Yes, read those founding documents. Perhaps you could get on board with making the SCOTUS do that when making rulings.

    We were founded by a majority of Judeo-Christians so we were founded on that philosophy. Perhaps that is not mentioned because they did not want to have it appear as if government were dictating a religion.

    Being founded as a JC nation by JC people is different than having the documents say we are a JC nation.

  27. Big Dog says:

    So if someone provides a quote and a source for the quote and you say it is a false quote how is the onus on the presenter rather than the denier?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “…how is the onus on the presenter rather than the denier?”>>

      DAR
      It is not possible to disprove such a negative. If someone says Washington said X, THEY have the burden of giving evidence for their claim and showing legitimate provenance of any such documents.

      It is not possible for someone to prove that someone DID NOT say something 200+ years ago. But this is not anyone’s problem but the one making the assertion. The burden is upon the person claiming someone said X, centuries ago.

      Think of it this way. If someone were to assert that Washington said: “I am not a Christian” would you have the burden of proving that claim wrong? Of course not.

      Rightwing Christians have been lying, and caught lying, about Washington, for centuries. For instance with the bogus Washington prayer journals someone concocted.

      D.

  28. Big Dog says:

    Care to provide a copy of that letter where Jefferson used dunghills.

    You did indeed call it dung which is a misquote and you referred to Christianity as the reason they did not allow a specific religion. It was an insult on your part and there is no denying it.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Care to provide a copy of that letter where Jefferson used dunghills.”>>

      DAR
      Of course. I don’t make claims I can’t back up. Thanks for asking.

      See here: Jefferson’s Bible.

      Better than a letter, it was in the introduction of a book he made known as the Jefferson Bible. This is where he took a Bible and cut all of the stuff he didn’t believe in (miracles etc.). He distributed this book to all members of Congress.

      Bigd: “You did indeed call it dung which is a misquote…”>>

      DAR
      I’m sorry, you misunderstand. My only reference to dung in this thread was in reference to Jefferson’s use of it. I was referring to Jefferson’s Bible, as I stated, which is where he compared the Bible to dunghill with some diamonds in it.

      Bigd: “…you referred to Christianity as the reason they did not allow a specific religion.”>>

      DAR
      Is this not really really obvious? What religion, pray, would they have been concerned about becoming entrenched with state power and leading to the abuses the founders of America were trying to escape in Europe?!

      Let me know if you would to be buried in specific referenced examples of the founders specifically referring to this.

      D.
      —————
      “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
      — James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785

  29. Big Dog says:

    Jefferson said that finding something would be like finding diamonds in a dunghill, not that the Bible was a dunghill.

    I notice you did not dig up the letter to Adams. I can read about Jefferson’s Bible, an interesting concept but that is no the letter.

    Certainly if he wrote it a copy should be available.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Jefferson said that finding something would be like finding diamonds in a dunghill, not that the Bible was a dunghill.”>>

      DAR
      Wrong. In letter I first referred to Jefferson said:

      “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
      –Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

      In his analogy Jefferson is clearly using “dunghills” in the above to represent the Bible, and using “diamonds” to represent the parts of the Bible that he thinks “have proceeded from an extraordinary man.”

      He took his scissors and cut out the dung, what was left is known as “The Jefferson Bible.” How much poo did he cut out of the New Testament? About 90%. That left 10% diamond.

      Bigd: “you did not dig up the letter to Adams.”>>

      DAR
      Yes I did. You were too lazy to even look at the link I gave you.

      Bigd: “Jefferson’s Bible, an interesting concept but that is no the letter.”>>

      DAR
      You can read the entire letter I quoted from (Jan. 24, 1814), here.

      Here is the quote again, worded slightly different, from another letter to Adam’s, (two months earlier) from the top of the wiki link I already gave you:

      ***
      He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

      “[Big SNIP] I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”

      D.

  30. Big Dog says:

    I have to admit that when I put this quote up I did not put in the ellipses (it was unintentional) and the ellipses are in the appropriate places where there is a break in the words.

    However, I have read the entire paragraph and the meaning is not changed. It is not a complete distortion and still conveys the same message.

    I also note that Darrel does agree with me that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. My contention all along. Not the only thing it was founded on but Christianity was the predominent religion and our Founders used it as a basis for our foundation.

    You also claim that many of the first presidents did not believe Jesus the son of God but rather a prophet. Jefferson took the miracles out in his bible because he did not believe that they happened.

