tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post2411419242426181712..comments2023-10-10T05:30:54.239-04:00Comments on Jo-Joe Politico: THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT A COUNTRY - BY PAT BOONEJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-34589829779068687812010-03-08T23:48:05.529-05:002010-03-08T23:48:05.529-05:00SK: You are quite right that the Constitution is t...SK: You are quite right that the Constitution is the greatest document MAN has ever created. <br /><br />You are obviously schooled in the view that it is a secular document, written for a secular society.<br /><br />You have been taught that the founders were careful not to let their "religion" creep into our Constitution or our laws.<br /><br />You have been taught that our laws were based on a northwestern European model of jurisprudence, one that had no relationship to religion in general and Christianity in particular.<br /><br />You have been taught wrong.<br /><br />How do I know this?<br /><br />I know this because I have read the writings of our founders, themselves, not what someone said about them.<br /><br />They are available to you online and in libraries across the nation.<br /><br />My guess is that they knew more about where they got the ideas for our Constitution than either you or any other contemporary historian, unless you have studied time-travel and mind reading.<br /><br />To find how the signers of the Declaration of Independence viewed the nation they were founding, read the works of: John Adams; Samuel Adams; Josiah Bartlett; Charles Carroll; George Clymer; Benjamin Franklin; John Hancock and Benjamin Harrison.<br /><br />To discover the thinking of those who signed the Constitution, read the works of: George Washington; Nicholas Gilman; Abraham Baldwin; William Blount; Nathaniel Gorham; William Jackson; James Madison; Samuel Johnson; Robert Morris; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; and James McHenry.<br /><br />To find out about those who formulated some of our earliest laws and where they got their ideas, read the works of men like: Ethan Allen; Patrick Henry; Chief Justice John Jay; Chief Justice John Marshall; Thomas Paine; Henry Knox and others.<br /><br />Don't read what some conservative or liberal historian has said they believed, read their own words.<br /><br />None of them was shy about their religious beliefs, and the ones who had none were not shy either.<br /><br />I challenge you to read at least as many of their original works as I have and then come back here and tell me that they did not use the influence of their faith (or lack thereof) in formulating our founding documents and our laws.<br /><br />If you accept the challenge with an open mind (something I know all liberals cherish), you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free with a freedom you've never known before.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-73097441012732848542010-03-08T23:00:38.173-05:002010-03-08T23:00:38.173-05:00“No. Our laws are based on The Constitution, which...<i>“No. Our laws are based on The Constitution, which is a secular document, not a religious one.”</i> (Shaw Kenawe)<br /><br /><br />The basis or grounding of ALL of America’s Founding documents can be found in these initial words of the Declaration; <i>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, <b>that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,</b> 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."</i><br /><br />That made clear that ALL of America’s Founders saw that NONE of our rights devolved from government, but instead were INNATE and “natural rights” that we were all born with, “endowed by our Creator.”<br /><br />Secularism, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment that enshrined FREDOM of RELIGION <b>FROM any/all government action</b> IS a Western tradition.<br /><br />It DOES NOT exist in ANY Muslim nation ruled by Sharia Law. It is, in fact, the sole purview of Western Civilization.<br /><br />Our laws all devolved from the English Common Law, which in turn was devolved from the Judeo-Christian morality.<br /><br />The Western emphasis on liability is based on fault/personal accountability is the underlying ethical foundation of the Western tradition, which includes the Common Law and that which was derived from it (ie. the U.S. Constitution). The history of Western Civilization has been intimately bound up with individual responsibility, with the individual having an obligation to be a consciously good person.<br /><br />That DOES NOT exist within the cannons and traditions of, say, Sharia Law, as just one example.<br /><br />Why would anyone deny the obvious?<br /><br />The Western tradition is and long has been "the LIGHT of the world."<br /><br />It is starkly different from the morality of other traditions, such as that codified in Sharia Law.<br /><br />And that is almost certainly why while the West eradicated chattel slavery over two centuries ago, chattel slavery STILL exists throughout the Arab-Muslim world, across all of sub-Saharan Africa and much of Asia to this day!<br /><br />The U.S. Constitution rooted in the idea that ALL of our individual rights are INNATE and "endowed to us BY our Creator," NOT from government and which enshrined individualism and private property rights is indeed, as many scholars refer to it as, "A 5,000 year leap." It does seem to be at least that much of an advancement in human morality and personal ethics.<br /><br />No one on earth, not Nietzsche, NOT Marx, has ever been able to offer a rationale for collectivism comparable to the one offered by America's Founders in favor of individualism and private property rights.<br /><br />Divine providence?<br /><br />While I don't believe in that, I certainly believe that it is at least "a 5,000 year leap" in the advancement of mankind.JMKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-82456628548363318162010-03-08T21:07:02.282-05:002010-03-08T21:07:02.282-05:00"We still are a Christian nation, not because..."We still are a Christian nation, not because Christians out number the others, but because we are subscribers to the Judeo/Christian ethic."<br /><br />No. Our laws are based on The Constitution, which is a secular document, not a religious one.<br /><br />We are a secular nation.<br /><br />And you can argue forever against this, but you wont' be correct<br />Just because we are a nation that has a lot of Christians in it doesn't make us a Christian nation. Our laws are not based on the Christian Bible.<br /><br />Our laws are not based on the 10 Commandments or the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />The US is a religious western democracy, no question about that, but our laws are not based on religious laws--but on the greatest document men ever created, The US Cosntitution--a secular document.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-60802370650002998452010-03-08T16:32:34.733-05:002010-03-08T16:32:34.733-05:00“We also have more (barely) white people in Americ...<i>“We also have more (barely) white people in America, but also black, brown, yellow and red.</i><br /><br /><i>“Do you refer to America as "A White Country?" We are a country with [for now] a predominantly white population, but we also have millions and millions of US citizens of other races.</i> (Shaw Kenawe)<br /><br />Well, the 2008 population demographics for the USA are; Non-Hispanic whites - 66%, Hispanics 15%, African Americans 14%, Asian Americans 5%. Why are so many white people seemingly ashamed of their background? I see no existing historical context that would justify such a feeling.<br /><br />Where exactly does the rationalization for such a a viewpoint come?JMKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-30968271587213626602010-03-08T16:08:01.637-05:002010-03-08T16:08:01.637-05:00“We are a Christian nation...that is we are a nati...<i>“We are a Christian nation...that is we are a nation that was founded on and continute to rely on the Judeo/Christian ethic..”</i> (Joe)<br /><br />That is absolutely 100% true.<br /><br />THAT is the ONLY context in which the phrase “Christian nation” has any real meaning.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the number of Christians in the population, nor that of any other religions, nor with the establishment of any “state religion.”<br /><<br /><<br /><<br /><i>“As has been pointed out several times, reading Obama's actual quotes, rather than Boone's lying about it, it is clear he is pointing out the nation has citizens who identify with many different religions, and no religion as well. That's all there is too it...”</i> (Tom)<br /><br />No, the phrase “Christian nation” is ALWAYS used in the context of this nation’s roots and common morality being forged from the Judeo-Christian ethic.<br /><br />That is undeniably historically accurate, as this nation was forged on that belief system and that common morality, as made clear in the Declaration of Independence; <i><b>"All men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."</b></i><br /><<br /><<br /><<br /><i>“By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term.”</i> (Tom)<br /><br /><br />The concept of Judeo–Christian values promotes the very accurate concept that there is a shared intersection of values based on the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament”), brought into our culture by the founding generations of Biblically-oriented Protestants, that is fundamental to American history, cultural identity, and institutions. It does not rest on a claim that the two religions are either identical or interchangeable.<br /><br />That analysis points to the historic importance of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the development of western civilization<br /><br />The Common Law itself is both based on and influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic.<br /><br />The emphasis on liability based on fault is the underlying ethical foundation. There is something called civic morality, a shared body of values based on the Judeo-Christian and ancient republican traditions, that is the underpinning of western society. The history of Western Civilization was intimately bound up with individual responsibility - an individual had an obligation to be a consciously good person.<br /><br />That "other traditions share this morality," is demonstrably untrue, as by comparison, the morality of the Islamic tradition is completely and utterly incompatible with Western Judeo-Christian values.<br /><br />And NOT merely the brutality with regard to some of the more draconian punishments (ie. stonings) meted out by Sharia Law to adulterers and homosexuals, as well as thieves, rapists and murderers, but, for instance, with regard to Sharia’s insistence that <i>“a contact be considered void unless there is actual proof that both sides have reached an accord based on a mutual and full understanding of the terms of that contract,”</i> should that contract subsequently be challenged.<br /><br />That flies in the face of the Judeo-Christian rooted Common law that stipulates that <i><b>“each side be responsible for fully understanding said contract afore affixing their signatory to it.”</b></i> Yes, the personal responsibility implicit in the precept, “Let the buyer beware,” is a vital component of the Common Law, which is itself rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.<br /><br />So, it IS a very meaningful term. It was to both T Jefferson and B Franklin (two non-denominational Deists) and is to me, a non-religious, "lapsed Catholic," who rejected Catholicism at age 11 and who today is also probably best defined as a "non-denominational Deist."JMKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-63916726503821159072010-03-07T21:20:47.303-05:002010-03-07T21:20:47.303-05:00Tom: Usually you seem quite rational, but when yo...Tom: Usually you seem quite rational, but when you say, "By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term." you are not being either rational or truthful.<br /><br />Judeo–Christian (sometimes written as Judaeo–Christian) refers to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity.<br /><br />Robert L. Heim; ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS in his Masters thesis on the relevance of the Judeo/Christian ehtic in the Army wrote: "...the author considered the lives of five outstanding biblical leaders from within Judeo-Christian history. Joshua, David, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Jesus of Nazareth to determine if the qualities of decision making they manifested in their lives endorsed the general qualities of decision making as framed by the professional Army ethic. The analysis revealed that the four values of the professional Army ethic are easily contained in the Judeo-Christian values system."<br /><br />You might also be man enough to consider:<br /> <br />http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3<br /><br />Did or did not President BO say, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation...?"<br /><br />"...you are continuing to allow Boone's lying to stand on your blog. That says a lot."<br /><br />Nothing I could say or do would change your opinion of me, largely because you had it formed before you ever visited here. That's called, "prejudice," and you're full of it.<br /><br />Frankly, I don't really care what you think of me, for I am not the issue in this post.<br /><br />Either you are not intelligent enough to have grasped the point of the post or you deliberately want to read it selectively to further your own agenda.<br /><br />Now do your little pout party, or level your accusations, or pontificate away or whatever else you think it is you are doing, if it makes you feel better.<br /><br />Now quit being a gleeking, knotty-pated gudgeon, and state your case and be done with it.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-15552651649279171762010-03-07T19:57:25.888-05:002010-03-07T19:57:25.888-05:00Joe; "Is it your opinion that President BO th...Joe; "Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we might be able, in a sense, to consider ourselves a Muslim nation?"<br /><br />As has been pointed out several times, reading Obama's actual quotes, rather than Boone's lying about it, it is clear he is pointing out the nation has citizens who identify with many different religions, and no religion as well. That's all there is too it.<br /><br />Once it was pointed out that Boone's quotes were, in fact, mis-quotes designed to skew Obama's meaning, you claim that regardless of the mis-quotes, the characterization of Obama's view is correct in your opinion. That's fine. You can make any claim that you like about Obama, but you're not substantiating it at all.<br /><br />Your views about Obama seem to be based on similar such flimsy "evidence".<br /><br />That said, you are continuing to allow Boone's lying to stand on your blog. That says a lot. Sure, I'm free to point out that what Boone did on my blog, and I have done it. But, this is your blog, and to leave those lies there, and you know they are lies uncorrected, is indicative of you. That's all. I'm not demanding anything, just saying that some people intentinoally post falsehoods, and some people refuse to correct errors when they are discovered. Those people should be understood to be.. shall we say.. ethically challenged.<br /><br />By the way.. this "Judeo/Christan ethic" is not something that is unique to Jews or Christians. It's a meaningless term.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17564526640395324075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-35711483891454273472010-03-07T14:18:48.500-05:002010-03-07T14:18:48.500-05:00SK: From your own comment, "Whatever we once ...SK: From your own comment, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just."<br /><br />In your mind this is the same as saying, "...we are no longer just a Christian nation?"<br /><br />Did he, or did he not say exactly what you quoted, "...we are no longer a Chrsitian nation...?" <br /><br />I mean, that's what he said, right?<br /><br />It's not entirely clear what he said.<br /><br />I thought he said, "...we are no longer a Christian nation...," but you seem to think he said, "...we are no longer a Christian nation..."<br /><br />When I prepare roast beef, I season it with salt, pepper, chile powder, oregano and maybe a little thyme.<br /><br />When someone asks me what I had for dinner, I say, "I had salt, pepper, chile powder, oregano and a little thyme."<br /><br />"You had what?" they'd respond.<br /><br />"Well," say I, "It was more roast beef than those seasonings, but I can no longer call it just roast beef. I have to include all the other seasonings (very good things, by the way), too. In fact, since it is no longer JUST roast beef, I can no longer think of it as roast beef."<br /><br />We are a Christian nation...that is we are a nation that was founded on and continute to rely on the Judeo/Christian ehtic.<br /><br />Do we have other religions and cultures represented in our population? You betcha...and proudly so.<br /><br />But we are not a nation of Jews and a nation of Muslims and a nation of Hispanics and a nation of Italians and a nation of atheists and a nation of Hindi.<br /><br />We have some of all of those things and more, but we are a Christian nation.<br /><br />You may argue 'till you are blue in the face, but your arguments will be false and ineffective. They will be wrong.<br /><br />You are wrong and President BO is wrong.<br /><br />We still are a Christian nation, not because Christians out number the others, but because we are subscribers to the Judeo/Christian ethic.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-62538554868672152552010-03-07T13:01:35.938-05:002010-03-07T13:01:35.938-05:00One last time, Joe.
We have more self-identified ...One last time, Joe.<br /><br />We have more self-identified Christians in American than any other religious sect. But we also have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, nonbelievers, etc. That does not make this "A Christian Country." It makes us a country with a lot of Christians in it. <br /><br /><br />We also have more (barely) white people in America, but also black, brown, yellow and red.<br /><br />Do you refer to America as "A White Country?" We are a country with [for now] a predominantly white population, but we also have millions and millions of US citizens of other races.<br /><br />Mr. Obama was correct and injured no one [he is a Christian himself] when he said America is not JUST a Christian country.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-32956070559795959812010-03-06T22:19:46.786-05:002010-03-06T22:19:46.786-05:00JMK: I would probably disagree somewhat with your ...JMK: I would probably disagree somewhat with your ODS/BDS ratio, but I certainly agree with the drones. As for the Keynesian economics, we're joined at the hip on that one (which might be uncomfortable for one or more of us).Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-30535754048327328292010-03-06T21:34:56.786-05:002010-03-06T21:34:56.786-05:00"Then you have somebody say that "Obama ...<i>"Then you have somebody say that "Obama hates our country". I suspect a lot of "conservatives" actually believe that.</i><br /><br /><i>"I understand criticism of policy and such. What I find beyond bizare is this idea that somehow, the president actually "hates" his home country."</i> (Tom)<br /><br /><br />There is a certain amount of ODS....about a quarter to a third (in my estimation) as much as the BDS we experienced over the previous six years.<br /><br />Personally, I've applauded Obama for continuing the NSA Surveillance Program and going to court to protect its secrecy.