A Response "A Response" or "The Pwning of PissedOffRightWinger" (2610 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.85 on 119 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Zoidberg (View user info) at 2005-03-08 02:16:48 EST
In response to http://www.ubersite.com/m/61444
Your "argument" for lack of a better word, was riddled with so many factual errors and inaccuracies that I thought it best to just go for the jugular and eviscerate you with the most glaringly obvious ones.
<<However, this is far from what is really true. The Puritans, the first to truly populate the country were Puritans, who were Christian in the most basic sense.>>
Wrong.
Actually the first PERMANENT settlement was Jamestown, it was founded in 1607. When the Puritans showed up in 1643 the Jamestown settlers wouldn't let them in (and who can blame them? Those fuckers early on were dull. Puritans didn't even allow harmonic singing of *hymns* until well towards the end of the 18th century. They thought church music that sounded good would encourage Papism.)
Again, emphasis on PERMANENT. The Jamestowners were the first, not the Puritans, and while they were Church of England, they arrived for the sake of profit, not religion.
Further, neither group "founded" the country. There were no thoughts of independence, this was simply an act of colonization. An revolution-minded colonist does not first get permission to settle from his monarch (they were called charters back then).
Furthermore if you want to make the place of religion in government a contest of "who was here first" then you better start building a monument to "The Great Spirit" outside your town hall, because the white man was predated by quite a bit.
Next you go on to say (and this is quite funny)
<<Then all of our founding fathers were extremely religious, they were also heavily Christian, even more than the Puritans.>>
Wrong.
Any serious historian would laugh in your face if you said that. I can only assume you've been subjected to that monstrous revisionist garbage David Barton has been hawking at Christian conventions and gatherings.
Point of fact: Many were deists. (I will admit this is a matter of some contention, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Examinations of primary source documents of the signing members of the Convention suffice to show that while many were Church of England, its not the sort of bible thumping fundamentalism you're thinking of. A sort of lapsed Christianity would be the best way to describe their humanist leanings. One fire and brimstone preacher some 50 years later described most of the founding fathers as closer to being "Unitarians" a term of religious derision with much the same meaning back then as it is now.)
That aside, even if they were Christians, what of it? Your burden of proof sir, is to show that the founders *intended* for there to be religion in Government, something the religious revisionists are UNABLE to do without making up quotes and taking others out of context. Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion our greatest founding father believed *NOTHING* of the sort.
Jefferson argued in quite a few letters to friends that, contrary to what some less informed souls were preaching, common law existed well before Christianity, and served its purpose quite well. (He also went on to condemn the church for spreading lies that Christianity was necessary for law) (If you really, really insist I'll go through my Letters and dig that tidbit up, but I'd rather not)
That aside, it might interest you to know that many fundy preachers in the post-revolutionary period actually villified our founding fathers and constitution as ung_dly. Hardly the sort of thing to lend credit to the "they were good Christians argument" no?
I think you're falling for the sophist trap that Barton and his ilk have laid for your weak minds. Christians teach that Deists = Atheists = Agnostics = Deists. The fact is Deists are NOT atheists. Nor are they agnostics. They believe very strongly in the existence of G_d. However Barton has taken quotes from avowed Deists who mention G_d and trumpet it as an example of Christianity. This is simply not true. A Deist mentioning G_d makes them a Christian no more then my mentioning Buddha makes me a Buddhist.
Next up
<<This was most definitely a country founded on Christian beliefs.>>
I'm not even going to justify such ill-informed garbage with a lengthy reply. Instead, I'll just give you Article 11 from the Treaty with Tripoli which was unanimously approved by Congress.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is NOT (emphasis added), in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
How odd. In 1797, only 21 years after the founding of the United States, our Congress and founding fathers (many of whom were still very much alive and serving in government) have absolutely NO problem with the statement that the United States was not founded on Christianity. Yet you, some 200 some years later seem to know something the original signers of the Constitution don't? You're a very entertaining person.
Moving on with your history lesson. You go on to say (and I must thank you, I got quite a chuckle out of this one, you just sounded so...convinced!)
<<This means that the United States Government or the governments of its respective states shall not establish a church of any kind.>>
This is a commonly accepted myth, and technically half true, but only because a series of Supreme Court amendments in the early half of the 20th century extended the rights of due process (you know, 14th amendment) to include the states. Before then, well...
Read the amendment again, this time thinking like a lawyer.
"***CONGRESS***shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Did you catch it? Try reading again. Think of what it doesn't say, and how you can exploit that. There ya go.
CONGRESS. The First Amendment applied ONLY to the Federal Government.
But you go say
<<the governments of its respective states shall not establish a church of any kind.>>
Tell me, where in the amendment do you see those words? Where is anything to do with limiting the rights of the State?
I'd like to think you read Madison's original 17 proposed Amendments one of which read, "No STATE (emphasis added) shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." but I doubt it, and since that particular amendment never passed anyway, moving on...
The States ALWAYS had the power to censor the press, to establish religion etc etc. The fact that you think the opposite is more the fault of the poor state of public education and your own laziness (it's in books, read dammit!)
Elliot's "Debates in the State Conventions", while monstrously boring, clearly shows that several states were GREATLY in favor of the First Amendment as we have it now precisely BECAUSE it would protect their own STATE FOUNDED AND RUN religions. The First Amendment gave the STATES the RIGHT to have their own religion. It gave the STATES the RIGHT to censor the press.
Doubt me? I'll hit ya up with a favorite Jefferson quote of mine. "While we deny that Congress have a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their EXCLUSIVE (emphasis added) right to do so." This in a letter to John Adams.
So that's another argument of yours down. Towards the end you just slipped into vagaries and sophistries that I was really too lazy to challenge. Perhaps if you and your kind cite some sources aside from "The Holy Spirit guiding my hand" I might be more inclined to argue. But I feel this was enough of a bitchslap to negate any effective argument that might have been in your post.
No wonder you're pissed off, people always going around making you look dumb. But dammit, you make it so EASY!
Just because I like quotes, I dug up a few for ya
James Madison - "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Thomas Paine (not really a founding father, a lot of them thought he was nuts but still turns a mean phrase) - "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
Madison again - Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
I could go on and on, but it would be far easier just to say that you sir, were just PWNED.
User Reviews
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-26 06:49:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This was fun and interesting to read.
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2006-11-26 05:49:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You are a very intelligent man
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-30 23:06:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
still ace
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-30 22:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-10-30 22:25:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-09-22 05:13:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You see Zoidberg, it's articulate and learned people like yourself that give liberals a bad name as elitist intellectuals.
Just remember that Lenin was an intelectual.
DUN DUN DUHHHH!
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2005-08-21 15:45:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thank you.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-04-13 07:41:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I'd like to say that I read this, sat down for thirty minutes and really thought about what to give this as a rating and a reply.
What I actually did though was get so far as finding out it was some long winded reply to another rating and stop reading.
Then, I hit reply and typed this, knowing full well that I don't know if it was good or not.
The point is - I DONT CARE! and I can do what I like.... mwhwhwhahahahahahahaAAAA!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-13 07:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Can I tell you a secret? Good.
I really don't know anything about law or the constitution or politics. I just pretend to so I feel better about myself.
That marbury v. madison crap I spewed? One of the few supreme court cases I can spout that can be used in most constitutional arguments. It's like a catch-all to cover my ignorance of the actual matter being discussed.
If anyone wants to talk 4th amendment, I'll pwn them.
Everything else, I'm a lost little lamb, trying to find my way home.
Submitted by Chinaski (user info) at 2005-04-06 00:10:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A piece of detritus, like it's author.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-03 18:49:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Beers, mate!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-03-29 11:32:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
cheers mate!
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-29 06:04:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you can take it now man
nasty ass city
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-03-29 03:41:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
who cares?
not me.
i'll just leave you yankee loons to get on with it.
