Dynadot
Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Who is to Blame for the Troubled US Economy?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • Both Parties

    268 
    votes
    44.7%
  • Neither Party

    57 
    votes
    9.5%
  • Democrats

    134 
    votes
    22.3%
  • Republicans

    141 
    votes
    23.5%
  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.

Impact
8,558
Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun :)

:wave:
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
In your opinion.

Gotcha...

the dude that_s your opinion man - Google Search.jpg
 
3
•••
In your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's my faith and the faith of Billions of others. It was the faith of our founding fathers and inspiration for our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Compare the results of America's revolution to France, a secular "enlytenment" that saw citizens from every walk of life accused of thought crimes and publicly executed. France suffered while American prospered.

Strongly as you believe, there is no hard proof. When it comes to religion and spirituality, your beliefs, my beliefs, namellama’s beliefs, jb’s beliefs, offthehandle’s beliefs, your neighbors’ beliefs ... or lack thereof... are ALL unproveable opinions.

There is a lot of proof, scientific and spiritual.

Which is why religion has no place in our government.

That is YOUR uninformed opinion. Our founding fathers ALL believed in the God of Abraham but understood the corrupting influence of power, i.e. the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

They thought the freedom of religion and conscience was so important, it is the very first enumerated, natural, self-evident right. The prohibition on a state religion isn't a rejection of God, it is a restriction on the government from forcing others to worship as the state demands.

There’s a big difference between a government based upon the secular implementation of the values a religion (or group of religions), vs one where a set of religious beliefs become law of the land and are imposed upon believers and nonbelievers alike.

Justice is binary. A law inspired by someones faith, i.e. "don't murder" is either just or unjust regardless of the inspiration. Everyone has a conscience, we know right from wrong.

As for abortion; I'm not saying you don't have autonomy over your body, I"m saying the mother and the father have a responsibility to protect the life of their child, even in the womb.

The child didn't ask to be created. The child is an innocent human, distinct from the Mother and Father. The child is dependent on the people who gave it life and they are responsible for it.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Ask the millennials about the Chinese Cultural Revolution. They think it was a great way to promote the arts and wonder why the US hasn't done it yet.

Ask them about Che Guevara. He was this really hot guy who rode around on a motorcycle and looks great on T-shirts.

They have the historical depth of a firefly, and are inspired by the same kinds of scam artists and psychopaths who left a trail of the blood of millions in the last century. Not that that matters, because most don't even know there was a last century.

Their ignorance doesn't make him wrong. It just makes them ignorant.

well said.
 
1
•••
I have no problem defending my position on abortion without using quotes from the Bible.

Does anyone else find it strange pro-abortionist can't defend their position without attacking religion or a persons faith?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The Constitution makes no mention of Christianity or Jesus. It's a secular document.

"Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…."

I don’t think so, the year of the Lord doesnt coincide with other religions.


“First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.

Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.”


http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556
 
2
•••
Just imagine, what about all those before who are dead or died in WW1 and WW2 fighting against Nazi Germany and Japan would do today- they would go out and kick all the young peoples asses for not respecting their sacrifices-if they were alive today.

No, that's not how it works.

Most veterans understand, or understood, the military is a selfless job. Fortunately, times have changed, and American veterans are treated with, by majority, the utmost respect these days.

You don't go and kick people's asses simply because somebody you have never met, probably wasn't even alive when you did your duty, because they don't respect your sacrifices. (If that was the case, just about every single mother out there would be opening up cans of whoop ass on people not respecting their sacrifices) That's a form of brute force tyranny or assault. I'm sure you've heard the argument that their sacrifices were made so an American can have the right to or not to respect the works of other men. And while you think you're defending veterans and patriotism with your strong opinion, by large, you're actually misrepresenting their sacrifices to the benefit of your values, which is arguably worse than disrespect.

Except modern Liberal education for 30 years hasn't taught that, rather focusing on being "Sensitive" and "Politically Correct".


It's called evolution.

Why do you want to go back in time?
pp,840x830-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg
 
0
•••
“The Founders were literally walking a tightrope. On the one hand, they did not want to be coercive in the matter of religion. They did not want to cram Christianity down anyone’s throat. They wanted America to be free of religious persecution. On the other hand, they understood that the truthfulness and superiority of the Christian religion was the essential platform on which America’s political institutions were poised. So they assuaged their fears by consoling themselves with the thought that the American people would forever have the good sense to retain Christianity as the central religion of the nation, and that they would refrain from placing in political office anyone who did not share those religious and moral convictions. These early Americans surely would be incredulous, alarmed, and disappointed if they were here to witness the addition of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives—let alone his insistence that he take the oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible (“Rep. Ellison...,” 2007).”

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999&topic=33
 
1
•••
It's called evolution.

No according to the liberal playbook, its Devolution. Someone in the younger generation edited Devo’s for their own Trump and tradition hate agenda.

 
1
•••
0
•••
You don't go and kick people's asses simply because somebody you have never met, probably wasn't even alive when you did your duty, because they don't respect your sacrifices. (If that was the case, just about every single mother out there would be opening up cans of whoop ass on people not respecting their sacrifices) That's a form of brute force tyranny or assault. I'm sure you've heard the argument that their sacrifices were made so an American can have the right to or not to respect the works of other men. And while you think you're defending veterans and patriotism with your strong opinion, by large, you're actually misrepresenting their sacrifices to the benefit of your values, which is arguably worse than disrespect.

You are too serious, and taking what I ranted as “literal” reincarnation to kick asses. It was somewhat tongue in cheek, about what was a hypothesized reaction. Those strong willed men who I grew up around were not the panzies or wimps of today that wear pink pants from the feminized world, nor labeled toxic masculiinty today.

They got their hands dirty, were self reliant, didnt do anything but hard work, were not involved in the Political class, and asked for nothing but to be left alone.

Remember the Vietnam Vets were treated like shit, now veterans have finally been recognized, thanks to the President that Liberals hate. Obama’s administration and those before it stacked lopsided full of overhead and Govt administrators instead of workers. I volunteered btw in a VA Hospital growing up, the “normal” American before.
 
2
•••
Remember the Vietnam Vets were treated like sh*t, now veterans have finally been recognized, thanks to the President that Liberals hate.

Which president is that?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
You are too serious, and taking what I ranted as “literal” reincarnation to kick asses.

Literal or not,

Veterans fought for free will. For freedom.

That includes the free choice to respect or not to respect. Keyword here is choice.

Don't get it twisted.
 
0
•••
They got their hands dirty, were self reliant, didnt do anything but hard work,

Technological evolutions allow for automation.

If the industrial revolution taught us young people nothing else, it taught us to work smarter, not harder.

I will not apologize for evolution. But I will for laziness. Evolution is not an excuse for laziness, it's a catalyst for greatness by affording us the time to focus more on innovating the process, rather than the process itself.

And now, on the cusp of AI and other emerging technologies, we are about to enter a new revolution. Hang on to your britches, it may be a bumpy ride for those fighting evolutionary progress.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
some FACTs.....

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/207.html
Thomas Jefferson's design of his headstone
On the faces of the Obelisk the following inscription, & not a word more

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independance
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia.


The Statute of Virginia for religious freedom:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that1 Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;2 that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,3 who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;4 that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,4 is sinful and tyrannical;


http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1399
Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Draft Autobiography
Feb. 6 [1821]
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. it still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally past; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
 
0
•••
It's called evolution.

It's not evolution. It's regressive intolerance. You're a prime example.

The same spirit of thought that praises antifa and encourages punishment for people who disagree with popular morals and politics lead to public executions in France, China, Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, and on and on.

Truth doesn't change. Morality that changes based on popular opinion isn't morality, it's mob rule.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Welcome to participating in the NP's snake pit

IMO, it's only a snake pit due to the involvement of people like you, @mr-x, @GILSAN, and co. Probably be a lot better off if I didn't read into the literal sewage that seeps from your finger tips and onto this thread.

I blocked JB

Maybe I should block everyone I disagree with?

Then it would be one-sided. Though, filled with a lot less garbage. I may miss something I needed to hear, that otherwise wouldn't have been said by those who I agree with.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
meant to be universal. where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

A lot of words to explain what I just said. The #1A isn't a reject of religion or faith, it's a restriction on Gov from forced worship.

Freedom. The right to choose and follow ones own conscience is at the heart of the great controversy outlined in the Bible. Our founding fathers understood that because they all read the Bible.

Political Correctness isn't about being polite and not hurting peoples feelings, it's about suppressing speech / thoughts, the truth others don't like.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
0
•••
Very tolerant of you grilled.

My tolerance, in this situation, is a binary measure of you being blocked or not.

You're free to disagree with my opinion.

You're free to block me as well.

In domaining matters, politics aside, I have respect for those mentioned including yourself. But when it comes to this page, I couldn't disagree with y'all more.
 
1
•••
My tolerance, in this situation, is a binary measure of you being blocked or not.

You're free to disagree with my opinion.

You're free to block me as well.

In domaining matters, politics aside, I have respect for those mentioned including yourself. But when it comes to this page, I couldn't disagree with y'all more.

I feel the same.
 
1
•••
Political Correctness isn't about being polite and not hurting peoples feelings

You're wrong. That's exactly what it is.

Politically INcorrect has become a catch-all excuse for saying hateful things about or hurtful things to people you view as being part of some "other" group that you view as "less than" yourself.

pi-or-d.png
 
Last edited:
1
•••
In domaining matters, politics aside, I have respect for those mentioned including yourself. But when it comes to this page, I couldn't disagree with y'all more.
I feel the same.

This is why I target @offthehandle in this thread. The whole, I do, because I care thing.

It's why I engage in his ridiculousness and give it the time of day.

Most other people's opinions are just that, their opinions, and it ends there. But I consider OTH a friend. And as a friend, I want him to know the other side of the argument, so when (if) he has these types of discussions in real life, he is better prepared (or informed), and doesn't allow his words to upset or offend somebody beyond the screen. Not trying to censor him. Just want to help him evolve. Just as he has helped me evolve.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
It's not my opinion, it's my faith and the faith of Billions of others.

Faith is a belief - which is an unproven opinion. It doesn't matter whether its the opinion of one person or ten billion. The number of believers doesn't make it a fact.

Prove the book you follow so literally wasn't just written by ordinary men thousands of years ago. Prove there's a god. You can't.

Making it an opinion.

(Actually, take it to the religion thread of you want to argue that point ... it doesn't belong here.)

And nobody is "attacking your religion" on abortion issues. If you don't believe in them, don't have one. Don't you or your friends, kids, grandkids impregnate a woman unless you both plan to start a family. Problem solved.

And if the fetus has a severe defect that prevents it from being viable outside of the womb, leave those decisions to the doctor and the famlly. You're welcome to carry full-term and follow up with all the futile, invasive life support measures you want, if you so choose.

Live your beliefs, don't force them on other people. Simple.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
It was more for the stuff about founders being concerned with preference for certain sects of Christianity, and less about all the other religions, .and that they would be alarmed by a Muslim in Congress :xf.laugh:

But Jefferson's statute wrote that the gods of all those major religions want people to be persuaded by reasoning and evidence


Unfortunately, God neglected to put any significant reasoning in the Bible about abortion and homosexuality and others
So might as well ignore the Bible on those

He could have written something about embryo created from rape or incest and why it should be saved or not
Here's one, Rubio, apparently believes it should be
"Why do you not see rape and incest as areas for potential carveouts even if you are pro-life?"
 
2
•••
He could have written something about embryo created from rape or incest and why it should be saved or not
Here's one, Rubio, apparently believes it should be

"Not compounding one tragedy with another ..."
He's forgetting about the tragedy of the impact (physical, financial and psychological ) that having to carry and deliver a rape baby would have on the mother...

"god's will", you say?

Lots of things in life could be construed as "god's will." For example: Who's to say that if your man parts don't work that's not "god's will?" Maybe instead of making insurance pay for those blue pills, guys need to accept that it's "god" telling them to hang it up and get a hobby.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back