<br /><br />I've applauded the fact that in a single year he's endorsed double the drone attacks the previous administration conducted in 6 years!<br /><br />I applaud the ratcheted UP use of rendition and the fact that Obama has increased deportations of those here illegally (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404037.html).<br /><br />I have opposed his administration's inane attempt to try the architects of 9/11 in a civilian Federal Court, blocks away from Ground Zero. I have opposed this administration's wrongful prosecution of the three Navy Seals for bloodying the lip of the terrorist who slaughtered American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq.<br /><br />I opposed Bush's Keynesian overspending and I oppose the hyper-Keynesianism being engaged in now by dolts who insipidly blamed a Keynesian implosion in 2008 on "Capitalism" and "de-regulation."<br /><br />Barack Obama, like GW Bush seems like a very collegial fellow. Unlike G W Bush, Barack Obama has a seemingly endless parade of friends, from Van Jones, to Bill Ayers to his chosen Pastor (the pastor who married him and baptized his children), Jeremiah Wright, who really DO, without question hate America.JMKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-18383528594234567222010-03-06T15:18:01.624-05:002010-03-06T15:18:01.624-05:00SK: You quote BO as saying, "We are also a Je...SK: You quote BO as saying, "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers..."<br /><br />But we are NOT a Jewish nation. Your own argument precludes that.<br /><br />Nor are we a Muslim nation. Your own argument precludes that.<br /><br />We are not a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers. Your own argument precludes that.<br /><br />Besides, I thought you were mad at Pat Boone because he said BO said we were a Muslim nation, you said he didn't say that, yet you present a quote in which he said that very thing.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-6935123156948998242010-03-06T15:05:36.118-05:002010-03-06T15:05:36.118-05:00Tom: I didn't post Boone's essay to change...Tom: I didn't post Boone's essay to change his quotes. I posted it because it is what he wrote and because his over-all point (that President BO does not like the America of history) is true.<br /><br />If you want his quotes changed, I suggest that you copy and paste the article to your blog, make the changes you want to make and make yourself feel good.<br /><br />You are usually one of the better "discussers," and that's why I have entered into this discourse with you.<br /><br />But to focus so much on the alleged "misquotes" and to miss the point of the article is somewhat out of character for you.<br /><br />Is it your opinion that President BO accepts that we are a Christian nation in the historic sense?<br /><br />Is it your opinion that President BO has not implied or said that America is arrogant?<br /><br />Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we have always lived up to our ideals? What about the waterboarding issue (which is what he was leading up to)?<br /><br />Is it your opinion that President BO thinks we might be able, in a sense, to consider ourselves a Muslim nation?<br /><br />Present your arguments...I'm listening.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-89164067242555869662010-03-06T13:28:24.585-05:002010-03-06T13:28:24.585-05:00Joe said: " Both of you have engaged in what ...Joe said: " Both of you have engaged in what you now decry: trying to make my words mean what they do not mean by re-writing them or assigning meaning to them that was not intrinsic to them."<br /><br />So, I just want to be clear, posting a paraphrase of what somebody said, stripped of context, with no links to the original quote, then completely making up the meaning of said mis-quote is something I engage in.<br /><br />Actually.. no. When I post something somebody says on my blog, I cut and paste the actual quote after verifying it is accurate. I link back to the original source. I then argue the merit of said quote. You might think my method and yours are exactly the same, but they are not. Nice try though.<br /><br />I found your blog from a comment you left at Doug Gibbs. Doug is the poster child for the typical "conservative" technique. What he does is delete off all comments on his posts, and then he'll create a whole new post on what one of those deleted comments said. Rather than quote the comment, he makes up a new version of what the person said so that he can argue against that, rather than what they actually said. He thinks he wins arguments that way.<br /><br />It is the only reason I post comments on his blog, because it's really hillarious to be referred to as the "anonymous liberal" over and over.<br /><br />Anyway.. the bottom line is that even bloggers should be accurate in their quoting and attributions. If they actually have an argument, it should be easy to make their point even when arguing against factual information.