Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

[HK4U]

The worst we have ever had: Obama, Clinton, LBJ, FDR, Wilson.

[Glock Fan]

Bush was the worst president we ever had, Regan was the second worst president we ever had. They both sucked. Bush because he let his second and third in command run him like a puppet and when they did allow him to make decisions, he was to stupid to do anything right. And Regan because he was a lier about the whole "tear down your wall" thing. That wall was falling long before Regan came to office. Regan was a shameless opportunist. Why the media still paints him as a hero I can only surmise because he looked good in a cowboy hat. Or maybe they don't want to beat up on an old senile president. Boo hoo, he sucked.
And for those of you who say things like "Obama...He anit my president", you are not only unpatriotic, but you must not understand what it means when the nation elects a president. Guess what...He is your president and by saying he is not doesn't make you special. Feel free to disagree with him and do it loudly if you wish, but he is and will be yours and my president until he is not.
This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away. Stick to the pursuit of true morality found in the close examination of laws past and future. Only there, with clear and honest objectivity, will the public see that as an American, we have the right to bare arms.
wal

Is this JWToilet's brother????



gf

[HK4U]

Bush was the worst president we ever had, Regan was the second worst president we ever had. They both sucked. Bush because he let his second and third in command run him like a puppet and when they did allow him to make decisions, he was to stupid to do anything right. And Regan because he was a lier about the whole "tear down your wall" thing. That wall was falling long before Regan came to office. Regan was a shameless opportunist. Why the media still paints him as a hero I can only surmise because he looked good in a cowboy hat. Or maybe they don't want to beat up on an old senile president. Boo hoo, he sucked.
And for those of you who say things like "Obama...He anit my president", you are not only unpatriotic, but you must not understand what it means when the nation elects a president. Guess what...He is your president and by saying he is not doesn't make you special. Feel free to disagree with him and do it loudly if you wish, but he is and will be yours and my president until he is not.
This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away. Stick to the pursuit of true morality found in the close examination of laws past and future. Only there, with clear and honest objectivity, will the public see that as an American, we have the right to bare arms.
wal

This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

[wolfhunter]

This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

I think the advancement he's seeking is what the rest of us call the RESTRICTION of gun ownership.

[wellarmedliberal]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Let's take a closer look at this bit of American history. It was written by committee, the writers were educated, rich and white. They were writing it in part to justify the Colonies separation from England and to explain to the populace of the Colonies what the goals are for this new nation. Great goals, I might add, but I am pretty sure the boys writing it did not look at it the same way we look at it today.
1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Today this makes perfect sense, back then, those wacky writers kinda did not want blacks or women to be included into that mix. Some did, but hey, when you have to compromise, use the "pawns" for that kind of game. Right? "They" knew not "everyone" was "equal".
2. "... that they are endowed by their Creator..." Listen, don't get your boxers in a bunch on this point, it is such a waste of time. The most famous writers were Atheists, or at best Agnostics. Meaning this part of the verse was put in to appeal to the masses, to fire them up for the good fight. If you read the personal writings of these guys, and discuss it objectively with people who sit on the other side of the fence from you, you will come to see that they were non believers in a supernatural, or if they did, their god had no real influence in their day to day lives. Can we just move on from this dull point of discussion. God this, god that, blah blah blah. Do me a favor, find a liberal, go to a bead shop or health food store or find a guy with dreds playing the bongos and just start talking with him. You will find they don't bite and they might offer a point of view for you to at least ponder. Be civil because we all know how easy it is to make a liberal cry.
3.".... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." OK, we all know that the word "happiness" was changed from "property" in the final draft. Why? Because it was being written by wealthy men and at the time, land was the biggest measures of wealth. They knew if they promised "property" for everybody, their wealth would have to shrink. This part of the verse was another way to fire up the troops, make everyone think that they could be as rich as the king ( or at least as happy) if they worked at it. The writers knew that the economic model they were designing (not so much a "government") could only work if some people would remain poor. They were right. 200 plus years later we know it for sure. We have a great system for making money, I have made a ton, but we do it by keeping a large segment of our population poor.
Now don't misunderstand me, those writers were smart. They not only had to design a system that they could sell to the masses here, but abroad also. In the process they were (most of them) able to keep their wealth and when the dust cleared, they were richer. The timing was right for them. Britain was over extended, the Colonies were a royal PIA, and we had France in our back pocket. If they did not separate they would of been fools for missing such a great opportunity.
I'd love to write more, but I have some bead sorting to do.
WAL

[CathyInBlue]

The 9th Circuit just admitted that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution incorporates the 2nd Amendment as enforceable against States and localities.

Can you show me any court, anywhere, at anytime, that has used any provision of the Constitution to incorporate the Declaration of Independence as a governing document of law?

Undoubtedly, our founding fathers held a number of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding the practice of religion. It's part of our national culture and heritage, but to use any specific statement, even those in a non-law historic document like the DoI as a rhetorical club against those who hold an opinion contrary to your own regarding religion in America is abhorrent.

Regarding the defacement of a place of worship by the Obamanation, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people go to a given location to give a speech or make other remarks because A) that's there the people are and B) so that you can use that location as your back drop? If the Obamanation wanted to use the church as the location for a speech, then that means by definition that he wanted to use the features of the church as the backdrop for said speech. If his handlers showed up and started covering over all the features that made that church that church, they should have been told to take a hike. Either the Obamanation gives his speech in front of the church as it was, or he can take his little dog and pony show elsewhere.

It'd be like going to a factory to give a speech and ordering that all the machines be covered up, going to a hospital ward to give a speech, but ordering all the sick people be covered up, going to a school classroom to give a speech, but ordering all the teachers and students covered up.

If you want a plain, featureless background for your speeches, Mr. Pretendent, might I suggest the rose garden? there's less travel and less prep time. Better all around.

Oh, and BTW, I'm about as rabid an admitted, avowed, and ardent an Atheist as you're ever likely to find, but many people, I suspect people on these boards and in this very thread, in the RKBA community would seek to bar me from participating in gun rights activities and discussions. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye... I may not be as dedicated or prepared in defending our RKBA as some, but I'm moreso than most.

I fail to see how making America a good and safe place for everyone to enjoy the RKBA, including Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Gays, Bi-s, Lesbians, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics can't also make it a place where the RKBA is secure for straight, white, Christian males as well.

[ronwill]

Oh, and BTW, I'm about as rabid an admitted, avowed, and ardent an Atheist as you're ever likely to find, but many people, I suspect people on these boards and in this very thread, in the RKBA community would seek to bar me from participating in gun rights activities and discussions. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye... I may not be as dedicated or prepared in defending our RKBA as some, but I'm moreso than most.

I really don't think anyone here would want to ban you simply because of your religious beliefs, I don't. I do get upset when beliefs, or non-belief, are forced upon me. The country was founded on fundamental principals and there is a drive to remove any evidence of some of those. The reason wellarmedliberal drew some fire is because of statements like the following:

"Bush was the worst president we ever had, Regan was the second worst president we ever had. They both sucked."

"This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away."

He stated the contoversial opinions and a discussion ensues. Nothing wrong with that, except telling us to "go away". As I stated earlier he has a right to his beliefs as do we.

[HK4U]

I really don't think anyone here would want to ban you simply because of your religious beliefs, I don't. I do get upset when beliefs, or non-belief, are forced upon me. The country was founded on fundamental principals and there is a drive to remove any evidence of some of those. The reason wellarmedliberal drew some fire is because of statements like the following:

"Bush was the worst president we ever had, Regan was the second worst president we ever had. They both sucked."

"This site could do much more for the advancement of gun ownership if the clucks promoting god and a government guided by "gods hand" would just go away."

He stated the contoversial opinions and a discussion ensues. Nothing wrong with that, except telling us to "go away". As I stated earlier he has a right to his beliefs as do we.

+1. Well put ronwill. If a person wants to reject Christianity that is their choice and so be it. They have that right. Just don't expect me to check my Christianity at the door of my house or church. My God loved me enough to buy my salvation with the blood of his son. If that bothers anyone then to bad.