[TheRealThing]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...lot-video/


Right on cue, the Occupy Main Streeters, have begun to resort to violence to get their way, what ever that is. More and more of the so-called Occupy Leaders have been caught on tape advocating violence as the preferred avenue to get their grievances heard on a grander scale. Naturally, even though having been caught on tape and video more than a few times voicing their support of the anarchist movement, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, are still trying to put a happy face on the coming civil rioting, and possibly worse, saying they believe the activist led anarchy is "healthy" for America.

[tradition]

Of all winters, I was hoping for a really fridged winter to see how committed the occupy people really were. OK , so we didn't get six feet of snow on Wall Street to test the commitment. So they are still here and they will kick it into HIGH gear over the summer before the election. Brace yourself. This will be an interesting summer. However, I am still holding faith in my country that the majority is smarter than the unemployed waiting for a handout .

[TheRealThing]

Saw Bill Ayers on the news today. He was going on about how it's unacceptable for the USA to consume so much/many of the world's resources. It occurred to me that Ayers is the bozo that put ideas in Obama's head about American energy consumption, remember BHO's infamous quote on the campaign trail when he desparaged our country for using 67% (his number) of the fossil fuels and electricity? Then he followed his statement up by saying it was unethical for us to use this much of the world's energy and it can not continue. The biggest problem with Obama and Ayers position on this matter is that America uses more energy because we are a developed nation but more than that, we allow folks who live here to live free. Consequently we use 67% if the resources consumed yearly because of demand, not because we are a bunch of wastrels. That is not to say we are using 67% of the available energy resources. Just that we use that much of the resources that the world presently consumes.

In case you're wondering what Bill Ayers has to do with 'Occupy', he helped found the Weather Underground, the Weather Underground was an American radical left organization. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen although its full name, as given in official communiques, was the Weather Underground Organization or WUO. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government. Ayers is known to have blown up a number of government buildings across the US. Great guy for Obama to have on board as an adviser. No wonder the president and Ayers are on TV extolling the virtues of the 'Occupy movement'. This information is out there and easy to find. If the media aren't biased why do they continue to give Mr Obama a free pass on all this stuff? Not only that, where is the outrage from john Q public?

[TheRealVille]

Obama 2012. :rockon: :Clap:

[TheRealThing]

Obama 2012. :rockon: :Clap:

This is what makes you look shallow to me. You want to cite sources and data when you make certain posts to give your opinion the weight of logic. But, when people who line up across the aisle from you use data, QUOTES, statistics, web sites foreign and domestic, articles written by experts in their field etc., you remain unfazed by credible information. The conclusion is therefore inescapable, all you care about is the liberal agenda. From where I am sitting you would put party above all else, in front of country, and laws that have been on the books for over a hundred years, and you support the trampling underfoot of traditional American idealism. You hate the idea of answering to God, and you seem to hate people who try to live by the His precepts. This is why you delight in the destruction of our free society. "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven". How far do we necessarily need to decline before people like you will be satisfied?

A california based 'Occupy' leader was interviewed on TV last night. He said all American citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life including a house, a car, and a cell phone. Of course, the list of necessities also included the usual items, food, clothing, health care, a free college education, and on and on ad-nauseum. He doesn't have a job by the way. And more importantly, is calling for vastly stepped up violent activity, on TV no less.

If people like you and Ayers get their way, and America looses her sovereignty, their won't be any safe havens anywhere. The idea of putting the US into the backwaters of world leadership, is stupidity carried to the absurd. Of course, it's no more absurd than letting some dope smoking moron make policy for the greatest country the world has ever known. I have said this before, all the infighting going on in the halls of congress that has spilled out onto the world stage and into the streets of our country under the banner of 'Occupy Main Street' is anarchy. And which, is the manifestation of hatred by folks who don't have the character to get up and get a job. But, they sure have the energy to try to overthrow the laws and legislature of a land ruled by order and fairness. The oversight of this madness by the Nancy Pelosiesque in congress who have lost their way, fan the flames of the wildfires of anarchy. I'm telling you, the farmer can only eat so much of his own seed before starvation inevitably overtakes him.

You want to support a party that has openly invited God to 'bless' the riotous behavior of those bent on the destruction of our government and our land. Their IS no depth to great to stoop for the purpose of attacking the republicans, and therefore, their conservative base, for misguided dems, who are too filled with contempt and hate to be objective anymore. Unbelievably, the arrogance and self justifying rationale of those in the grips of bondage of the evil that has come upon us in the form of social justice, now are so brazen, they don't care one bit if they offend the conservative base. Further, their shameless public support, aired by the bought and paid for main stream media, along with the financial support of 'Occupy', prove this to be true beyond doubt. Maybe you're right, and there aren't enough folks left to get out a big enough vote to give Mr O the ouster. But, I'll tell you this, if there is, the asperations of you and your ilk, to witness the demise of traditional American values will see a long dark spell of being relegated to the obscurity, their divisive and demented notions deserve. As the term implies, the revolution of the 60's has returned. And once again, the 'Occupiers' and their suporters, revel in the spirit of destroying for the sake of destruction. Their is nothing to be gained from tearing down government and the order of our society, other than anarchy. I mean, it's not like Ayers et-al's manifesto, to this very end isn't available on line for all to see. IMO, those who support 'Occupy', now that the true goals have been revealed are nothing short of enemies of the state. The conspicuous absence of any kind of a rebuff as to origin of BHO's liberal rebuke of the American energy policies during his run up to the white house proves my point. But, by all means, let's give Mr Ayers and BHO a big hand. :please:

[TheRealVille]

This is what makes you look shallow to me. You want to cite sources and data when you make certain posts to give your opinion the weight of logic. But, when people who line up across the aisle from you use data, QUOTES, statistics, web sites foreign and domestic, articles written by experts in their field etc., you remain unfazed by credible information. The conclusion is therefore inescapable, all you care about is the liberal agenda. From where I am sitting you would put party above all else, in front of country, and laws that have been on the books for over a hundred years, and you support the trampling underfoot of traditional American idealism. You hate the idea of answering to God, and you seem to hate people who try to live by the His precepts. This is why you delight in the destruction of our free society. "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven". How far do we necessarily need to decline before people like you will be satisfied?

A california based 'Occupy' leader was interviewed on TV last night. He said all American citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life including a house, a car, and a cell phone. Of course, the list of necessities also included the usual items, food, clothing, health care, a free college education, and on and on ad-nauseum. He doesn't have a job by the way. And more importantly, is calling for vastly stepped up violent activity, on TV no less.

If people like you and Ayers get their way, and America looses her sovereignty, their won't be any safe havens anywhere. The idea of putting the US into the backwaters of world leadership, is stupidity carried to the absurd. Of course, it's no more absurd than letting some dope smoking moron make policy for the greatest country the world has ever known. I have said this before, all the infighting going on in the halls of congress that has spilled out onto the world stage and into the streets of our country under the banner of 'Occupy Main Street' is anarchy. And which, is the manifestation of hatred by folks who don't have the character to get up and get a job. But, they sure have the energy to try to overthrow the laws and legislature of a land ruled by order and fairness. The oversight of this madness by the Nancy Pelosiesque in congress who have lost their way, fan the flames of the wildfires of anarchy. I'm telling you, the farmer can only eat so much of his own seed before starvation inevitably overtakes him.

