• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Glenn Beck rally will be a measure of the tea party's strength

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Still waiting....

How have they been called into question, Justonemorevoice?

I know there has been very serious attempts made, by the sitting President as well, to denigrate US history and the American people rather than highlighting the many positive contributions America has made to the world. That's why I'm rather curious about what form this 'question' is taking.
im not trying to denigrate anything at all. im just saying the several of them have had their beliefs questioned.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Still waiting....

im not trying to denigrate anything at all. im just saying the several of them have had their beliefs questioned.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

I didn't say you were personally denigrating anyone Justonemoorevoice, but was inquiring only as to what form this "question" was being raised.

What questions against whom and by whom??
 
8-28-10T.jpg



looks like a pretty decent turnout to me.:2wave:
 
Re: Still waiting....

im not trying to denigrate anything at all. im just saying the several of them have had their beliefs questioned.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
Religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers

To deny that there was a strong christian influence in the founding of the country would be silly. Not all the founding fathers necessarily where religious, and the constitution is very neutral on religion except that the right is protected, but to say that the nation was founded on christian principals is not an untrue statement, simply incomplete.
 
Re: Still waiting....

yah yah yah. this is not about obama, now is it? do you deny that some of the founding fathers beliefs have been questioned?

Questioned... yes. With any foundation behind those questions.... no.

The fact that non-believers have made several baseless attempts to re-write history over 200 years after the fact, all to try and make it better conform to their beliefs and political agendas, should fail the smell test with anyone who applies even a small amount of common sense.
 
Re: Still waiting....

To deny that there was a strong christian influence in the founding of the country would be silly. Not all the founding fathers necessarily where religious, and the constitution is very neutral on religion except that the right is protected, but to say that the nation was founded on christian principals is not an untrue statement, simply incomplete.

i know all that, i already said as much.
 
it was only 3 years ago

YouTube - Senator Robert Byrd says "white niggers" on TV

in 64 bobby spoke nonstop for 14 hours, 13 minutes...

tsk tsk

Gee, Robert Byrd denounced his comments and the fact that he was a member of KKK, he apologized, and now he is dead. Yet Republicans are holding on to his past because he just happens to be the only Democrat they can quote saying racist remarks!

How about Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and some of the others that left the Democratic Party to join the Party that was more accommodating to their hateful/racist attitudes? They never apologized. Did you forget them?

How about David Duke? Isn't he still a Republican? Or better still, how about Rand Paul - didn't he just recently suggested that he wouldn't have voted on the Civil Rights Act?
 
Re: Poll results are in!!

I took a small local poll (three neighbors and the FedEx guy)...

According to the respondents, America doesn't seem any more honorable this afternoon than it did before the Beck-kateers' circle jerk at the Lincoln Memorial. Go figger.

:shrug:

I did the same. I asked if people had the dream back, since Al Sharpton is "Reclaiming the Dream" today.

Honestly, this is just petty
.
I hope Sharpton is having a great march. I know Beck's was a success. His was a lot about unity, faith, hope,and charity which seems to be lacking these days
.
As far as honor, I don't think anyone could disagree that many of us need it restored. So many are lacking integrity.
Will Beck's rally change anyone? Who know's, but at least he's trying, along with all the other people of faith who spoke today.
 
Re: Still waiting....

I didn't say you were personally denigrating anyone Justonemoorevoice, but was inquiring only as to what form this "question" was being raised.

What questions against whom and by whom??
did you read the link i posted?
 
Re: Still waiting....

Questioned... yes. With any foundation behind those questions.... no.

The fact that non-believers have made several baseless attempts to re-write history over 200 years after the fact, all to try and make it better conform to their beliefs and political agendas, should fail the smell test with anyone who applies even a small amount of common sense.

thats just it, you say they are baseless. isnt that your opinion on their opinions? i dont see what is so wrong with questioning things.
 
Since apparently you are in Arizona tell us what was discriminatory in the Arizona bill? You seem to have a different definition of civil rights than I do. I don't happen to believe that violating the law by being here illegally gives anyone a right to anything other than deportation or jail.

What was discriminating?

How about that Hispanics could now be stopped just for being brown, because that is what illegals look like? Why weren't right-wingers able to pick up on the discriminatory nature of this law? Because they weren't the ones that were being singled out?