Oooh, ooooh, when you have another civil war can we have New York?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-03-28 23:05:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
don't go after them with facts, it just causes confusion
and then they try to cut education funding
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2005-03-28 22:51:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zoidberg, your brains are hot, too.
I would rim you odourless.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-03-23 19:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by BedOfHog (user info) at 2005-03-23 18:40:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
god hates fags....
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2005-03-22 04:50:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Dear LiveJournal,
I keep getting my blog mixed up with this place called Ubersite. Everyone on there hates me and thinks I can't write for shit, and I really don't mean to post my trite bullshit and whine like a little bitch, but the steroids have fried my brain so much that I think Ubersite is a blog.
Also my new boyfriend said I was a closet-case, but no way dude, I'm not fucking gay.
Sincerely,
Ch-to-the-rizzle Evans
-----------------------------------
i laughed until i died. tks.
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-03-19 20:29:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We love you but have a bit of this
http://www.ubersite.com/m/62286
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-19 20:15:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh I don't think it's going to happen by any means, I just think its rather interesting to think about.
Given an extremely conservative shift in the supreme court bench (preceded by I dunno, the rise of some fundie party in the US) we could very well see the rise of state religions since there is no real constitutional protection.
Interesting to think about, or at the very least would make the basis for a cool story.
"After the Revival"
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-19 01:42:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As far as a few court decisions to allow state-run religion, it would still have to stand up in the face of the precedent established by the prior cases.
From my viewpoint, I don't see judicial interpretation reversing now 130+ years of case law. New legislation would have to be passed by the federal government, in the form of an amendment as not to get thrown out by the Supreme Court, but you and I both know how likely that is.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-17 00:35:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
k I just started to read Martin v. Hunter's Lessee when the answer jumped out at me.
I seriously feel retarded for not even realizing this.
Gitlow v. New York and Hamilton v. UC Regents and all the other first amendment cases were built OFF OF the 14th amendment, which wasn't put into the bill of rights till 1867 or 1868. Sometime after the civil war is all I can remember at this point.
Marbury v. Madison and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee etc set up the precedent for judicial review, but the 1st amendment, applying only to the federal government, was outside the scope of state judicial review until the due process amendment opened the way.
Then the court, in Gitlow and beyond used the 14th amendment to bind the states to the bill of rights, but before the 14th amendment no go and no need.
Which brings up an interesting quandary. If the entire basis for limiting the individual state's rights to censorship are a few court decisions, and therefore not constitutional at all, could a few decisions contrary to Gitlow and Hamilton and all the others open the way for individual state run religions?
State level protection by the federal government is not enumerated in the bill of rights, it only came about because of supreme court interpretation. Might not a new interpretation make it possible for Rick Perry to erect a 10 commandments monument in the capital dome in Austin?
I'll try to find a constitutional law prof and ask him.
Submitted by ContraMundum (user info) at 2005-03-15 14:49:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There is only one law of man...which all currency printers mimic.
Cursus Honorum!
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2005-03-14 14:43:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
email me at kissoffv7.at.gmail.com, so I can give you my real email address ... do you have roommates? or are you living on your own?
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2005-03-14 12:53:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
hey zoidy, I'm moving back to Austin in July for a masters program. woohoo!
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-10 05:22:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
jack, thanks bubba, same applies if you ever make it to Austin
I'll show you what real beer tastes like (all hail Ziegenbock)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-10 02:51:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Just so you know, I thought this post was the literary equivalant of making a retard bite down on a curb, then stomping the back of his head. You know, a curbie.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2005-03-10 02:33:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Your post is mockingly one heat point above mine. Bastard.
I'll second or third or fourth or whatever Blitzkrieg_Bob's sentiment.
Submitted by Thirty_Four_Eggs (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:19:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HZRD (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:43:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:45:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
There ain't nothin' like bootstomping a retard.