    So was Jefferson a deist? Maybe he was a Jew. They generally believe the same except they believe the miracles…

    OK, then Jefferson was a Muslim because he had the same beliefs as they. That’s it, Jefferson was a Muslim…

    Now, you have provided a link to someone else’s printing of the words that Jefferson wrote. Is there an actual copy of the letter or the words from a credible source?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I have to admit that when I put this quote up I did not put in the ellipses (it was unintentional)…”>>

      DAR
      You took the ellipses out of someone elses hacked up version, or you didn’t know you were being fooled? I’m guessing the latter.

      Bigd: “…and the ellipses are in the appropriate places where there is a break in the words.”>>

      DAR
      Your quote *has no* ellipses! You took them out or copied a crook who patched this together. And it’s not like you were reading this whole thing in context. Give me a break. You were passing along someone elses hackwork.

      Bigd: “However, I have read the entire paragraph and the meaning is not changed.”>>

      DAR
      You’ve read it now because you’ve been busted passing along a doctored quote with no indication of the vast swathes of context removed.

      I didn’t think you would read the extensive examination of this quote and the expose’ of how Christians are dishonestly and disgracefully distorting what Adams said here. And quite honestly I didn’t think you would understand it if you did read it. But I am rather surprised at how blatant you are about defending this doctored quote.

      So you think it is honest to provide a two sentence quote from Adams, ripped from context, punctuation played with, phrases ripped out of sentences, without any indication whatsoever that 81 words have been removed? Unbelievable!

      Your quote with deletions noted:

      “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were [40 words removed] the general principles of Christianity. [41 words removed] I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

      As the expose’ pointed out:

      “If the passage as given above can really be considered a fair summary of the entire passage, then so can this version, emphasizing the other elements Adams gave as the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence”:

      “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system.”

      “Obviously neither version is a fair representation of the original. Each leaves out one essential element in the original mix so that even though these extracts are made up of Adams’ own words, the overall quotation (particularly sans ellipses) is as dishonest as the Patrick Henry “religionists” misattribution or the Washington “impossible to govern without the Bible” concoction.” –ibid

      This is what you get when you dishonestly cherry-pick, remove material and then patch together what’s left. A disgraceful misrepresentation of what the person said.

      Bigd: “As anyone with a brain can see, the omitted words do not change the meaning.”>>

      DAR
      Well this excludes you then because this very changes the meaning. If it didn’t Christians wouldn’t be playing such games.

      Bigd: “Jefferson took the miracles out in his bible because he did not believe that they happened.”>>

      DAR
      Jefferson removed 90% of the New Testament from his Bible (I would have probably left a little more in). He referred to this process as removing diamonds from dunghills.

      Bigd: “So was Jefferson a deist?”>>

      DAR
      Pretty much. He didn’t like, and knew the limits, of labels. He hated the clergy and thought the idea of the trinity, and most other creeds and doctrines, absurd. It’s hard to have any semblance of Christianity when you don’t think Jesus is God.

      Here is what he hoped for the US. Notice “Freedom of thought.”

      “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.”

      –Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787. This is almost identical to a letter to John Adams, 11, April 1823, as quoted by E.S. Gaustad, “Religion,” in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New Yourk: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1986, p. 287)

      D.
      ————–
      I think Jefferson may have been referring to your condition here:

      “He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.”
      –Jefferson to James Smith, Monticello, 8 December 1822.

      Original handwritten copy.

      • Big Dog says:

        Darrel, contrary to your high and mighty opinion of yourself and your insults about my ability to understand things i can comprehend ANYTHING you can. I am well educated and an accomplished in fields that require brains and the ability to use them.

        No, i actually removed the elipses when is was editing. It was unintentional. Second, I did look it up and saw that the deleted words made no difference.

        I am amazed at how people like you defend these things and use the Founder’s words to justify what you say with regard to religion but ignore their words when it comes to other subjects like gun ownership and birthright citizenship.

        Don’t make the mistake of making accusations you cannot prove about me again. And don’t concern yourself with what i can understand. Suffice it to say if you can understand it then so can I.

  31. Big Dog says:

    Here is what is reported to be the full quote though I have not found the original letter:

    Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.

    As anyone with a brain can see, the omitted words do not change the meaning. In fact, Darrel does what he accuses others of. He hacks and chops to convey something different. He asks if his answer could mean that he recommends these other things (listed in the opening) and then says, no the general principles (the only principles upon which men could unite) were the principles of Christianity. He also says that it was the the principles of English and American liberty united the young men then he goes on to AVOW that the general principles of Christianity …

    The meaning is much clearer when one reads the entire passage though Darrel thinks not it is quite easy to see. Even after listing the other items he sees, no AVOWS, that it is the principles of Christianity…