You want to support a party that has openly invited God to 'bless' the riotous behavior of those bent on the destruction of our government and our land. Their IS no depth to great to stoop for the purpose of attacking the republicans, and therefore, their conservative base, for misguided dems, who are too filled with contempt and hate to be objective anymore. Unbelievably, the arrogance and self justifying rationale of those in the grips of bondage of the evil that has come upon us in the form of social justice, now are so brazen, they don't care one bit if they offend the conservative base. Further, their shameless public support, aired by the bought and paid for main stream media, along with the financial support of 'Occupy', prove this to be true beyond doubt. Maybe you're right, and there aren't enough folks left to get out a big enough vote to give Mr O the ouster. But, I'll tell you this, if there is, the asperations of you and your ilk, to witness the demise of traditional American values will see a long dark spell of being relegated to the obscurity, their divisive and demented notions deserve. As the term implies, the revolution of the 60's has returned. And once again, the 'Occupiers' and their suporters, revel in the spirit of destroying for the sake of destruction. Their is nothing to be gained from tearing down government and the order of our society, other than anarchy. I mean, it's not like Ayers et-al's manifesto, to this very end isn't available on line for all to see. IMO, those who support 'Occupy', now that the true goals have been revealed are nothing short of enemies of the state. The conspicuous absence of any kind of a rebuff as to origin of BHO's liberal rebuke of the American energy policies during his run up to the white house proves my point. But, by all means, let's give Mr Ayers and BHO a big hand. :please:

Until people like you decide to treat every citizen equally, and quit trying to push God on our government, and laws.

[TheRealThing]

Until people like you decide to treat every citizen equally, and quit trying to push God on our government, and laws.

In other words, you're sayng this; [ you are willing to see this nation lay in ruins because your hatred and intolerance of your fellow citizens (but not all citizens, just those that are conservative) has become such an obsession with you that, you would choose anarchy over the status quo.] You fit the profile of the left wing haters to a T. How do you feel about the many thousands of right wingers which have made a profound impact on America, from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Dwight D Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan (your hero's favorite politician). I guess you're advocating for these I have mentioned to be replaced by the new darlings of the democratic base, the 'Occupy' magots which, the main stream media have obligingly televised from out of the parks of our land. These who supposedly represent the new face of American idealism.

You know, taking a chain saw to thin ice over deep water doesn't make much sense to me. But, more to the point, with you liberals it's all personal. The contempt spouted by the left wing extremists, such as the 'Occupy' traitors, and the daddy of home grown anarchists in the person of Bill Ayers and his philosophical spawn, is born out of the throes of ill will. It's pure evil and the only form of expression that will adequately express the evil they feel inside will come in the form of violence.

It would be laughable when the left tries to draw a parallel between 'Occupiers' and the Tea Partiers, if not for the threat the 'Occupiers' pose to the continued existence of our nation as we know it. It is either willful ignorance, or love of anarchy. And that, as opposed to love of country. Only the simple minded among us would be fooled into believing the damage done by painting a patriotic face on the criminality which is common place with this rabble, will only affect the people on the right. My guess is that if there were right wingers and left wingers on the Titanic, they all died. Our ship of state is taking water, surely the left's hatred for the right is not so intense they can't see the reality here.

But, I will tell you this, IF I have to choose between God and my country, I'll choose God every time. What does my faith have to do with your contempt? I don't think I'm one iota better than you. I do have my ducks in a row with the One Who had to but speak the known, and unknown, universe into existence though, and, Who lovingly formed my ancestor from the dust with His own hands and then breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Please, for the record line me up with Him every time.

[vundy33]

In other words, you're sayng this; [ you are willing to see this nation lay in ruins because your hatred and intolerance of your fellow citizens (but not all citizens, just those that are conservative) has become such an obsession with you that, you would choose anarchy over the status quo.] You fit the profile of the left wing haters to a T. How do you feel about the many thousands of right wingers which have made a profound impact on America, from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Dwight D Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan (your hero's favorite politician). I guess you're advocating for these I have mentioned to be replaced by the new darlings of the democratic base, the 'Occupy' magots which, the main stream media have obligingly televised from out of the parks of our land. These who supposedly represent the new face of American idealism.

You know, taking a chain saw to thin ice over deep water doesn't make much sense to me. But, more to the point, with you liberals it's all personal. The contempt spouted by the left wing extremists, such as the 'Occupy' traitors, and the daddy of home grown anarchists in the person of Bill Ayers and his philosophical spawn, is born out of the throes of ill will. It's pure evil and the only form of expression that will adequately express the evil they feel inside will come in the form of violence.

It would be laughable when the left tries to draw a parallel between 'Occupiers' and the Tea Partiers, if not for the threat the 'Occupiers' pose to the continued existence of our nation as we know it. It is either willful ignorance, or love of anarchy. And that, as opposed to love of country. Only the simple minded among us would be fooled into believing the damage done by painting a patriotic face on the criminality which is common place with this rabble, will only affect the people on the right. My guess is that if there were right wingers and left wingers on the Titanic, they all died. Our ship of state is taking water, surely the left's hatred for the right is not so intense they can't see the reality here.

But, I will tell you this, IF I have to choose between God and my country, I'll choose God every time. What does my faith have to do with your contempt? I don't think I'm one iota better than you. I do have my ducks in a row with the One Who had to but speak the known, and unknown, universe into existence though, and, Who lovingly formed my ancestor from the dust with His own hands and then breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Please, for the record line me up with Him every time.

lol, that's a pretty far reach man, even for you.

I think what he's saying is until you (not necessarily you) start treating every citizen the same, stop pushing God on our government and laws (where it doesn't belong), he won't be satisfied.

I have to agree with him on that. I've said it many times on here...the only result of God in our government will be a government/society like those so many like you despise, and that's radical Islam. Religion and government have never, and will never go well together.

[TheRealVille]

lol, that's a pretty far reach man, even for you.

I think what he's saying is until you (not necessarily you) start treating every citizen the same, stop pushing God on our government and laws (where it doesn't belong), he won't be satisfied.

I have to agree with him on that. I've said it many times on here...the only result of God in our government will be a government/society like those so many like you despise, and that's radical Islam. Religion and government have never, and will never go well together.

Exactly what I meant. :Thumbs: Of course, he knew what I meant though. He is just a word twister.

[TheRealThing]

lol, that's a pretty far reach man, even for you.

I think what he's saying is until you (not necessarily you) start treating every citizen the same, stop pushing God on our government and laws (where it doesn't belong), he won't be satisfied.

I have to agree with him on that. I've said it many times on here...the only result of God in our government will be a government/society like those so many like you despise, and that's radical Islam. Religion and government have never, and will never go well together.

]





IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration (of Independence) of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, and necessary for the public good.

(text of greivances against King George omitted)


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All of the men listed here would disagree with you on that, as would I. I would not advocate for the insertion of God into matters of state that would be in the least more pervasive than those suggested, and that I have bolded, in the text of the Declartion of Independence. I have not, nor would I ever call for a theocracy to replace our system of governance. But, for you or anybody else to claim that there is NO place in government for the mention of God is just not true.

Those in the Middle East under the heel of Radical Islam have my sympathy but, they live in a theocracy. And, as you have rightly pointed out, they export murder and terror in the name of god. My stating the fact that radical Islamists would gladly give their life in the act of murdering innocents by setting off a suicide bomb at a grade school or on a jetliner is known fact. And there is nothing wrong with calling those committing atrocities such as these out.

At any rate, and though I do not dispute your point, this thread is about the radicals that are advocating violence as a means to achieve an end, and that stated end is the overthrow of your government Vundy. Ride in and rescue him all you want and it's fine with me, but, I haven't stretched one fact in my assessment of the 'Occupy' thugs, or the origin of it's roots or the identities of those that support them. And as I said, paint a patriotic face on their crimes.