<br /><br />I see the Boone' mis-quotes (actually they are heinous lies) are still in your original post, without correction.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17564526640395324075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-14309025837671224782010-03-06T10:55:20.929-05:002010-03-06T10:55:20.929-05:00SK and Tom: Go back a look at some of the comments...SK and Tom: Go back a look at some of the comments you have left on some of my other posts. Both of you have engaged in what you now decry: trying to make my words mean what they do not mean by re-writing them or assigning meaning to them that was not intrinsic to them.<br /><br />I'm not defending Boone...in fact I have condeded that he should have left off the quotes.<br /><br />The actual point of his post is quite valid.<br /><br />I have read Krystal's blog and do not consider her to have missed the point of Boone's statemnets which I iterated in my comment above.<br /><br />You two are feigning outrage, and it is not necessary to do so.<br /><br />Relax.<br /><br />Your fear of what I post is unfounded. <br /><br />Your need to be my post-police and correct everything you perceive as error is unnecessary.<br /><br />There couldn't possibly be error in what I post, or else I wouldn't post it, right?<br /><br />You, too.<br /><br />Instead of reacting to the post with your emotions, try reacting with understanding.<br /><br />President BO HAS said that we are not just a Christian nation.<br /><br />President BO HAS said that the ideals we thought were ours should not have been and has re-written what our ideas are.<br /><br />President BO HAS implied that our identity as a nation could as well be Muslim as anything else.<br /><br />President BO HAS said that we have behaved arrogantly.<br /><br />President BO HAS apologized to nations around the world for America's "behavior," even though we have helped more nations than any other country in history. <br /><br />(What country gave more money and supplies to Haiti than America? What has given more aid after natural disasters around the world than America? We should apologize for that?)<br /><br />President BO HAS criticized the very Constitution he took an oath to defend.<br /><br />It has been my practice to watch every speech of President BO's that I could find, both when televised live and when available on the Internet. I also read the transcript whenever I can find it.<br /><br />I have heard his tone, watched his arrogant body language and heard his words.<br /><br />I think it is very appropriate to wonder what country he thinks he is president of.<br /><br />As to your right to paraphrase my words: have at it.<br /><br />But remember, I qualified my permission for people to paraphrase me by admonishing them not to use the paraphrase to reflect what was not meant by the actual quote.<br /><br />Here's the thing. If you talk about me (and I'm not at all sure why you would) as a raging conservative, however you said it you would be correct.<br /><br />If you talk about me as being hateful, you would be dead wrong.<br /><br />If you talk about me as disagreeing with you on points political, you would be right.<br /><br />If you talk about me as being politically hypocritical you would be wrong.<br /><br />But right or wrong, don't make the mistake of overestimating my influence. <br /><br />Don't be afraid.<br /><br />I'm a harmless, loveable little fuzzball.<br /><br />You believe that, don't you?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-73790549590834888032010-03-06T10:11:08.442-05:002010-03-06T10:11:08.442-05:00The original purpose of my comments was to point o...The original purpose of my comments was to point out that what Boone quoted in his essay were half quotes--the half of the quotes he used to make Pres. Obama look like he hates America, and this one that has quotes around it...:<br /><br />"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."– President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009<br /><br />...is completely made up, since Snopes has researched it, and that quote could not be found in any of Obama's speeches.<br /><br />Therefore, my argument is that Boone deliberately tried to mislead his readers and imply that Mr. Obama disrespects his country, and Boone does this by using half quotes [where the entire quote would clarify or change the meaning] and where Boone apparently made a quote up entirely.<br /><br />Whether or not our laws are based on Judeo-Christian tradition is not part of the discussion, nor is the fact that the predominant religion of the country is Christianity part of it either.<br /><br />Boone, IMO, was being dishonest when he wrote his essay, and counted on people taking his word as the truth.