Submitted by dethcow (user info) at 2005-03-09 21:38:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2005-03-09 19:58:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
zoidy,
well i didn't even bother to read the reviews. that much heat with this high of a rating, i'm sure you are getting lots of positive feedback. let me say this: as someone who considers himself a christian, i would like to sincerely thank you for putting the truth out there about our history.
right-wing fundamentalists have hijacked christianity and turned it away (AGAIN--hello inquisition) from the peaceful message of love i believe christ espoused. anyone who doesn't believe exactly what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say are going to hell. and now they are trying to hijack the government as well.
anyone with half a brain in their head knows you can not legislate morality. sure, many of the ten commandments embody mores and folkways that society should live by. however, these beliefs are not new. the nobler ideas espoused in the commandments (no killing) should be propagated, but there is no reason for them not to be propagated secularly.
america is a melting pot, people. if we want to bring our nation together, then we need to find common ground to stand on, not continue to pressure one set of beliefs on a general public that is supposed to be free. if we were a theocratic state like the holy roman empire, sure go for it. but we're not, and that is what makes us great.
you're a smart guy, zoidy. you ever get up dc way, i'd toss back a few with you.
PS. ever look into zoroastrianism? i just finished doing a little studying. it's interesting just how much the mythos of this religion, which predates christianity by at least a thousand years, compares with the christian dogma.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-09 18:56:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Cohen v. Virginia! I remembered it just as I clicked submit
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-09 18:55:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll try to get to the marbury v. madison in a few, but just a few quick notes
yes Marbury v. Madison set the precedent for judicial review of federal matters, but it only set the foundation for state review, as this wasn't set up until uh Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and one other whose name escapes me.
These decisions, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789 set the precedent for supreme court review of state appellate decisions but 1st amendment protections didnt become binding to the states till the early half of the 20th century, most notably in Gitlow v. New York.
One thing your question has made me wonder though is why it took until Gitlow for the amendments to be made binding on the states if the judiciary had the power since 1789?
I've read and re-read article 25 which covers it all, but for the life of me I can't see why that one article wouldn't make the bill of rights subject to supreme court review in state matters, unless one goes with the old argument that the Bill of Rights really isn't a part of the constitution and functions as a separate body. Either way, Im not a lawyer *shrug*
I'll print up Martin and the other case if I can find it and read it on the road, its an interesting little problem that Im sure has a simple answer but we'll see.
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2005-03-09 17:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-09 17:11:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In the "trap laid for weak minds" paragraph, I swear that there is an argument in favor of a view of the seperation of church and state that allows prayer in school and congress, and allows religious icons in public buildings. I think it might be the last sentence. Let me wrap my weak mind around that for a while.
Submitted by thinning_temples (user info) at 2005-03-09 11:37:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"trap laid for weak minds"
Marvellous marvellous marvellous.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-09 09:32:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-09 04:55:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-08 12:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
i don't like this idea that the Constitution is somehow perfect, and that all problems can be solved by referring back to their words and views. the world changes.
---------
I concur. I don't see the founding fathers as any sort of supreme beings. They were highly flawed, and even though some of their foresight is admirable, it doesn't mean the foundation of our government is perfect.
But needless to say, this was a great post. Very informative.
----------
If you look at the broad stroke used to write the Constitution, it allows for interpretation by modern Courts. As a result, you can fall back to what it says by re-interpreting. That was the beauty and extraordinary wisdom of the founders. Indeed, I would classify them as some of the more genius people ever to walk to Earth at one time. They managed to write a legal document that allows the originally established system of government to live within the framework they wrote by having the INTERPRETAION of that framework adjust as social attitudes and norms change.
The relative rigidity or fluidity of the document is solely a function of those who are interpreting it, which is why no two people will ever have the same interpretation. The beauty of our system, though, is that while SC justices will sometimes personally disagree with their past brethren on individual issues, a great deal of thought will go into whether that means a past ruling should be changed, as it requires thought about how society has changed to get to this point and reflection on how the ruling will affect life in a hundred or so years.
Or maybe I'm just hopelessly hopeful and naive.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-09 06:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You spun the argument to who was the first PERMANANT settler. Then who founded the original human population of the Americas. While PORWWAG really did not construct a very comprehensive statement, the meaning could have been intrepreted that a major contributor to the population of the future United States of America was the Christian Puritan sect, who settled in some areas of New England.
Rad- actually Im going to partly concede the Jamestown point only because I wasn't clear enough in my meaning. I meant to call it the first permanent English settlement. Calling it the first settlement is hardly fair to the Dagos who were in St. Augustine long before the English made it to Jamestown.
As to the Puritans, you're gonna have to give me a little while to rally some sources on this (and since Im going to Austin this weekend a long while) but a lot of the "Puritans were the major group of settlers" idea comes from the fact that they were one of the largest homogenized groups. That is, people could look at their colony and classify it as "Puritan" because they really weren't all that welcoming to other religions.
However the exact impact of their numbers tends not to be so impressive when you consider the colonies overall. Look at Pennyslvania or especially Rhode Island, both of which are noted for their tolerance.
Those colonies founded on more secular or capitalistic ideals were generally a great hodgepodge of religions, yet by ascribing founding influence to the Puritans one totally ignores the fact that they were greatly outnumbered by other colonists and relegates these other colonies to a lesser stature in American history.
By the way, before I forget, I typed the above post in one setting. I do have to apologize for giving the date of 1643. That should have been 1620, when the Mayflower compact was signed. 1643 is generally agreed to be the LAST year of the Great Migration, the Puritan exodus from England. My bad but just a mixup.
But that being said, as to the above, yes the Puritans were one of the largest discernible groups, but they were far from being the largest group.
Have to forgive me for having numbers handy, didn't expect to be challenged on founding :)
I'll try to get to some of the rest later, but I need to get back to bed, ttyl Rad
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-09 04:55:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-08 12:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
i don't like this idea that the Constitution is somehow perfect, and that all problems can be solved by referring back to their words and views. the world changes.
---------
I concur. I don't see the founding fathers as any sort of supreme beings. They were highly flawed, and even though some of their foresight is admirable, it doesn't mean the foundation of our government is perfect.
But needless to say, this was a great post. Very informative.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-09 03:04:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2715
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-09 01:49:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You want an argument? I'm game.
On the first point that you argued, you kept evading the underlying meaning of the statement: <<However, this is far from what is really true. The Puritans, the first to truly populate the country were Puritans, who were Christian in the most basic sense.>>
You spun the argument to who was the first PERMANANT settler. Then who founded the original human population of the Americas. While PORWWAG really did not construct a very comprehensive statement, the meaning could have been intrepreted that a major contributor to the population of the future United States of America was the Christian Puritan sect, who settled in some areas of New England.
------------
Then PORWWAG goes on to state this: <<Then all of our founding fathers were extremely religious, they were also heavily Christian, even more than the Puritans.>>
<<This was most definitely a country founded on Christian beliefs.>>
This is just retarded. My 3 year old niece could have owned this one.
--------------
<<This means that the United States Government or the governments of its respective states shall not establish a church of any kind.>>
You go on to dissect the first amendment to show the wording of this previous statement is an example of Argumentum ad logicam.
While I agree with that particualar interpretation of the first amendment, (and forgive my ignorance), when has an individual state established a religion? Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States has held the power to review individual state laws to ensure they are compliant with the US Constitution. Does this not preclude a state government's ability to act outside of the framework of the bill of rights?
Or am I just suspicious that there may be other writings and quotes out there that deconstruct some of your positions? I am too lazy to find out.
Submitted by Jo_of_the_golden_P (user info) at 2005-03-09 01:39:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Haha, just read the comments...it appears that wanting to bear your spawn is a knee-jerk response to your kickassedness
Submitted by Jo_of_the_golden_P (user info) at 2005-03-09 01:38:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Can I have your babies?
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-03-08 23:45:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ziodberg, can I turn gay just for you?
Or is it an all encompassing thing?
Cause I'd only have your baby...
Don't ask how.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 20:24:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No one wants to argue :(
Odd how far DJMatt has stayed from this post
Submitted by lordofthedance (user info) at 2005-03-08 19:49:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice.
I don't know anything about the history of your country so the entire post could be crap. Nevertheless, it was well written and convincing....and I like the word "pwned".
Bwaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Submitted by UrbaneMischief (user info) at 2005-03-08 16:30:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i want to bear your children
fucking right-wingers
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2005-03-08 15:56:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bahahahaha...pwned indeed.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-03-08 15:29:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HZRD (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:43:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:45:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
There ain't nothin' like bootstomping a retard.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 15:02:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well my great aunt who was at Wounded Knee in '72 or whenever thinks the Indians (of which she is one) should kill all the white men and take back their land, so a pre-emptive strike may not be a bad idea.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2005-03-08 15:01:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Gazoink!
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-08 15:01:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:52:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah and the first people to settle the continent also slaughtered millions of Indians. Does that mean we should start killing Indians again?
------
Well, disease did about 99% of the killing, but even so it wasnt nice
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:52:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah and the first people to settle the continent also slaughtered millions of Indians. Does that mean we should start killing Indians again?
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:45:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, I mentioned this in another post, but the religous people who went to america in the 1600's mainly settled in new england. People who settled in the south did so almost exclusively for profit from tobacco, indigo, rice, hemp(thats right, fuckers), and other natural resources.
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:39:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My god, I'm not the only person on this site that uses the elusive...fact to form the backbone of an argument
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:38:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:00:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
However,
"under god" in the pledge of allegiance is a different story. Comparing both together is pretty shallow and shows a lack of knowledge about American history. The declaration of Independence was written in the 1940s by a preacher who used it in the fight against Communism.
----------
I think you meant a preacher wrote the Pledge of allegiance...Interesting thing I learned today, the pledge really no longer resembles the original...
"His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there."
- from http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:33:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A well thought out, well researched argument? Watch them dismiss it with the power of ignorance and good ol' stupidity.
I think all you nice smart lefty Americans should come catch a plane down to New Zealand, you'll like it here, sit down, take a load off.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:24:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And you'll have no chance cookie, already got boys waiting for me :P If it helps you can watch us make out on the dance floor
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:23:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Mostly because the right has hijacked the Christian high ground WhoLet.
But thats usually the case. The Inquisition wasn't exactly run by liberals (though I'm of the opinion the inquisition wasnt actually such a bad thing, but thats another argument entirely).
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:16:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:04:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
so thats what a donkeypunch looks like in text format.
------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah.
I'll let you touch my boobies this weekend if you wanna, Zoidy *flirty eyelashes* *mumbles I will break down the ghey in you... *
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:10:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:07:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wholet - yup
I didn't want to get too into the deism aspect because I'm a deist (blame my secular humanist upbringing) and didn't want to evangelize. Thats for a later post :)
=======================
Deism is the sect that makes the most sense. It's an individual's freedom to respect and love life...It's just like everyone else without a church telling you what's right and wrong.
^^ Good post nonethless. Also, why do people automatically think if you're a heavy biblethumper you're a rightist? I'm more right than most and I hate the church.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:07:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wholet - yup
I didn't want to get too into the deism aspect because I'm a deist (blame my secular humanist upbringing) and didn't want to evangelize. Thats for a later post :)
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:04:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
so thats what a donkeypunch looks like in text format.
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2005-03-08 14:00:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Deists (particularily Jefferson and Franklin) believed that God exists in everything. Essentially, God is reality and life.
seems pretty logical, if you believe in God. No dogma, no church, just a belief in God.
On outr money, it is under that premise, "Under God We trust" is erected.
