Ted Nugent talks about our eroding rights

[Ascension]

And before you say "well Clinton had an opportunity to get Bin Laden and he passed on it, so we can make the same judgements about him as you are with Bush, eh?" No. Because 9/11 did not happen under Clinton and that's how it is. It happened under Bush. Clinton wasn't responsible for thousands of American lives, Bush was. And not only that, but Clinton has since apologized for letting Bin Laden go admitting it was one of his biggest blunders. He even drew up plans to capture Bin Laden that he handed to the Bush administration that they promptly flushed down the toilet. So even though Clinton was VERY much an imperfect Prez, and he royally fucked up with Bin Laden, he took responsibility for his mistake. Bush/Cheney never did. They are disgusting slime.

I think I pretty much successfully debunked alot of misguided "facts" in this thread. Take care all.

9/11 didn't happen under Clinton's watch...but the U.S.S. Cole attack did...killing 17 US sailors. Bin Laden took credit for that...and as you mentioned Clinton passed on the clear opportunity he had to take this terrorist out. Which gave this twisted individual the opportunity to inflict more damage on the US. So the judgements can be made & stand legitimately...especially considering, as you mentioned, if Clinton did take responsibility for allowing bin Laden to live. American blood is on his hands...TWICE. Making him the biggest POS President to walk the face of the Earth.

Debunk? BULLSHIT! Omit? Of course...it's what liberals do to make their story work...but only in their own minds.:Smug:

 

[nailz]

Why do you think there are advocacy groups trying to repeal these things? "Under God" was added in 1954. If you feel like reading the history, feel free. Same with the "In God We Trust", which was started officially in 1864.

Frankly, I think both of these things have no place on money or the pledge. Both were enacted during a time of extreme religious explosions. How can we still, as a country of relgious freedom, claim to be if we practically DEMAND people to believe in God?

 

[nailz]

It has been my experience that anybody who believes in any form of God is thought of as a self-deluding moron by athiests who can't believe that having belief in a god proves that a person is a complete and utter moron.

I'll give you this, there are some atheists out there who believe this, however, most of them stop judging you at your belief at "an Imaginary Sky Man". Christians, on the other hand ... most any religion, actually, are more than willing to shove their morals down your throat, whereas Atheists just want to be good people.

I don't doubt that. If I felt strongly about my belief in one religion and raised my children that way, I would hope that they would form a similar conclusion as I had. I would definitely be disappointed if they formed an opposite belief. BTW, that applies to any moral issue.

Believing in God is not a MORAL FUCKING ISSUE. Forgive me for being passionate about this, because it's horrible to think that the only thing in your life directing your behavior is a book. This, EXACTLY THIS, is what is wrong with Christian thinking on non-believers! It's absolutely unbelievable that you, with the absence of God in your life, would turn into a raging lunatic who rapes and murders and shits on babies, correct? Why is it that people link morals with religion for EVERYONE? Isn't it possible to be a good person without belief? Why in the WORLD would you be upset with your child for having a different viewpoint than your own? Yes, if you feel strongly about your beliefs I can understand wanting to give your child an understanding of them, but to outright admit to being disappointed that they may not believe it seems horrible to me. I could never be upset with my child for having their own thoughts on something so significant.

You make my point above. I've seen people standing outside of bars yelling at patrons and telling them that their soul is damned if they don't repent now and change their ways. They will burn for eternity. I've gotten in arguements with them because even though I am Christian, I don't believe that is the way to win people over. That is a way to drive them further away.

Well, that's nice. Thanks for fighting the good fight. My point wasn't that government should ban all forms of religion from every public place. I'm saying that within the halls of congress, the oval office, and the court system, it has no place. How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow and all of the sudden it was against the law to eat pork? Or women could be killed on site for walking the streets unaccompanied by a man?

I've also seen people who have bumper stickers that say stuff like "Jesus Saves," or whatever. I feel that is fairly harmless. It is, IMO, as harmless as a bumper sticker that has the name of a politician who you don't like. You don't agree with it, but it's pretty harmless. Most of them don't tell you that if you don't believe, there is something wrong with you. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't see them.

Harmless sure, but they're fucking everywhere. Everyone feels the need to declare it and it makes me sick.

OTOH, I've seen lots of bumper stickers that say, "There is no God Moron!" and stuff like that. I have never seen a bumper sticker that said something like, "I don't believe in God." Instead, they are always derogitory toward those who do believe in a god.

Never seen any of these, kindly snap a photo next time.

I can understand that. As I said above, I don't think ANYBODY should force their beliefs (even if they are a lack of belief) on anybody else. IMO, that is just wrong.

Except your kids, right?

I would be uncomfortable having a jury of atheists.

As any atheist would be terrified of having a jury of christians. However, what difference would your religion make in a trial? It should never come up.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

"Debunk? BULLSHIT! Omit? Of course...it's what liberals do to make their story work...but only in their own minds."
Hey now....kinda like how conservatives whitewash over the damage Reagan inflicted on this country and how they will try to paint G. W. Bush as a staunch defender of the country. It's the same on both sides, so don't try to make it a "liberal" thing.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

9/11 didn't happen under Clinton's watch...but the U.S.S. Cole attack did...killing 17 US sailors. Bin Laden took credit for that...and as you mentioned Clinton passed on the clear opportunity he had to take this terrorist out. Which gave this twisted individual the opportunity to inflict more damage on the US. So the judgements can be made & stand legitimately...especially considering, as you mentioned, if Clinton did take responsibility for allowing bin Laden to live. American blood is on his hands...TWICE. Making him the biggest POS President to walk the face of the Earth.

Debunk? BULLSHIT! Omit? Of course...it's what liberals do to make their story work...but only in their own minds.:Smug:

Cool story bro. I'm a registered independent as I said before, and not a liberal. I am just very much against this Reaganist "greed is good" philosophy and even more against the extremist neocon philosophy that trolls like Hannity and Limbaugh portray themselves as.

What exactly did I omit? I pretty clearly said that Clinton missing his op to get Bin Laden was a major fuck up on his part. In fact, EVEN HE SAID THAT. Bush on the other hand, never took responsibility for 9/11, which happened under his watch, and was thus his responsibility. Instead, he cleared brush and went on vacation. If he was incapable of fixing Clinton's mistakes, then he too is a shitty President who didn't keep us safe at all.

9/11 happened under Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Clinton never got a memo saying that there would be an attack on 9/11 and ignored it. Bush did (more irony here by the way -- since you chose to omit the fact that Bush threw that memo along with Clinton's plans to capture Bin Laden down the toilet but rather than make a sweeping statement on your entire party, we'll just chalk it up to the fact that you obviously didn't have much to work with since you were indeed debunked). And while the 17 Americans that died under Bill's watch was sad, I'd say the 3,000 plus loss of the WTC towers plus the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq for nothing is a bit worse.

Clinton was no gem, but the biggest POS to walk the Earth? He gave us a surplus and didn't cover up pedophiles or send our troops to die in the desert or illegally wiretap us and propose to specifically wiretap the media towards the end of his term or torture people and keep prisoners of war against the geneva convention and pussing out by calling them "illegal enemy combatants" to jump through a shitty loophole or hinder science or allow the biggest attack in American history to happen under his watch.

You were debunked and your logic is flimsy (certainly at the very least, blood is on BOTH of their hands and you still lose, since I never really praised Clinton but you obviously praised Bush and claimed he protected our country). And ironic that the only response you have is to call me a "liberal" even after I said I wasn't. Congrats, you embody the very parody that Nailz made of Rush. You win it all man.


By the way, anyone see tonight's Daily Show where Bill Kristol accidentally admitted that the millitary gets first rate, top class healthcare (admitting that socialized medicine is top class healthcare) while we get shit because it's too expensive? Talk about ownage considering this is the guy that took responsibility for killing "Hillary care" and for trying to kill "Obama care."

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Not sure how you got that out of your quote. When I read that it makes me think that their intent was to prohibit the government from making laws (regulation) that require the practice of any religion, or prohibit the practice of any religion. It doesn't say anything about keep religion out of our government. If that was what they meant, don't you think they would have chosen to not use "in God We Trust" and "one nation under God"?

As someone else stated, these statements came way later. There's mention of God is in the declaration of independence as well if you want to make a case, but still it's not the constitution and has nothing to do whatsoever with governance. Not to get into a religious debate, but considering that none of the fathers were Christian, or at least the vast majority were deist, the "God" they believed in was quite different from the one most believe in today. Therefore, once again, very little bearing on today's society. To us, it may as well have mentioned Zeus in the declaration. Also, if you read the treaty of tripoli, it blatantly states that America is not a Christian nation.

At any rate, I got what I got out of that quote because it's true. Jefferson was pretty much an anti-religionist and was the one who coined the term "separation of church and state."

Anywho, if you guys wanna continue this debate, feel free to PM me (this goes to anyone who disagreed w/ me). I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore. Later.

 

[Pellaz]

lol, whenever anyone uses the word "neocon" I automatically send their comments to my internal /dev/null folder. It's only used by liberals and those who strongly lean that way, "registered independent" or not.

Government isn't the problem people...we are the frickin' government. The problem is the fact that we are a corporate fascistic state. You want to fix this broken country? I say we start by revoking corporations rights as people.....they own this country and are lording over it's demise.

Funniest post of the week!

I think the point is Rush Limbaugh is a fat bag of egotistical cancer living in his own mind, as he continues to drive a massive wedge down a party line he thinks he's saving. Good for him. Sometimes, the wretch that comes out of his mouth is so absolutely idiotic I have to wonder if even he believes it.

I'm not a huge fan of Rush nowadays -- he was a lot more interesting during the first Gulf War, which is when I first began listening to AM radio for up-to-date news -- but this is just silly. Sure. You hate the guy. We get that. Thanks for the opinion, but it merely underscores your strongly-held position without reinforcing it.

Maybe, but I'll take my illusion of freedom over anyone elses any day. That said, I'd rather the illusion stay constant, than move to a more, non-freedom type of illusion.

America is the most illusorily free country in the world! Two cheers for us!

But lets face it, Health Care > Health Insurance.

This was the realization that Obama came to before his last prime-time news conference, thanks no doubt to some quiet opinion polling and focus groups.

Americans are actually pretty happy with the QUALITY of their care -- the US has among the best healthcare in the world, and in many places that quality care is rendered at public expense even to the indigent who can't afford to pay for it -- but they hate paying their insurance premiums each month.

It's a standard page from the Democratic playbook: vilify the corporations and reap the rewards. With the help of the lamestream media and Hollywood (dating back to, say, Robocop), vilifying corporations is easy!

Wealth-envy and corporate hatred may well be the death knell for us all.

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

I don't know you, but yes, if you actually think that Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh are truthful then you have to be dumb.

Seriously, dude, I don't appreciate being called dumb. That was out of line.

Full disclosure by the way -- I am not liberal. I'm a registered independent.

So am I. But that doesn't give me license to engage in ad hominem attacks.

Your comment is why I don't like to offer political opinions in the Forum. Some people can't seem to have civil conversations. They just ramp up the insults and go off on angry rants.

Bill

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

It's a standard page from the Democratic playbook: vilify the corporations and reap the rewards. With the help of the lamestream media and Hollywood (dating back to, say, Robocop), vilifying corporations is easy!

Wealth-envy and corporate hatred may well be the death knell for us all.

Very well put. "Lamestream media." Heh-heh. I like that.

Bill

 

[Bryan316]

If Ted runs, Jon Stewart should be his running mate. Especially after he tore into Jim Cramer like a rabid wolverine! Jim deserved it, and boy it felt good to watch that happen to him.

 

[Ascension]

Seriously, dude, I don't appreciate being called dumb. That was out of line.




So am I. But that doesn't give me license to engage in ad hominem attacks.

Your comment is why I don't like to offer political opinions in the Forum. Some people can't seem to have civil conversations. They just ramp up the insults and go off on angry rants.

Bill

It's the Liberal way...it's how they compensate for lack of an independent thought. It's an immediate personal attack on anybody that doesn't think like they do. They can call themselves anything they want to hide what they really are...but their words betray them.

 

[nailz]

Clinton was no gem, but the biggest POS to walk the Earth? He gave us a surplus and didn't cover up pedophiles or send our troops to die in the desert or illegally wiretap us and propose to specifically wiretap the media towards the end of his term or torture people and keep prisoners of war against the geneva convention and pussing out by calling them "illegal enemy combatants" to jump through a shitty loophole or hinder science or allow the biggest attack in American history to happen under his watch.

You forgot "and censored the media on the war so as not to cause a public outcry."

Americans are actually pretty happy with the QUALITY of their care -- the US has among the best healthcare in the world, and in many places that quality care is rendered at public expense even to the indigent who can't afford to pay for it -- but they hate paying their insurance premiums each month.

(citation needed)

If Ted runs, Jon Stewart should be his running mate. Especially after he tore into Jim Cramer like a rabid wolverine! Jim deserved it, and boy it felt good to watch that happen to him.

I would vote for this duo about 800,000 times illegally.

 

[nailz]

It's the Liberal way...

Whenever someone says "the liberal way" I file it away in my recycle bin. Because microsoft is cooler than linux, which is ironic, since one is open source used by a right leaning member, and one is a corporation, used by a left leaning member.

Lol irony.

 

[J-Man]

The very definition of religion is something that requires you to believe in a spiritual reality. Religion and spirituality are interchangeable. And the idea that everyone HAS to believe in a god is also quite sickening. You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want and you'll have my utmost respect, but don't try to convert me to your beliefs please.

I for one would never try and "convert" anyone to my beliefs. You too don' know me or anything about me, just as I don't know you. I respect your rights and your opinions, and will listen to them, but will it convert me to your way of thinking, maybe, maybe not.


The word 'spiritual' is a Mankind term. The Greek word is 'pneumatikos.' In the
Bible this word relates to our walk with the Lord, that is, in learning to live
our lives under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual believers are those
who have learned the great value of living by the Spirit.

The term 'religious' is from the Greek word 'deisidaimonia.' This word means to
be superstitious. It also speaks of reverence for God, but not necessarily in
regard to which god is involved. Being religious simply means you are a follower
of a religion.

So to answer the question, a person can be religious without being spiritual.
Hindus are religious. Muslims are religious. Being religious simply means you
are a follower of a religion. But being spiritual really means you are walking
with the true God of the Bible.

Religion:

1. commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Spirituality:

1. sensitivity or attachment to religious values
2. the quality or state of being spiritual

In layman's terms a religion is an organized and structured belief system, however spirituality is generally neither focusing more on an individuals beliefs than a groups. While most religions are easily classified as religion others like Buddhism are not so easily classified as it depends what sect and position you hold in the religion.


Religion is man's limited attempt to reach out and understand God. Spirituality is God reaching down to man and inspiring man's mind to understand and know Him. God is a Spirt the only way to relate to God is spiritually, the word spirit in the ancient Greek text means "life". Being religious is following after a religious teaching about God. Being spiritual is seeking after the truth to know God, to know life. So, if want to "know" God you have to learn to "know" Him on a spiritual level. If you want to know "about" God then you join a denomination or some religious sect where men will teach you "about" God.

Personally, I would rather be spiritualy inspired to know God first. Than attend a religious organization or sect and learn to know about God; what God's ways are and how God thinks. If you have children or ever do have children one day is or would your desire be for your children to know you or know about you?



This by far the best description of the difference between Spirituality and Religion
"What is the difference between religion and spirituality?"

Spirituality comes from within you. Religion comes from outside of you.

Spirituality is the self understanding of your reality through your submition of whatever your higher power is. Higher power is the concept of believing in something beyond your power, beyond your intellect, or a peak of ones own knowledge, however one decides to decipher their higher power renders their own definition of God.

Nothing or no one can give you spirituality. But many can give you religion if allow them too.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

"Wealth-envy and corporate hatred may well be the death knell for us all."

Well...corporate worship and de-regulation has left this country in wonderful shape, hasn't it?
Like I said before, corporations aren't necessarily evil in nature, just when they have a foot on governments throat. Corporations have free speech rights, like individuals, and since they don't have "mouths"(so to speak), they speak through money. How can we have a chance against corporate interests when they pretty much own the government?
By the way, I haven't seen much love on these boards for Ticketmaster. Why not....? They're just a nice little company trying to make a buck, right? It's the American way, isn't it?

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

"Wealth-envy and corporate hatred may well be the death knell for us all."

Well...corporate worship and de-regulation has left this country in wonderful shape, hasn't it?
Like I said before, corporations aren't necessarily evil in nature, just when they have a foot on governments throat. Corporations have free speech rights, like individuals, and since they don't have "mouths"(so to speak), they speak through money. How can we have a chance against corporate interests when they pretty much own the government?

Actually, it's the other way around. Government runs corporations, especially the ones involved with war-making. I think it's a big mistake to turn over the functions of conducting a war to private corporations. John Cusack may be a liberal weenie. But his movie War, Inc., was a great expose on the privatization of war.

But it was government regulations and political horse-trading that brought down Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the auto industry, and virtually every corporate catastrophe we've seen in the last year or two. So how "deregulated" and free are corporations in America? Not very. And even less so now that Obama has taken over so many industries.

By the way, I haven't seen much love on these boards for Ticketmaster. Why not....? They're just a nice little company trying to make a buck, right? It's the American way, isn't it?

That's a very good point. But the issue with TicketBastard isn't that they charge exorbitant fees. It's that they do so with no competition. They could charge $1,000 per ticket for all I care. But when they charge people a third ticket (in fees) for every two they buy, it's highway robbery and no one likes it. But where can we turn? There's no alternative.

Bottom line: If this were truly a free-market society, there would be more competition for TicketBastard. Only then would they reduce their fees. Now there's no incentive for them to do so.

Bill

 

[nailz]

But it was government deregulations and political horse-trading that brought down Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the auto industry, and virtually every corporate catastrophe we've seen in the last year or two.
Bill

Fixed that for you. It was Bush saying "Hey, loan these people money! So what if they're broke and only make 23k a year after taxes, LOAN THEM $500,000 WITH NO COLLATERAL! IT'LL BE FUN!

And thus the downward spiral of greed was started, and it came back to haunt the banks that took the bait, and then Obama said "Wait, WTF, it's not working! Quick, throw money at the problem!" ... and now the Dow has gone up 2000 points since he's been in office.

Wait what?

 

[Ascension]

It was Bush saying "Hey, loan these people money! So what if they're broke and only make 23k a year after taxes, LOAN THEM $500,000 WITH NO COLLATERAL! IT'LL BE FUN!

Whoa whoa whoa...that deal started with Clinton...and of course Barney Frank turning a blind eye as Fannie Mae was filling his pockets.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Obama said "Wait, WTF, it's not working! Quick, throw money at the problem!" ... and now the Dow has gone up 2000 points since he's been in office.

Wait what?

So...Odumass' policies have got the DOW back to Clinton era numbers...good for him.

BTW...the DOW hit a high of over 14,000 under Bush...but then Dems gained control in Congress & we see what happened with that. Bush's failure was in not telling them to fuck off.

 

[J-Man]

By the way, anyone see tonight's Daily Show where Bill Kristol accidentally admitted that the millitary gets first rate, top class healthcare (admitting that socialized medicine is top class healthcare) while we get shit because it's too expensive? Talk about ownage considering this is the guy that took responsibility for killing "Hillary care" and for trying to kill "Obama care."

Hmmmmmm AeonicSlumber, you say your an Independent, I doubt it. Everything you have said in this forum has the hint of far-left Liberalism, granted that is your choice. But let me ask you one What in the hell was so good about 1/7 of the USA gross national product in the Hands of Hilliary Clinton? You seem to think the Clinton's can do no wrong.

Military Healthcare is Socialized Medicine? I beg to differ, I have utilized the Military Healtcare system for 40 years, and there was nothing Socialized about it.

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

Fixed that for you. It was Bush saying "Hey, loan these people money! So what if they're broke and only make 23k a year after taxes, LOAN THEM $500,000 WITH NO COLLATERAL! IT'LL BE FUN!

And thus the downward spiral of greed was started, and it came back to haunt the banks that took the bait, and then Obama said "Wait, WTF, it's not working! Quick, throw money at the problem!" ... and now the Dow has gone up 2000 points since he's been in office.

Wait what?

Actually, Nailz, it wasn't Bush saying that at all. If you check the Congressional records, go back and watch the videos or YouTube clips, it was the Bush administration blowing the whistle on Fannie and Freddie. It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters who pooh-poohed the warnings and said Fannie and Freddie were perfectly sound.

If you Google the phrase "barney frank chris dodd fannie mae" you'll get thousands and thousands of news reports, blog entries, and commentary on that situation.

Congress pushed banks to provide housing loans for everyone out of "fairness." So even people who had no way to pay back the loans were given loans. It became a huge house of cards that eventually tumbled.

Check it out. I think you'll find that your premise is incorrect.

Bill