<br /><br />Here's an example of that sort of deception:<br /><br />"Some government programs seemed so worthwhile that borrowing to fund them didn't bother us."--Ronald Reagan<br /><br />Now, one way out would be to raise taxes so that government need not borrow or print money."--Ronald Reagan<br /><br />"Some say shift the tax burden to business and industry."--Ronald Reagan<br /><br />Those quotes from RWR are taken out of context but could be used to show that RWR favors taxing and spending. But those quotes are only partial quotes. I did what Boone did.<br /><br />As an example of how insidious Boone's action is, just read "Krystal's" comment:<br /><br /><i> Krystal said... <br />Thnk-you for re-posting this. Too many people have no idea what BO is all about and how much he hates our country!</i><br /><br />She thanks you for posting this deception and actually believes, as a result of reading Boone's dishonest quotes, that the President of the United States "hates our country." Absurd.<br /><br />So Boone has accomplished what he set out to do: Present half truths, innuendo, and at least one made-up quote in order to prove his mistaken and prejudiced belief that the President of the United States hates the United States.<br /><br />Krystal believes it. I wonder how many other people who did not research Boone's essay will be convinced by his misrepresentations and dishonesty.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-11583887132812681842010-03-06T09:55:22.096-05:002010-03-06T09:55:22.096-05:00Tom, Tom, Tom! I didn't write the post, I STO...Tom, Tom, Tom! I didn't write the post, I STOLE IT! It is pure, unadulterated, unapologetic cut-and-paste!<br /><br />I didn't quote anybody in my post.<br /><br />I will concede, without malace, that Boone's quotes are not accurate, in that they are collective representations of President BO's positions. Perhaps they should not have been put in quotes. <br /><br />I will not concede that they do not represent the total context of what President BO has said over and over and over again.<br /><br />Therefore, the point of the post remains the same: President BO has demonstrated, said and written that this is not a Christian nation when it is, that we have acted arrogantly on the world stage, when we have actually helped more countries than any other nation that has ever existed, that we need to live in harmony with a particular brand of evil barbarians who will continue to seek to destroy us no matter what we do or don't do.<br /><br />President BO is amateurish, sophomoric, unskilled at anything at all...not even speaking in public without his TP (which I know others have used...but most were able to speak off the cuff, he is not...GB maybe not so much).<br /><br />He continues to select people to work along side of him who have sordid pasts, socialist tendencies (some communist tendencies), and who "forgot" to pay their taxes, etc.<br /><br />President BO has clearly stated that he, a "constitutional lawyer," thinks the Constitution is a flawed document telling the government what it cannot do instead of what it can do. Then he swore an oath to defend it. (I wonder which it will really be).<br /><br />He continues to make decisions that violate the Constitution, but that have not yet been challenged before it.<br /><br />He operates by "decree" to a greater extent than any president in our history. That's more in line with what despotic dictators do than the leader of a Constitutional Republic.<br /><br />I think it is safe to ask the question whether or not he has contempt for the heritage of this country. I think it is safe to ask the question, "Could it be you are a president without a country?"Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-76172191419198715842010-03-06T02:33:08.675-05:002010-03-06T02:33:08.675-05:00Some good points made. One that I might just have...Some good points made. One that I might just have to take is Joe's claim that "Paraphrase is a legitimate method of conveying a writer's or a speaker's points, when using a whole quote is cumbersome. That is universally accepted in composition."<br /><br />It is patently obvious, as some have pointed out, that the quotes that Joe has used in the original post are not even in the same universe of what Obama actually said. They are condenced and re-worded in order to skew their meaning. That's patently obvious.<br /><br />So this gives me a really good idea. What I can do is take things Joe has said, re-word them.. and turn them into some really amusing meanings.. because "paraphrasing is fair".<br /><br />Joe, of course, is free to complain that I'm completely mis-representing his meaning, but that's a hollow complaint because I'm simply "conveying" Joe's real meaning... according to me. It's also fair that I do not point out that I'm paraphrasing Joe. I'll just say I'm directly quoting him, without allowing any readers to know that I'm not.