However,
"under god" in the pledge of allegiance is a different story. Comparing both together is pretty shallow and shows a lack of knowledge about American history. The declaration of Independence was written in the 1940s by a preacher who used it in the fight against Communism.
Even though this is true, the words "under God" aren't necessarily Christian, per se. If you use the words "under Allah" or anyother god...(even for aetheists..."Under myself") it makes sense. But then again, if you don't want to say it, you don't have to. It's your right.
Just wanted to add more stuff to your argument ^^
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 13:47:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ouch
Howie
how you wound me with your negative 2's
good job sir
Submitted by Howie_Felter (user info) at 2005-03-08 13:07:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what a boring topic!
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2005-03-08 12:34:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-08 12:19:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i don't like this idea that the Constitution is somehow perfect, and that all problems can be solved by referring back to their words and views. the world changes.
it is too close to "the wisdom of the ancients" propogated by astrologers/Atlantis believers/crystal energy types. i.e. it is BS.
but still, you do an excellent job.
you should do brianthetrurhspeaker next. that guy needs some serious pwnage.
Submitted by thaumaturge (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:52:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well done sir.
I cannot however, condone the use of shitty inbred words like "pwned". It makes you sound ridiculous. (yeah I get it, it's cool because haxxooorrr .. I missed the letter "o" by one key..! haha!. unreal!!1) So much more powerful sounding? Naw. It's a serious pet peeve of mine. I honestly cringed at that word in your title. I shit my pants every time I see words like "peener" and other stupid genetalia references on this site too. Say dick. Whatever.
No offense, by the way. ("BTW" for those who didn't understand the non-acronym).
Ironically, I can't stand when people rant off topic on a reply to any given post.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:46:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If I was gay, I'd put your cock in my ass.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:45:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I see you already mentioned that.
BTW, you just owned the shit out of this guy.
+2!
Submitted by HZRD (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:43:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:45:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
There ain't nothin' like bootstomping a retard.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:39:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, the Native Americans - the people who really wrote the constitution - were the first permanent settlement. And they sure as hell weren't Christians.
Submitted by EAZEDZT (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:38:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Very well researched. Good points.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:30:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Thing is where is PissedOffRightWinger with his explanation?
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:16:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:15:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I sorta regret it now, a bit too, well, impolite if you consider the tone of his original post. But ehh, whats done is done.
Don't worry about it Had, Ratings dont hugely concern me :)
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:07:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The winners write the history books, eh?
Very educational post. I'd love to TRY to pick holes in it (doubtful that I could) though. Solely for arguement's sake, and possibly for my own edification. But, "Wow."
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-03-08 11:03:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-03-08 10:38:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Exactly.
Submitted by drumfeeb (user info) at 2005-03-08 10:22:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm a history major, and Pissedoffrightwingerwithagun just got pwned
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-08 10:12:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"You're a very entertaining person."
HAHA
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 10:01:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:54:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Cheers, and let us drink to confusion of the right!
Oh, and is there any truth to the attribution of the quote
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
to Benjamin Franklin?
-----------
A quick Google search would seem to imply that there is truth to it. The first 4 pages don't attribute it to anyone else.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:54:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Cheers, and let us drink to confusion of the right!
Oh, and is there any truth to the attribution of the quote
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
to Benjamin Franklin?
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:51:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is only because you made that guy look like a retard, you a still a liberal left wing commie.
But you did pwn him
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:49:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Awesome. Completely awesome.
Submitted by Rocktsrgn (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:47:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well said.
(Said as a liberal Christian with a somewhat inappropriate love for John Adams)
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:45:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There ain't nothin' like bootstomping a retard.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2005-03-08 09:24:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2005-03-08 08:59:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
nice work
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-03-08 08:58:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ouch
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-03-08 08:19:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Just proves the intelligence of our country.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-08 08:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Thomas Paine (not really a founding father, a lot of them thought he was nuts but still turns a mean phrase) - "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "
that's an interesting quote I would love to look into further. I am
confused right now as to my beliefs.
