Ted Nugent talks about our eroding rights

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.

Should I point you to where Japan's economy went through exactly the same housing bubble/collapse and subsequent economy tank as we did several years ago? Artificial pumps into the stock market caused that unsustainable rise and if you think otherwise, you're clearly not worth debating with.

Your numbers are also pretty LOL as the Stock Market also took a 7000 point nosedive under Bush, which is exactly 2000 points lower than where it started. It's amazing how you don't mention this. The Democratic Congress has been a massive cesspool of disappointment to me as well, but to blame them for this utter destruction of the economy is just stupid.
 
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.

If this was true, it was still a Republican Majority. This all started in 2004/2005. I remember that because I had just moved to Phoenix when the housing boom started.
 
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.

Bill

Actually that was Clinton, per the link l provided...

NY Times said:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Your numbers are also pretty LOL as the Stock Market also took a 7000 point nosedive under Bush, which is exactly 2000 points lower than where it started. It's amazing how you don't mention this.

Regardless...the DOW averages for both the Clinton & Bush Administrations were even at a bit over 9000...pretty much a wash.


The Democratic Congress has been a massive cesspool of disappointment to me as well, but to blame them for this utter destruction of the economy is just stupid.

Stupid? No...and as l said earlier...the Libs always resort to name calling...tsk tsk.
True? Yes. They are as much to blame as any one/entity.
 
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.

You and I obviously live in a different parts of the country. I find the opposite here, though I'm sure there are places where it is as you say. I've seen it happen, but not in a LONG, LONG time.


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.

Never said it was. I said it was a beliefe, but I also said I would be upset if my child believed the opposite of me on moral issues too. The way I said it kinda linked them, but whatever. Maybe I meant to link them at the time. If it isn't a moral issue, what is it? I'm not sure what word I could have used there other than belief or opinion. Those words don't work on their own though. I have beliefs and opinions that I would care if a child of mine believed or opined the opposite. However, there are a core group that would bother me, and religion is one of them.

Being upset does not mean I would disown them or berate them, or anything like that. Why is it horrible if I am disappointed if my child does not believe in something that I believe in and feel strongly about? Hell, I'm disappointed in poeple's behaviour (including mine) all the time. That doesn't mean you should go off on me. Why should you, or even my hypothetical child, give a damn if I'm disappointed? BTW, I want to make a semantic point here: I never said that I would be upset with them. I said I would be disappointed. I think upset implies a bit of anger. Disappointment, IMO, does not.

You do make a good point though. I have wondered what drives an atheist to be a good person. I guess that's kinda silly. There are lots of good atheists, just like there are lots of evil religious people.

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?

Again, you're talking apples and oranges. Having a religious symbol on a town's shield should have no impact on people who aren't of that religion. Most likely, that symbol was put there because the town was settled by people of that particular religion way back when. Since the entire town was made up of people of that faith, they would put that symbol on the town shield, and maybe in the courthouse. That doesn't mean that somebody with a different belief is going to be discriminated against in that town today.

Maybe this whole difference of opinion is linked back to our different experiences based on living in different parts of the country where religion is treated much differently. Perhaps if I saw things in your area, I might feel differently. Where I live, it's not a big deal, EXCEPT to people who insist that those types of things be removed. A town near here has a large church in the center of town. There was a large cross on the steeple of that church. Some guy sued the town and the church years ago and won, forcing them to remove the cross from the steeple. IMO, that is lunacy. If you don't like it, don't fucking look at it. Nobody's forcing their religion on you. You don't have to go into that building. What's next? Removing any sign from the front of the church indicating what denomination it is? That is the crux of my arguement.

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

Again, must be the parts of the country. It's not like that here that I've seen.

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

Never considered snapping a picture as they are kinda common. I will if I remember.

Except your kids, right?

Nope. There's no forcing involved IMO. I can raise them in that faith, and teach them about it, but if when they become an adult they can make any decision they want.

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.

You are right. It should never be an issue. However, your point was about the muslim being tried in a courtroom with some form of Christian symbology in or on the building. The religion of the person being tried generally shouldn't be an issue unless the crime had to do with that. I can see how it might make somebody uncomfortable, but so what? Tough. Get a good lawyer. Argue to change venue because you don't think you could get a fair trial in that courtroom. Whatever. It's not that big a deal IMO. But then again, it may be more of a big deal elsewhere.
 
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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he was referring to PACs and their influence over what laws get passed and which do not.
 
Stupid? No...and as l said earlier...the Libs always resort to name calling...tsk tsk.
True? Yes. They are as much to blame as any one/entity.

Typical. Liberals play the race card, cons play the name calling card. I'm so tired of it. If you honestly think that was an attack on you, you should take an english 102 course. NOW I'm calling you stupid.
 
You and I obviously live in a different parts of the country. I find the opposite here, though I'm sure there are places where it is as you say. I've seen it happen, but not in a LONG, LONG time.

I live on the internet. ;)

Never said it was. I said it was a belief, but I also said I would be upset if my child believed the opposite of me on moral issues too. The way I said it kinda linked them, but whatever.

Well, in that case, I'd agree. Morals are fundamental to a peaceful world. However, it shouldn't matter if they come from some type of god, or just knowing what the right thing to do is.

If it isn't a moral issue, what is it? I'm not sure what word I could have used there other than belief or opinion.

I think the only way Religion can be a moral issue is if you're talking about the institution and its rules. I don't remember what it was that made me stand up and say "that's it, I'm done." with catholicism, but I think it had something to do with a gay bishop being excommunicated after years of service or some such. The institution just continue to conflict with what I believe to be right and wrong.

However, there are a core group that would bother me, and religion is one of them.

Again, it's an incredibly personal issue, and if your child should be more inclined to follow, say, Buddhism, I don't see a problem. Do you believe they truely are going to burn for an eternity in a lake of fire for 90 years of "oops, I was wrong. God does exist, I guess those 90 years of good moral standing mean nothing." I just.. I can't fathom this.

Why is it horrible if I am disappointed if my child does not believe in something that I believe in and feel strongly about?

Because as long as they are upstanding citizens of the world, show kindness and love towards other people, what the hell does it matter who or what they worship, or if they choose not to worship at all? Again, I can't wrap my head around being disappointed that my child or anyone did not think the same way I did.

Why should you, or even my hypothetical child, give a damn if I'm disappointed?

I don't, honestly, since I don't know you, but it troubles me greatly when my friends would be disappointed for these very reasons. As a child, the most terrible feeling in the world is disappointing your parents, and it scares me to death that parents put so much pressure on their children to think a certain way without knowing or thinking about what that means.

As an aside, if I should be so lucky as to be blessed with children, I will attempt to expose them to different schools of thought, and allow them to come to their own conclusions, and offer my beliefs only when asked.

You do make a good point though. I have wondered what drives an atheist to be a good person. I guess that's kinda silly. There are lots of good atheists, just like there are lots of evil religious people.

From my understanding of the Atheist Groups, what drives them to be good is the fact that we're all stuck on a floating rock in a nearly infinite space for less than a cosmic blink, so why not make the best of things. :)


Again, you're talking apples and oranges. Having a religious symbol on a town's shield should have no impact on people who aren't of that religion. Most likely, that symbol was put there because the town was settled by people of that particular religion way back when. Since the entire town was made up of people of that faith, they would put that symbol on the town shield, and maybe in the courthouse. That doesn't mean that somebody with a different belief is going to be discriminated against in that town today.

I concede this, and do kind of have to kind of wonder about the grandfather clause on some of this stuff. I wouldn't demand, for example, if "God" was on the Liberty Bell for it to be buffed out, obvioulsy. History is history.

Maybe this whole difference of opinion is linked back to our different experiences based on living in different parts of the country where religion is treated much differently.

I doubt it. I lived in Buffalo NY where it was ... I dunno, blue collar and everyone watched out for everyone else, but religion was never shoved down your neck. I think it's been more recent where it's really become a fad to love god.

A town near here has a large church in the center of town. There was a large cross on the steeple of that church. Some guy sued the town and the church years ago and won, forcing them to remove the cross from the steeple. IMO, that is lunacy.

I agree, that is absolutely ludacris. However, on the other hand, a church out here rang it's bells loudly several times every hour every day. The noise angered some folk around town, and eventually sued the church to stop the bells so they could .. you know.. sleep. The Church, of course, claimed it was infringing on their freedom of religion and expression. Both of these examples are just stupid.

Argue to change venue because you don't think you could get a fair trial in that courtroom. Whatever. It's not that big a deal IMO. But then again, it may be more of a big deal elsewhere.

As I said earlier, if it's old, and on a historical building fine, but if it's a new erection or a new addition to what's already there, it has no place.

edit: formatting.
 
I don't remember what it was that made me stand up and say "that's it, I'm done." with catholicism, but I think it had something to do with a gay bishop being excommunicated after years of service or some such. The institution just continue to conflict with what I believe to be right and wrong.



Again, it's an incredibly personal issue, and if your child should be more inclined to follow, say, Buddhism, I don't see a problem. Do you believe they truely are going to burn for an eternity in a lake of fire for 90 years of "oops, I was wrong. God does exist, I guess those 90 years of good moral standing mean nothing." I just.. I can't fathom this.

Ok. We're not communicating well. If I raised my kid catholic and they went Buddist, I wouldn't be at all disappointed. In fact, it is my belief that all religions pretty much worship the same ideal, but call them different things. Of course, there are obvious exception which diametrically oppose most of the religions of world in their ideas of right and wrong. I was talking more about raising a child catholic and then them saying, "I don't believe in any kind of god at all." That would be a disappointment to me. However, I don't think it would be that traumatic because the kid would have to be pretty grown up to make that kind of decision honestly. Grown up enough, in fact, to be able to handle parental disappointment. If not, I did a crappy job as a parent preparing my kid for the world.

However, it's all moot as I'll never have any children.

Which brings me to what caused me to break away from the Catholic church. I still think of myself as Catholic, and I go to church on holidays occasionally. I believe in the Catholic view of God. However, I don't believe in the rules that the church implies such as the example you gave. for me it was two very distinct things.
When I was a kid I went to the same church every Sunday. My parents would get the envelopes from the church and always put a $20 or so in there. That was quite a bit for a single wage earning, blue collar family of four in the 70s. Anyway, at one point when I was in high school the church started calling the house and telling us how we should be tithing at least 10% of our gross income because that's what the bible says. It was quite annoying. In fact, it was so annoying that my family stopped going to church regularly. So one day we returned to church after about a year and a half, and this mid-size church now has this HUGE pipe organ taking up the whole corner where the choir used to be. I thought, "Now I understand the pressure to give more. But does this church really need that grand an organ?"

Then I went to college. My roommate and I decided to go to church our first weekend there. The sermon was about our responsibility to give money to the church. I thought, "I'm a college student. I can barely afford to be here, how can I afford to give a bunch of money to the church every week." Neither of us returned.

When we bought our current house, we decided to find a Catholic church in our town. There are a couple. We went to two on two different Sundays. The sermon was about our responsibility to give the church a bunch of money. We did find a third that we liked though. So all that contributed a LOT to my disillusionment with the Catholic church. That was the first thing.

The second thing, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back though, was when we went through the pre-Cana classes before we got married, we had to meet with the priest afterwards so he could get to know us better. We told him that we had no intention of having children. He said, "I don't know if I can marry you." When we returned the next time we said, "Well, we current have no plans to have children, but we may change our minds. Of course, if it happens, we will happily accept them." He married us. That really pissed me off though. Priests can't have children and they are supposed to be the holiest people, so how can I be less of a good Catholic if I don't have children?

BTW Nailz, are you going this year? I'd like to meet you and have a beer with you.
 
You think the Catholic church is bad about tithing, try the Mormon Church. They actually have something at the end of the year called tithing settlement, and guess what they expect? You got it, for you to ante up. And as to children we won't go into that.

Things like this in organized religion is what has turned me off completely to it. Yes I do believe in God, and feel I can worship him in anyway i want.
 
I like the cut of your jib, sir. I also like the fact that there is some good information flowing. Anyway:

Ok. We're not communicating well. If I raised my kid catholic and they went Buddist, I wouldn't be at all disappointed. In fact, it is my belief that all religions pretty much worship the same ideal, but call them different things. I was talking more about raising a child catholic and then them saying, "I don't believe in any kind of god at all." That would be a disappointment to me. However, I don't think it would be that traumatic because the kid would have to be pretty grown up to make that kind of decision honestly. Grown up enough, in fact, to be able to handle parental disappointment. If not, I did a crappy job as a parent preparing my kid for the world.

I was again trying to stray away from the one line of thinking of "Atheist vs. Chrisitianity" because I find that argument very one dimensional. FYI: I think most Buddhism sects don't really worship a higher being. But that's neither here nor there. I've heard stories of children 10, 11, 12 who stop believing in God for one reason or another, either it doesn't make logical sense or the connundrum of 'why is he doing nothing when his people suffer? Where has he been for 2000 years?' etc. Sometimes "it's god's plan" doesn't cut it for kids. I would be disappointed in my child if they lied, or stole something, or bullied other kids, but not if they questioned the existence of God. It just doesn't seem to be in the same league.


story about greedy priests

Fuck that. We put in $5 max when I was younger, and most of the time, just a dollar. I didn't think about it back then, because I was just thinking "oo, I get to put something in the basket! FUN!" ... I wouldn't care if it's what the tenants live on, but now I see these giant mega-churches and the gaudy ugly buildings that they call "houses of worship" with absolutely 0 character and it ... to be honest it infuriates me to the point I sometimes hope god himself strikes these places down with hellfire.

The second thing, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back though, was when we went through the pre-Cana classes before we got married, we had to meet with the priest afterwards so he could get to know us better. We told him that we had no intention of having children. He said, "I don't know if I can marry you." Priests can't have children and they are supposed to be the holiest people, so how can I be less of a good Catholic if I don't have children?

Because the point of the Catholic Marriage is to breed like rabbits. Priests take a life of celebacy (sp?) because a 'spilled seed is a wasted seed'. I don't really get it either, honestly, but I think children are a fundamental part of religious marriage. But it's just as idiotic to me to not allow a man and a woman to not get married based on the fact that they both made a decision that they don't want children as it is to not allow two men or two women to be married (ooo whole 'nother can of worms!), though, I may be a bit bias.

BTW Nailz, are you going this year? I'd like to meet you and have a beer with you.

Yah, I'll definitely be there, and I'd be happy to! Be forwarned however, I am much less glib in normal conversation. :goggly:
 
Nailz, I think I have to say this here, cuz shit's getting quite heated.

Regardless of political viewpoints, you sure seem unable to discuss politics and religion without a LOT of rage and verbal abuse.

Whether your banter has made any valued, correct points, I won't even bother to read them. I stopped after Page 3, and don't want to continue.



Just had to throw that out there. If you want people to understand your point, fucking this and fucking that, liberal this and con that and stupid this and dumbass that ain't the way to convince anyone.


By the way.

Boobies are awesome. And much more fun to debate!
 
And you'll what? Find a disagreeable word in their argument and somehow take it as a personal insult? Just like a liberal! :lol:

Ascension liberal???? he is about as Liberal as I am, which ain't gonna happen.

You may not like what he says all the time, but damn the guys does his research, and makes you think. And he has good taste in Music. Which is all that really matters

We all have our views on politics and religion, and whether you agree or disagree it is our right to have those views and to express them. Enought said.

42 days till ProgpowerX
 
Whether your banter has made any valued, correct points, I won't even bother to read them. I stopped after Page 3, and don't want to continue.

Sorry to hear that. Yippie and I have been having a very awesome discussion in the later pages about the effect of religion in government and lives.

Yes, I get pretty worked up when I get into political discussions, try as I may to stay out of them, I'm somehow always pulled in. I could be the liberal version of Sean Hannity. :lol:

Ascension liberal???? he is about as Liberal as I am, which ain't gonna happen.

I was going for satire.

You may not like what he says all the time, but damn the guys does his research, and makes you think. And he has good taste in Music. Which is all that really matters

He has horrible taste in music. :P

We all have our views on politics and religion, and whether you agree or disagree it is our right to have those views and to express them.

Indeed, but seeing the word "stupid" in a sentence does not automatically give you the right to assume it's a personal insult, especially when it's applied to something completely different. The satire I was going for was that liberals are quick to play the racist card, and Cons are quick to play the "name calling card".

Ah well, se la vi.
 
Ascension liberal???? he is about as Liberal as I am, which ain't gonna happen.

Very true on all accounts. :lol:

And he has good taste in Music. Which is all that really matters

So do you J. All that matters? In this realm...you are correct.

We all have our views on politics and religion, and whether you agree or disagree it is our right to have those views and to express them. Enought said.

God Bless America.

42 days till ProgpowerX

Another celebrated highlight held within our country ;)

He has horrible taste in music

Really? Evergrey, Vanden Plas, Zero Hour, Symphony X, Pain of Salvation, Fates Warning, Brainstorm, Angra, Spheric Universe Experience (are you detecting a pattern?), etc....all horrible? l think your approval ratings are on a downslide with that statement. You have something else in common with your messiah O & his healhcare plan now. :p
 
Really? Evergrey, Vanden Plas, Zero Hour, Symphony X, Pain of Salvation, Fates Warning, Brainstorm, Angra, Spheric Universe Experience (are you detecting a pattern?),

in order: Meh, ick, ick, meh, I would rather hang upside down as 2 men sawed me in half from my groin to my chest than sit through another Pain of Salvation set, booring, Sweet Live meh on CD, meh, meh.

So, yah. Pretty lame taste in music. :Puke::lol:
 
in order: Meh, ick, ick, meh, I would rather hang upside down as 2 men sawed me in half from my groin to my chest than sit through another Pain of Salvation set, booring, Sweet Live meh on CD, meh, meh.