<br /><br />And if I turn the snark off.. I'd say that it's really absurd to claim that one sentence that Obama uttered is too "cumbersome" and therefore a legitimate target to paraphrase. Is it really too difficult to directly quote one sentence in the English language, rather than paraphrase it?<br /><br />It's just beyond ridiculous... and it's also dishonest when you look at the original post of Joe's and see that he's not even pointing out that the quotes are paraphrased. He's posting them as if they are direct quotes, and that's a total lie.<br /><br />As I said.. it's more effective propaganda when you lie in that manner. It get's people to say "See! Obama hates America".<br /><br />Sad.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17564526640395324075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-29597114456611197822010-03-06T02:02:16.698-05:002010-03-06T02:02:16.698-05:00SK: Not once have you ever read from me that Ameri...SK: Not once have you ever read from me that America was founded on the Christian religion. We were founded on the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic. <br /><br />Jefferson was but one of our founders, and by no means the one who sets the standard for everything we are or have been.<br /><br />In fact, he seems to be the left's selectively used standard, since there are certain elements of his philosophy that they are quite willing to leave out of the record.<br /><br />Jefferson, indeed, rejected the mysticism of Christianity. But he made it VERY clear that he respected the attitudes and teachings of Jesus, while disavowing those acts attributed to Him that we call miracles.<br /><br />He wrote: "The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses." <br /><br />What has happened here is that you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you believe what you do based on your proofs as I have proven what I believe based on mine.<br /><br />Yours are irrefutable in your mind, as mine are in my own mind.<br /><br />I think you are the reason for the split in our country, and you think I am.<br /><br />So how do we solve this?<br /><br />I suggest a compromise: you come over to my way of thinking, and then we'll have perfect unity.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-50267500586750149572010-03-06T01:31:33.771-05:002010-03-06T01:31:33.771-05:00And this by Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson, elaborat...And this by Jefferson:<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:<br /><br />"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."<br /><br />". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."<br /><br />Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). <br /><br /><br />So to end this discussion: There are more Christians than nonChristians in the US, so in that sense it is a predominantly Christian country. But America was not founded on the Christian religion.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-65578317616297816112010-03-06T01:31:16.651-05:002010-03-06T01:31:16.651-05:00What is the difference between these statements by...What is the difference between these statements by Justice Brewer:<br /><br />"Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions."<br /><br />and what President Obama said:<br /><br />"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."<br /><br />What Mr. Obama said "We're not JUST a Christian nation because other religions exist and flourish here. The predominant religion is Christian--so there are more Christians than any other religion but it isn't the only religion.<br /><br />I don't see any difference. Obama is saying what Brewer said.<br /><br />And of course everyone knows this quote by John Adams concerning the Treaty of Tripoli:<br /><br />"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."Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-89233732780839285652010-03-06T01:07:57.593-05:002010-03-06T01:07:57.593-05:00sue: I knew it was you and not Sue, who wouldn'...sue: I knew it was you and not Sue, who wouldn't have used a small "s" but would have used a large "S." But being somewhat lysdexic and having particularly slippery keys on my keyboard I accidently used the large "S" instead of the small "s."<br /><br />Ooops.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-46324018886218747082010-03-06T00:37:16.247-05:002010-03-06T00:37:16.247-05:00Joe - 'I think you play games, too'
That ...Joe - 'I think you play games, too'<br /><br />That was me, with the lower case 's'suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469207337699004766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-4698793832125941162010-03-05T23:13:12.761-05:002010-03-05T23:13:12.761-05:00Sue: You do?Sue: You do?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-69058064576731179922010-03-05T23:09:57.000-05:002010-03-05T23:09:57.000-05:00Joe - I think you play games too.Joe - I think you play games too.suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469207337699004766noreply@blogger.com