[TheRealThing]

^I'm disappointed. Not even one taker? This text is the language used by our founding fathers. The obvious truth that they relied completely on God's own hand to protect them as they laid down their lives, holding back nothing in their bold proclamation to King George is beyond dispute. Who, arguably at that time was the most powerful man in the world. And, was known fearfully as the "mad king of England"

[TheRealVille]

^I'm disappointed. Not even one taker? This text is the language used by our founding fathers. The obvious truth that they relied completely on God's own hand to protect them as they laid down their lives, holding back nothing in their bold proclamation to King George is beyond dispute. Who, arguably at that time was the most powerful man in the world. And, was known fearfully as the "mad king of England"

You do realize that Natures God is a deist term, right? Any mention of god in this declaration of Independence is a "general god", a "whoever you worship" god. BTW, don't mistake silence as a victory, it is just a way to not make you look any more foolish with your "christian god America" stuff. We left England to get away from a state religion, christian BTW, to go to America and get away from a state religion.

[TheRealThing]

You do realize that Natures God is a deist term, right? Any mention of god in this declaration of Independence is a "general god", a "whoever you worship" god. BTW, don't mistake silence as a victory, it is just a way to not make you look any more foolish with your "christian god America" stuff. We left England to get away from a state religion, christian BTW, to go to America and get away from a state religion.

Listen, if you want to salve your conscience with the liberal legal argument go ahead. You have heard of taking comments in context, right? There is no way you can make that deist jibe stick within the confines of the text and anyone can easily see that argument is waaay off the bag in this case.

[TheRealVille]

Listen, if you want to salve your conscience with the liberal legal argument go ahead. You have heard of taking comments in context, right? There is no way you can make that deist jibe stick within the confines of the text and anyone can easily see that argument is waaay off the bag in this case.

It sticks as good as a christian god if we are talking context.

Here is your top 3 google picks when you type in natures god. It has always been a deist term. Anybody that ever studied religion knows this.

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature's_God
http://naturesgod.org/

[vundy33]

[/B]]





IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration (of Independence) of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, and necessary for the public good.

(text of greivances against King George omitted)


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All of the men listed here would disagree with you on that, as would I. I would not advocate for the insertion of God into matters of state that would be in the least more pervasive than those suggested, and that I have bolded, in the text of the Declartion of Independence. I have not, nor would I ever call for a theocracy to replace our system of governance. But, for you or anybody else to claim that there is NO place in government for the mention of God is just not true.

Those in the Middle East under the heel of Radical Islam have my sympathy but, they live in a theocracy. And, as you have rightly pointed out, they export murder and terror in the name of god. My stating the fact that radical Islamists would gladly give their life in the act of murdering innocents by setting off a suicide bomb at a grade school or on a jetliner is known fact. And there is nothing wrong with calling those committing atrocities such as these out.

At any rate, and though I do not dispute your point, this thread is about the radicals that are advocating violence as a means to achieve an end, and that stated end is the overthrow of your government Vundy. Ride in and rescue him all you want and it's fine with me, but, I haven't stretched one fact in my assessment of the 'Occupy' thugs, or the origin of it's roots or the identities of those that support them. And as I said, paint a patriotic face on their crimes.

Not trying to rescue anyone man...on everything besides religion, you and I agree and he and I usually disagree.

Those quotes are from hundreds of years ago, a different time. I don't mean that there's no place in Govt for God...what I mean is there's no place for his insertion into Gvt affairs and decisions.

[TheRealThing]

Not trying to rescue anyone man...on everything besides religion, you and I agree and he and I usually disagree.

Those quotes are from hundreds of years ago, a different time. I don't mean that there's no place in Govt for God...what I mean is there's no place for his insertion into Gvt affairs and decisions.

The last thing I want to do, is to give you or RV the wrong impression. I respect you guys, all I do is debate policy, direction, history and etc. I certainly do not dislike anybody on here. I agree with you and I said so in my post----"I would not advocate for the insertion of God into matters of state that would be in the least more pervasive than those suggested, and that I have bolded, in the text of the Declartion of Independence. I have not, nor would I ever call for a theocracy to replace our system of governance." I'm sure you are aware the argument raging these days, is for TOTAL elimination of any reference to God from all vestages of government, whether that be the walls of the Supreme Court Building, or the pages of official documents that constitute the basis of our system of government and law. But, in my view, all these things need to be said, debated and considered.