So, yah. Pretty lame taste in music. :Puke::lol:

LOL. While I quite disagree with almost all of your posts throughout this thread, with the exception of Brainstorm and only a couple of Angra albums, my assessment of that list is almost identical.
 
I dunno, I tried getting into brainstorm... I can listen to them but they don't blow me away. Evergrey is great live, but only Recreation Day finds me really thinking FUCK YES RAAAAAWR METAL RAAAGE, and while I appreciated SUE while doing their pictures last year, the music just isn't for me.

Edit: See, we can all always find some common ground :D
 
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.

And you used a Fox News scare tactic picture as your argument and expect to be taken seriously. Which is why I never even addressed your earlier posts. I also know conservatives who call people who share... your... opinion (loool)... "neocons." Just remember that Stephen Colbert is the reason why people like you that share your radical views exist. It also makes me sick to my stomach that you get mad when someone says the word "neocon" but then spin around and call people who disagree with you "liberal." It's amazing how hypocritical some of you are.

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

If if you support bigotry and lies yes, I question your intelligence.

I remember listening to Rush years ago where he said something like "There should be a reality show where different ethnic groups compete. I think the Hispanics would probably outrun everyone else!" Ann Coulter said that Muslim Americans deserve to be profiled and that Jews are inferior to Christians and called John Edwards a "fag." Hannity supported Jerry Falwell when he said that 9/11 was the result of America allowing homosexuality and believes that America is a Christian nation. When people call out Hannity for having Nazi sympathizers and White Supremacists (one of which even admitted to being friends with Hannity), Hannity would denounce that these people even exist. If you support this kind of disgusting bigoted idiocy then you're dumb. The end. However I don't know you, and maybe you didn't know that these guys are racist hypocrites who purposely pander to racist trailer trash for ratings when they were actually quite moderate years ago. If that's the case than I'm terribly sorry for my accusation. <3

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

Well I also didn't mention Katrina and appointing the head of the Arabian Horse Association as the head of FEMA either lol.

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.

Cool man, so is this your only retort to my reply? Yeah I mean I guess I should have respect for people who support racists.

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.

This is ridiculous. You can be independant and not agree with Reaganist neocon philosophy. There are many pre-Reagan conservative views that I very much agree with. And also, disagreeing with libertarianism and neocon philisophy doesn't make me a liberal. The fact that you people think I'm a liberal is really pathetic. Please take a PoliSci class or something.

And FYI, I never said Clinton can do no wrong? Where exactly did I say that? I even said that he made alot of shitty/stopid mistakes. Please read my posts more carefully.

And either you (and every Republican in this entire thread so far) simply don't know what socialism is. The very idea of "Military Healthcare" rather than health insurance = socialism. As I said, even Bill Kristol, who took responsibility for killing HillaryCare said that the Millitary gets socialised healthcare.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91rS40hZKf8&feature=related[/ame]

And your definition of religion is completely wrong. In fact, the first 2 definitions for religion USED the word religion in the definition in some form or another. Already we can then say that it's a bad definition. In fact, everything in that post sounds like a load of BS (no offense man), so I don't know where you got it from. I studied this for some time and almost majored in religious studies -- any legitimate religious studies textbook will tell you that religion = the belief in a spiritual reality. There are religions without gods (Buddhism, etc), and the idea of religion being an " organized and structured belief system" is also dead wrong. By that logic, science is a religion. No. Religion requires a spiritual reality. The end. Any legitimate professor/book in this field will tell you this.


I'm gonna close this by saying that the main reason I came in here isn't just because I disagreed with your opinions, neocons. In fact, there are issues like abortion where both sides of the coin have some valid arguments. However, the idea of coming in here and saying "THIS IS THE FACT, OBAMA IS RUINING OUR COUNTRY AND TED NUGENT etc ONLY SPEAKS WITH ABSOLUTE CREDBILITY." Bullshit. These people are 100 x more flawed than the mainstream media. If you want true objective news, watch al jazerea, not this racist homophobic crap that only spews what it spews to entertain the lowest common denominator. It's people like Bill Kristol and the like that spread buzzwords and lies without explaining the truth that will ruin America. The lack of understanding in this country of simple terms like "socialism" and "secularism" are the reason why this country is in trouble. We live in a society of ignorance. We'd rather listen to what the guy on TV has to say about socialist healthcare rather than actually take a history class and/or pick up a textbook. It's pretty simple. How could you trust/listen to someone like Sean Hannity who has said on his radio show and his TV show that "separation of church and state doesn't exist" or that "America is a Christian nation," let alone claim that these people are speaking facts. This has nothing to do with political bias, but common knowledge. Sources that make such grandiose falsehoods are not good sources.