My fantasy. And a question for liberals

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Not that I don't appreciate an article out of a periodical that specializes in tracking chimpanzees in Africa (National Geographic)

That's about as rational as I'd expect. Met with a fact from a reputable source you cling to whatever you can to preserve your emotional compulsion.

What TH is saying is that the ACLU website didn't have anything on Franklin (that he could find), so he had to use the website that talks about pretty much everything else but the Founding Fathers.

That's...almost as sad as you not knowing Franklin ran for and held multiple offices and posts. Ignorance may make you feel better, but it's a poor foundation for argument.

Tis a truly sad day in TOL history. Allow me to wipe the embarrassing tear away from my eye.

 

[Town Heretic]

(Everyone hide behind a large solid object, an overinflated ego is about to explode!).

Sorry, but you made the mistake, asked the question you thought would put me in my place and only exposed your lack of familiarity with the subject. How is that an ego problem for me? Seems more like an egg problem for you.

I'm sure I knew about Franklin being Postmaster General and a foreign diplomat, but it wasn't at the front of my mind when I responded to your post.

You weren't being responsive. You were trying to challenge and it blew up on you.

I responded how impressed I am with National Geographic's knowledge of the Founding Fathers.

I noted you once again were suffering from a lack of information. This even less forgivable since all you had to do was read through the attribution to recognize that a reputable periodical you chose to malign in a goofy, sophomoric fashion, wasn't the source, but only the entity reproducing material from a Pulitzer Prize winning work on Franklin.

For someone who didn't vote for B. Hussein Obama a 2nd time, you seem rather protective of him.

More assertion without fact...sort of your thing, I suppose. And given what happens when you step out of its protection I can see why.

What TH is saying is that the ACLU website didn't have anything on Franklin (that he could find), so he had to use the website that talks about pretty much everything else but the Founding Fathers.

Now you're back in your nutter, fantasy composition wheelhouse. You should stay there. You aren't ready for more.

Run, Jesse, run.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(Everyone hide behind a large solid object, an overinflated ego is about to explode!).

Sorry, but you made the mistake,

I believe this is the 2nd (or is it the 3rd?) time that you mentioned it.

asked the question you thought would put me in my place and only exposed your lack of familiarity with the subject. How is that an ego problem for me? Seems more like an egg problem for you.

I was thinking that Franklin never ran for President or Congress.
On that note: play this out for as long as you can cuz you most likely won't get another chance.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm sure I knew about Franklin being Postmaster General and a foreign diplomat, but it wasn't at the front of my mind when I responded to your post.

You weren't being responsive. You were trying to challenge and it blew up on you.

(#3 or is it #4?, what are the chances he'll bring it up again?).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I responded how impressed I am with National Geographic's knowledge of the Founding Fathers.

I noted you once again were suffering from a lack of information. This even less forgivable since all you had to do was read through the attribution to recognize that a reputable periodical you chose to malign in a goofy, sophomoric fashion, wasn't the source, but only the entity reproducing material from a Pulitzer Prize winning work on Franklin.

Again, I get my information from sources like the guy who owns 100,000 articles and documents that predates 1812 and other legitimate sources. I've never been impressed with National Geographic when it comes to things outside of the animal kingdom.

 

[Town Heretic]

I believe this is the 2nd (or is it the 3rd?) time that you mentioned it.

And it gets funnier every time you put me in the position to remind you...he asked me what offices Franklin had run for or held because I said Franklin sounded like a politician. He didn't know enough about Franklin (despite his deep well of information from one disputed source) to know better so I listed some of them. Then he went a little crazy and ducked and covered himself in the old ACLU bit he manages when the facts turn on him.

Seriously funny stuff.

I was thinking that Franklin never ran for President or Congress.

Somebody said Franklin ran for President? lain:

On that note: play this out for as long as you can cuz you most likely won't get another chance.

I love optimism.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm sure I knew about Franklin being Postmaster General and a foreign diplomat, but it wasn't at the front of my mind when I responded to your post.

How many times have you posted that one?

I responded how impressed I am with National Geographic's knowledge of the Founding Fathers.

See: prior on your other mistake.

Again, I get my information from sources like the guy who owns 100,000 articles and documents that predates 1812

I don't care where you get your information if you can't use it to rebut the authenticity of the letter I noted, reproduced in the National Geographic from a Pulitzer Prize winning work on Benjamin Franklin.

It's just that simple. Either it's legitimate or refutable. Stomping your feet and insisting you know a guy isn't on point.

I've never been impressed with National Geographic when it comes to things outside of the animal kingdom.

Supra, you flickering bulb you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The 2 most irreligious founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson)

The 2 most irreligious founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMpzZpVLR0

3 minutes.

Some "deists".

 

[aCultureWarrior]

More on Benjamin Franklin (non David Barton source) :

Franklin’s belief in God was firm. He was fully convicted of His existence and sovereignty and he firmly believed that without the blessings and guidance of God they would not succeed. One can imagine that Franklin, who broke with traditional Christianity, is the one to stand before the Convention delegates and rebuke them for not seeking God’s guidance. The irony of it is humorous. God’s providence truly does work through all of humanity. That day the Constitutional Convention moved on and brought forth the foundation of America.
Franklin wrote a paper in 1732 entitled On the Providence of God in the Government of the World. He proceeds to “. . . go about to prove this first Principle, the Existence of a Deity and that he is the Creator of the Universe. . .”. He continues to make two more points of God giving life, sustenance, and His sovereignty over all of creation. After completing these arguments, Franklin then establishes his theme on the providence of God in the government of the world. He directly states that God “sometimes interferes by His particular providence and sets aside the effects which would otherwise have been produced by . . . causes.”(3) He did not quote scripture, but many of his statements were built on specific scriptures he learned in his youth.
When Benjamin Franklin died on April 17, 1790, there was a picture of the Day of Judgment by his bedside. There is no question that Benjamin Franklin not only played a critical role in the founding of our country, he boldly declared that the United States of America was formed through the sovereignty of God.
http://acheritagegroup.org/blog/?p=596

Stefan Lochner, Last Judgement, c. 1435. Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne

I've really enjoyed talking about the 2 most irreligious Founding Fathers (Jefferson and Franklin), how about we talk about the rest of them, many that were ordained Christian ministers?

 

[Town Heretic]

For those of you who want to hear what Franklin thought about God directly from Franklin, you're in luck. Here's a letter he wrote, himself:

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."​

That's from a letter Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University. It was published in a biography by Carl Van Doren, who won the Pulitzer Prize for writing the volume in 1939.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

For those of you who want to hear what Franklin thought about God directly from Franklin, you're in luck. Here's a letter he wrote, himself:

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them....​

Thank you for repeating your post from last night. I'm sure several people missed it on the previous page.

Back to the OP: If our country were ever physically divided (as we know, it's morally divided), I'd without a doubt live on the side that reflected the ideology of our Founding Fathers: That amongst other things our rights come from God, and as with the nation that they founded, the laws and cultural mores' of our new east coast nation would reflect that ideology.

Needless to say there wouldn't be an ACLU, a People United for the Separation of Church and State, Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Planned Parenthood nor a Human Rights Campaign (founded by accused child rapist Terry Bean) in that part of the continent; perhaps you and I could keep in touch via email?​

 

[Town Heretic]

If our country were ever physically divided (as we know, it's morally divided),

Always has been, issue by issue.

I'd without a doubt live on the side that reflected the ideology of our Founding Fathers: That amongst other things our rights come from God, and as with the nation that they founded, the laws and cultural mores' of our new east coast nation would reflect that ideology.

I think you're out of your tree. The Founding Fathers philosophy gave us slavery as a legal institution and women as second class citizens. That might be your idea of a Utopian society, but you're going to have a real problem finding a date on Saturday night. lain:

Or, practically speaking, their notion of God appears to have wiggle room built in. So you're not arguing against prostitution, only negotiating a different price, to use the old joke.

Needless to say there wouldn't be an ACLU,

Would there be tractor pulls and movies? I'm just saying, if you're going to declare things without providing a factual basis you might as well really go whole hog here.

a People United for the Separation of Church and State,

So the Founders's nation you envision would lack freedom of assembly and speech? Or would they just forget the European example that led them to the notion of forbidding a state sanctioned and entangled particular?

And the ACLU, despite the wild-eyed spittle you frequently apply to descriptions, is an organization that often protects a wide variety of citizens, from veterans to Christians. You're not going to agre with them at every point, who does? But that's life.

Separating the church and state is a great idea, in terms of power and particular. Europe didn't think so and it cost them a third of their population to come to a different conclusion. You want to see what happens more recently? Take a look at ISIS. Once you have men with political power speaking for God it rarely ends well.

Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Planned Parenthood nor a Human Rights Campaign (founded by accused child rapist Terry Bean) in that part of the continent; perhaps you and I could keep in touch via email?