I have witnessed the shinning alabaster walls of state, disintegrate to a mottled shadow of what they once were. Compromise and weak willed politicians have allowed a slow errosion of America's values to make most folks unwilling to take a stand on anything except an ignoble bent toward tolerance, and that above all else. Have you ever heard the saying "a little yeast leaventh the whole lump" (bread dough)? History clearly shows America has had to withstand the ravenges of attack from within (progressivism/liberalism) and from without, which of course, our military deals with. The point I'm making is this, unless you've been around long enough to watch all this stuff going down, and, are willng to do a little research on political affairs on the 20th century American political scene, one really has no basis for comparison. According to science, the Grand Canyon was once just a small stream, add a few centuries for errosion to work and, voil'a. Same way with recent US history, I can assure you the changes that have occurred with regard to 'American Ideals' have pushed the country waaaay left. And, I for one, believe the damaging effects of which, are aired nightly/daily on the news, and are just as pronounced and easy to recognize, as the peeling facade of an old building.

Like they say, don't shoot the messenger LOL. Like it or not, normally the schollarly view of American politics and policies, past, present and future, is presented by the republican side of the argument. While, the dems to refute, usually attack the character of those on the other side of the debate, or laugh at them, or berate them is some way so as to diminish their credibility. An unbiased eye and ear will always reveal this to be true.

[WideZero]

Other than the fact that these people are shitting everywhere, I'm okay with the movement. Like how people are taking a stand.

[TheRealThing]

It sticks as good as a christian god if we are talking context.

Here is your top 3 google picks when you type in natures god. It has always been a deist term. Anybody that ever studied religion knows this.

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature's_God
http://naturesgod.org/

Just look at the words RV; "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them----that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights---appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions---with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"


Here, according to Wikipedia, is the basic defintition of Deism---
A religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator(s). According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own

Here is my contention, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, knew for all intent and purposes they were signing their own decrees of death. I mean, they were shaking their fists in the face of King George III, "the mad king". And they signed it in their own hand, no less. My friend, that's an act of bravery!

They were also men of great intellect, educated in the finest schools and universities, men of global repute, even in that era of limited exposure. You're saying they ALL said that "all men are created equal by their Creator, so, they appealed to the Supreme Judge of the World, to find their actions to restore these unalienable rights to the men and women of the new world righteous in nature, and find them to be faultless in His sight, in persuing the action they were undertaking, and further that they were relying FIRMLY on what they hoped was the soveriegn will of God, and thus, He, would be willing to provide DIVINE PROTECTION over them, in their endeavors to live freely in the new world? All this discussion appealing to God in written word signed, sealed and sent to King George, were the words of men who believed this?---"This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own"

You or nobody else would ever convince me of that one. Sometimes you just have to believe your own eyes. These are the actions and words of men of faith, not some vague and agnostic reference to a creator/what's his name out there somewhere.

[Truth]

Until people like you decide to treat every citizen equally, and quit trying to push God on our government, and laws.

In light of the various and sundry types that populate this country, why on earth sould we "treat every citizen equally"? Such a statement is ridiculous. For example, you expect me to treat those who contribute to the good of the country and those who steal from the country equally? To treat those who work and pay the country's bills and those who won't get off their butts other than to garner welfare equally? Not likely.

[TheRealVille]

In light of the various and sundry types that populate this country, why on earth sould we "treat every citizen equally"? Such a statement is ridiculous. For example, you expect me to treat those who contribute to the good of the country and those who steal from the country equally? To treat those who work and pay the country's bills and those who won't get off their butts other than to garner welfare equally? Not likely.

You know exactly what I was talking about, don't try your spin.

[TheRealVille]

Whatever gets you through life, TRT. I don't need, or want it, especially in government.