Excellent history lesson. Excellent pwnage.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:42:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am teh sux0r. That's the down side to usually giving 0 across the board....Sorry Zoids.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:40:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good job fucking that up, Hadley
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:38:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll never make up for it, but I shall try.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:38:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's like make up sex, without the ghey.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:37:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:23:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
I...you...
Let's make babies.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:37:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck. DAMN IT!
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:37:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Pwned. That's all there is to it. Never argue history with a history dork.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-08 07:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I...you...
Let's make babies.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-03-08 06:07:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
all for a intelligent, calm debate. Chances are, people like gbusman will find you to be a heretic and traitor...
Fair play this was brilliant, I must admit with emmbaresment that he had me thinking he was right.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-03-08 06:02:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This was very interesting, thanks.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-08 05:24:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
For those who might be confused this is apparently the first definition given for the term anarchism. Well, it's the first part of the 15 pages in the 1910 Enyclopedia Brittanica entry.
"the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being, In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions."
The vast majority of anarchists do not view it as a "doctrine" like communism, capitalism etc it is more a description of a tendency in human societies. There are many strands of anarchism such as social libertarianism which do actually propose more specific solutions. However, anarchism by itself simply means that you believe authority must be legitimate, by the definition of the subjects of said authority, and the burden of proof is always on the authority, not the subjects, to prove its legitimacy. The idea is basically that this is something that just happens whether we like it or not.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-08 05:11:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
He doesn't really deserve that much effort but good post regardless.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-08 04:12:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good job.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:23:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks money, but founding law used to be something of a hobby of mine so I remember where most of the quotes are :)
Besides, I refuse to argue with people who snag quotes off David Barton's website, or any websites that borrow from that ill-informed man. If they want to impress me, they'll have to dig through some primary source collections.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:18:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this is a sufficient bitch slap.
Submitted by MoneyG (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:11:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually the liberal plus anarchy thing is not totally off. Not the way your thinking away. As far as personal freedoms are concerned, it's dead on, and liberals do not always favor big government.
Zoidberg, you pwned him, but he's going to fire back. They all are. Christians and bible thumpers alike.
I know you can probably argue all of them into a corner and pick them off one by one, but if you ever get tired of it, just let me know, and I'll be happy to help you with any research you may need.
Submitted by MoneyG (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:07:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 pwnage
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:05:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
PAWNED
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-08 03:05:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:43:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
... I'm a hardcore anarchist liberal...
----------------------
Bit of a contradiction?? Meh, I don't really care
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:50:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Kaos - They're welcome to attack all they want. Not one of them will find enough primary sources to refute what I've said and what I can still say.
The sad fact is most people are all too content to copy and quote from poorly researched and written secondary sources. The most notable (and one I vehemently hate) being David Barton, a "scholar" who has written books and made videos plagued with so many half truths and quotations misquoted and taken entirely out of context that it would take more time then I have to write down every single one.
That said guys, got to insist, I'm more then willing to argue, but I will not respond to any garbage from Mr. Barton. Google him and find out how well he is regarded by serious historians.
Also, replies will be a bit slow in coming, I've got a broken arm (jiu jitsu = painful)
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:43:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zoidberg, you fucking rule. I'm a hardcore anarchist liberal, and I feel schooled.
Man, this is not going to die down anytime soon. Conservatives and Christians are going to be all over this piece. I'm glad you did your homework.
I'm all for a intelligent, calm debate. Chances are, people like gbusman will find you to be a heretic and traitor...
Submitted by Phate (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:41:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ATTN: GHEY MAN
YOU WERE JUST PWNED
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh Zoidy, darling.... I want you to be the disgustingly intelligent father of my children. Stop hiding behind your "gheyness" and come make a woman of me.
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:26:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You ripped him a new e-asshole.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2005-03-08 02:22:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You know...I never thought the day would come that I would say these words to a man...
Marry me?