The great thing about a free society is you don't have to agree with anyone unless you do. You can even agree with someone on a point and be utterly opposed on another. That last bit seems to give people like you and chrys fits. I don't know why.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If our country were ever physically divided (as we know, it's morally divided),

Always has been, issue by issue.

Nothing like we're seeing today:

People of faith being fined, losing their livelihood and even going to jail for standing up for God's Word.

Unborn babies being murdered by the 10's of millions; sexual deviants marching in the streets, changing invaluable institutions and indoctrinating children to the ways of sexual perversion.

Etc. x 1,000

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'd without a doubt live on the side that reflected the ideology of our Founding Fathers: That amongst other things our rights come from God, and as with the nation that they founded, the laws and cultural mores' of our new east coast nation would reflect that ideology.

I think you're out of your tree. The Founding Fathers philosophy gave us slavery as a legal institution

As shown with my posts to the Jr. Libertarian about the history of slavery here in the US, the Founding Fathers inherited something that had been on continent for somewhere between 100 and 200 years. Many were not slave owners and spoke against slavery. The important thing is that they gave us a charter that stated that "All men are created equal", knowing that someday all men would be seen that way.

Yet today's liberals keep Black Americans "enslaved" through their big government programs and immoral social policies.

and women as second class citizens.

Ah yes, because women pretty much stayed at home and did an invaluable job (raising children and keeping the family and home together) they were "second class citizens".

That might be your idea of a Utopian society, but you're going to have a real problem finding a date on Saturday night.

Don't sit by the phone...

Or, practically speaking, their notion of God appears to have wiggle room built in. So you're not arguing against prostitution, only negotiating a different price, to use the old joke.

The Founding Fathers beliefs are well documented, and no, you won't find them at the ACLU, Americans United or Mikey's websites, you'll find them in websites like Wallbuilders (who by the way owns over 100,000 documents predated 1812),

As I say in the thread that you got frustrated and left without even saying goodbye (aCW wipes an imaginary tear from the corner of his eye)...

Moving on....

 

[Town Heretic]

Nothing like we're seeing today:

It's different. I don't know why you think it's nothing like though. Let's take a look.

People of faith being fined, losing their livelihood and even going to jail for standing up for God's Word.

That's not what's happening though. That's your spin on it.

Unborn babies being murdered by the 10's of millions

Abortion is our slavery, to be sure.

; sexual deviants marching in the streets,

We've always had deviants of one sort or another marching in the streets. The Klan, for instance.

Spoiler

changing invaluable institutions

That's also happened, for good and ill, across the breadth of our relatively short history.

and indoctrinating children to the ways of sexual perversion.

Not happening in my school district. You need to get active in yours.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'd without a doubt live on the side that reflected the ideology of our Founding Fathers: That amongst other things our rights come from God, and as with the nation that they founded, the laws and cultural mores' of our new east coast nation would reflect that ideology.

For someone who gets his nose out of joint about repetition you sure do a lot of it. lain:

As shown with my posts to the Jr. Libertarian about the history of slavery here in the US, the Founding Fathers inherited something that had been on continent for somewhere between 100 and 200 years.

Sorry, but that can't walk without crutches. The truth was they had the opportunity to do something different and let that social and moral evil remain an institution of profit for the new order. Simple as that.

Many were not slave owners and spoke against slavery.

I'm sure the slaves felt a lot better about their lot after the speeches.

The important thing is that they gave us a charter that stated that "All men are created equal", knowing that someday all men would be seen that way.

Justice delayed then. Morality on the half-shell. Okay, I agree that they failed their own principles and that time and bloodshed set that error right.

Yet today's liberals keep Black Americans "enslaved" through their big government programs and immoral social policies.

That's one opinion among differing ones. Another strength of the compact, we're all entitled to one.

Ah yes, because women pretty much stayed at home and did an invaluable job (raising children and keeping the family and home together) they were "second class citizens".

Not sure what that's supposed to be. It isn't a rebuttal for the fact of that wrong treatment at law. Yes, women who weren't given the freedoms they should have been entitled to, an equality under the law, nevertheless contributed greatly to the society that denied them.

Women are great.

Don't sit by the phone...

Or have an answer if it rang on the point, apparently.

The Founding Fathers beliefs are well documented

Sure are. :thumb:

, and no, you won't find them at the ACLU, Americans United or Mikey's websites, you'll find them in websites like Wallbuilders (who by the way owns over 100,000 documents predated 1812),

Like you, I have no idea if that's true (okay, I'm guessing since you were holding out on the rich cache of knowledge your sources provided on Benjamin Franklin without knowing a few fairly important facts about him, like his election to Congress) but it won't matter since I don't get my facts about the Founders from any one source.

As I say in the thread that you got frustrated and left without even saying goodbye (aCW wipes an imaginary tear from the corner of his eye)...

Why not, it was an imaginary point.

Moving on....

Does Jefferson know that you're thread squatting? Well, I suppose it's better than tying a metaphorical pork-chop around your neck, eh?

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, I rely solely on you Libertarians for my knowledge of the Founding Fathers.

Sarcasm aside:

What would you call someone who appeals for prayer at the Constitutional Convention, an atheist?

Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98

Because that's what they did back then. You don't understand the differences in era between now and then.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ah yes, because women pretty much stayed at home and did an invaluable job (raising children and keeping the family and home together) they were "second class citizens".

No you moron, it's because they didn't have the same rights as men, either a vote or a voice.

You're nothing but a pompous bloody buffoon although seeing you get ripped apart by TH has its entertainment value so thanks for that.

:thumb:

 

[Granite]

No you moron, it's because they didn't have the same rights as men, either a vote or a voice.

You're nothing but a pompous bloody buffoon although seeing you get ripped apart by TH has its entertainment value so thanks for that.

:thumb:

It's a miracle this guy doesn't drown when he was uses a toilet.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I really think the admins should ban aCW solely on the grounds that its shameful to Christianity to have a "Christian" here who cannot even stand up to a secular humanist in an argument.

Shame.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I really think the admins should ban aCW solely on the grounds that its shameful to Christianity to have a "Christian" here who cannot even stand up to a secular humanist in an argument.

Shame.

alphaCharlieWhiskey isn't exactly treading new ground there.

:chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

I really think the admins should ban aCW solely on the grounds that its shameful to Christianity to have a "Christian" here who cannot even stand up to a secular humanist in an argument.

Shame.

Careful. You are close to breaking the irony meter. Junior.

 

[Jefferson]

This thread I started was actually an experiment to test whether or not the meme below is accurate. The meme states, "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out." The number of libs on this forum who would love the idea of living in their own socialist Utopia came to a grand total of zero. Why? Because it also meant they would not be able to attempt to dictate to conservatives how they could live. To a liberal such a world would be the opposite of a Utopia. It would be a living hell.

From the creators of the meme:

The Progressive believes in precisely two things: his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force. In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator. Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal. The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men.

As naked power-lust is a rather ugly motive, the Progressive rationalizes his desire to rule as a concern for human welfare, seeing himself as a great humanitarian, far superior morally to the lesser beings who pursue merely “materialist” ends such as their own prosperity and who frequently object to his program for achieving Utopia. This assumed moral superiority spills over into fields of practical accomplishment, and the Progressive imagines himself capable of allocating resources and even directing entire industries far more efficiently than a free market, often despite not even having any business or scientific experience. But despite what the Progressive believes about himself, the desire to compel others to obey his orders is what drives him forward.

To read the rest of the article click HERE.

 

[patrick jane]

This thread I started was actually an experiment to test whether or not the meme below is accurate. The meme states, "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out." The number of libs on this forum who would love the idea of living in their own socialist utopia came to a grand total of zero. Why? Because it also meant they would not be able to attempt to dictate to conservatives how they could live. To a liberal such a world would be the opposite of a utopia.

From the creators of the meme:


To read the rest of the article click HERE.

interesting

 

[Tinark]

This unrealistic fantasy will never happen:

The US is already divided in half by the Mississippi river. Let's have all the lefties live to the west of the river and all the conservatives east of the river.

On the east side, abortion would be a capital crime. There would be no expensive prison system needed because crime would be punished by financial restitution, flogging, or capital punishment. Everyone above the age of 20 would be required to own a handgun. Islam (a religion that advocates murder) would be illegal. There would be no mandatory health insurance, no social security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no "free" government indocrina...err...education, no welfare checks, no food stamps, etc. Also, everyone will pay the same percentage of income tax no matter how much they make and those taxes will be below 10%.

The left ...err west coast wouldn't have to even think about building a wall on the Mexican border anymore. They could make any laws they want with absolutely no obstruction from conservatives because there wouldn't be any conservatives. They could have themselves so much fun taxing the hell out of each other!

Question for liberals: Wouldn't that be wonderful?

When you say "conservatives" are you referring to just those who would want to live under the Christian Taliban, say, 10-15% of the US at most?