If it wasn't discriminating, why did they go and change it?

When I wrote last on Arizona's new immigration law, critics of the measure were arguing that requiring proof of citizenship based on a policeman’s “reasonable suspicion” -- which could be based partially but not “solely” on ethnicity -- triggered during “any lawful contact” was an invitation to abuse. Conservative defenders found these criticisms of a “sensibly written and rigorously focused” law not only mistaken, but “over the top,” “intemperate,” “hysterical,” “preening” and “sanctimonious.”

Until the Arizona legislature hastily revisited the law on precisely these points. “Any lawful contact” has now been changed to a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” The word “solely” has been removed, broadening the presumption against ethnic profiling.
PostPartisan - The authors of Arizona's immigration law retreat
 
Re: Still waiting....

Does that link trump the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution?

sigh. i didnt say it said anything about either. im just saying that there are some that simply dont believe in god and in those cases how do you balance things out? does that make sense? (i have a terrible headache)
 
What was discriminating?

How about that Hispanics could now be stopped just for being brown, because that is what illegals look like? Why weren't right-wingers able to pick up on the discriminatory nature of this law? Because they weren't the ones that were being singled out?

If it wasn't discriminating, why did they go and change it?

When I wrote last on Arizona's new immigration law, critics of the measure were arguing that requiring proof of citizenship based on a policeman’s “reasonable suspicion” -- which could be based partially but not “solely” on ethnicity -- triggered during “any lawful contact” was an invitation to abuse. Conservative defenders found these criticisms of a “sensibly written and rigorously focused” law not only mistaken, but “over the top,” “intemperate,” “hysterical,” “preening” and “sanctimonious.”

Until the Arizona legislature hastily revisited the law on precisely these points. “Any lawful contact” has now been changed to a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” The word “solely” has been removed, broadening the presumption against ethnic profiling.
PostPartisan - The authors of Arizona's immigration law retreat

Is that in the Arizona Law? Looks like another person who hasn't read it. Does it really matter what was discussed or does the actual law matter?
 
Re: Still waiting....

thats just it, you say they are baseless. isnt that your opinion on their opinions? i dont see what is so wrong with questioning things.

Questioning is fine, if you have a solid basis for those questions.

You are saying that the beliefs of the founders are being questioned, so how about you give me some examples? If you can't, then you have just proved my point.
 
Re: Still waiting....

Obama flushed our honor down the toilet when he went on worldwide apology tour. He's destroying our honor, by destroying our country.

lol, I suppose you haven't realized that the respect for America is dwindling worldwide. That's what happens when you go to the war with the wrong country. Don't blame this on Obama, blame it on Georgie W.
 
Re: Still waiting....

lol, I suppose you haven't realized that the respect for America is dwindling worldwide. That's what happens when you go to the war with the wrong country. Don't blame this on Obama, blame it on Georgie W.

Interesting that you and others continue to divert from the current Administration and the thread topic. Don't blame you as the liberal ideology is a disaster.

Beck rally - News, photos, topics, and quotes
 
Moderator's Warning:
Last warning: stay on topic.
 
I have no problem with people protesting regardless of the issue. My concern however is that many appear to not even know what was in the Arizona Bill. I don't recall blasting anything other than ignorance.
That is too funny! Especially since it appears that you are the one that doesn't know what was in the AZ blll. Didn't you just ask "why was it discriminatory"?

Authors of the AZ Immigration law retreat:
When I wrote last on Arizona's new immigration law, critics of the measure were arguing that requiring proof of citizenship based on a policeman’s “reasonable suspicion” -- which could be based partially but not “solely” on ethnicity -- triggered during “any lawful contact” was an invitation to abuse. Conservative defenders found these criticisms of a “sensibly written and rigorously focused” law not only mistaken, but “over the top,” “intemperate,” “hysterical,” “preening” and “sanctimonious.”

Until the Arizona legislature hastily revisited the law on precisely these points. “Any lawful contact” has now been changed to a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” The word “solely” has been removed, broadening the presumption against ethnic profiling.
PostPartisan - The authors of Arizona's immigration law retreat

So, if it wasn't discriminatory, why did they change it?
 
I only see a few hundred, with a fake crowd photoshopped into the background.

Is any one claiming the picture is fake, or is this a straw man?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom