Progressives Attempt to Make Church and State One and the Same - Page 4
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 96

Thread: Progressives Attempt to Make Church and State One and the Same

  1. #31
    wolfhunter Guest
    Yep, just dreamed it all up while watching the government regulate HMOs into existence in a long, gradual process through the 70s and early 80s. I'm currently dreaming that 0bama is President and Hillary Clinton is Sec. of State. See how accurately I dream things?

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Yep, just dreamed it all up while watching the government regulate HMOs into existence in a long, gradual process through the 70s and early 80s. I'm currently dreaming that 0bama is President and Hillary Clinton is Sec. of State. See how accurately I dream things?
    That is not just a dream it is a nightmare.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    That is not just a dream it is a nightmare.
    They had to wait until most of the WWII vets were dead or feeble minded before they could come out with all that they have done. That generation would never have put up with this.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Actually Trolls like yourself have outlived their usefulness if you ever had any to start with.
    You're the troll, troll.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    What exactly am I supposed to find there? If it contains evidence to support your claim that the modern Progressive movement is negotiating away our Constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment Rights, post some of evidence here so I know I won't be wasting my time if I follow the link.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Cooper View Post
    It was more like 1870 to 1940.

    Since when is corruption and undue influence of government an American value. Since when is excluding more people from the political process an American value?



    The American Progress Movement was a great success. It's specific goals included:


    The effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

    The conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.[/INDENT]

    All of those goals were achieved.
    [INDENT]The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;
    A house divided against itself cannot stand. How can it end corruption when we have chicago political system in DC? Namely in the white house?

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Cooper View Post
    What exactly am I supposed to find there? If it contains evidence to support your claim that the modern Progressive movement is negotiating away our Constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment Rights, post some of evidence here so I know I won't be wasting my time by following the link.
    The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
    As for wasting your time, I see you have no problem wasting the time of others with this drivel. I also see that you've studiously avoided answering the question about being conflicted with your presence on this site. How about addressing that instead of manipulating the thread in a different direction and deflecting the question?

    Y'know, if it didn't play right into what I suspect are your underlying motives, I'd quit this site. There seems to be far too many trolls and subversives here lately for my comfort...you all need to find a Brady site of your own where you can lament your failures to move people like us off our beliefs and wreck our solidarity. Unfortunately for you, your actions and efforts merely serve to bring people like us closer together and strengthen our resolve. When and if an insurrection of some sort, perpetrated from without -or- within, happens to occur, I know I can count on many of these guys to have my back, whereas guys like you will probably be needing to watch yours.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  9. #38
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I am speaking of the actual words of the 2nd Amendment. As ambiguous as they may seem to you today, their structure and meaning was direct and clear when written.
    Nope. The Amendment was not direct and clear when it was written. It was, and remains, one of the most ambiguous laws ever produced by American lawmakers.

    Words change with time, I'm sure you'll agree. Take for example the word "Gay". Similarly "Decimate", in it's original meaning, meant "to kill one in ten". I'm sure you'll agree that THAT meaning has changed over time..
    In 1788, the well established common law rule was that words in a constitution are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

    There are any number of scholarly treatises on the subject...some of the can be found
    I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the men who made the U. S. Constitution wanted us to interpret it according to scholarly treatises produced after the Constitution was established. If you have any such evidence, I would love to see it.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Cooper View Post
    Nope.
    I'm done with you...you're ignored, and I would encourage others to do the same. You've accomplished in two days what that other twit here has yet failed to accomplish in weeks, and I thought HE was going to be my first ever 'Ignore'. Congratulations on your resounding success. You're a wonderful example to us all of the "values" of Liberalism. Have a nice stay...
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  11. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Sorry, the government has no role to play in social problems.
    I disagree. The founders granted the U. S. Congress power to provide for the success, prosperity and happiness of the United States. That coupled with the sweeping clause would seem to give Congress broad power to play a big role in solving social problems.

    The Founding Fathers recognized this and refused to address slavery when drafting the Constitution, despite their other communications that show their dislike of the practice.
    I don't see how that changes the fact that the founders granted the U. S. Congress power to provide for the success, prosperity and happiness of the United States.

    Establishing fairness in economic matters means taking from me to give to the shiftless
    Nope. You're wrong. That's not what fairness in economic matters means.

    these are Marxist views.
    I know. The founders were Marxists before Karl Marx was a Marxist. Why do you suppose Marx was so found of the men who gave us the U. S. Constitution?

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast