Re-read it, it was a simple defense of Nixon. JFK was simply a marker for the time line for the Democrat's escalating the Vietnam conflict, not Eisenhower you tried to imply.
Max: the logic of your arguments vs. the historical revisionism of RS has me fully swayed on the reasons for personality issues between the two of you. Just shows how people believe what they read. For the longest time I bought into the myth of you as psycho. NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, just want to make a quick comment. ART, I do agree with you on this point... however I would like to expound on it a little. My view of why religion needs to be in political discussions and affairs of the State are confined to this; Whether you believe in a Supreme Being or not most people agree on 2 points. #1 its wrong to steal, and #2 whatever you do to me first, I have the right to do to you. #1 obviously comes from the 10 commandments, #2 is the ole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Corporate scandals have affected all of us. So to has excessive taxation. For CEO's or politicians not to subscribe to a belief in #1 results in............ well we've all felt the effect of that. I'm sure we all know someone somewhere who thinks they have the right to bully others around without reprisal. So the notion of doing onto others as you would have them do unto you is essential for social harmony. Keeping religion out of government as far as which belief is correct is important. That is the point Thomas Jefferson was making. However to elect leaders that subscribed to A religious belief is essential as they are more apt to believe in #1 & #2. Individuals who do not see themselves as 'religious' from the standpoint of a believing in religion, yet who still subscribe to points 1 & 2, would still qualify IMHO. So yes, keep God OUT of political discussions, but DO acknowledge those teachings most people live their lives by.
You know I am a theist. However, I know plenty of atheists who have as strong, or stronger moral character than most theists. Every law of Moses that has to do with behavior towards others is found in the Golden Rule. Those laws of Moses that relate to human behavior toward God have no place in our system of Government, none. Obviously, ours is a "Christian" based society, and we have 50% failure in marriages, 75% of spouses report cheating on their spouse, 75% of people report cheating on their income tax, etc. This moral bankruptcy we see on the corporate and private level is not the result of being a "Christian" nation. It is the result of the individuals not practicing the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule may or may not be part of a religion, but it can be applied quite reasonably by anyone. It is universal among reasonable people that they don't like to be cheated, lied to, stolen from, killed, etc. It is so bloody simple, just treat others the way you want to be treated, and most of the problems of society would disappear. Imagine a society where everyone followed the simple concept: DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!
Liberals and conservatives share spinning to fit their agenda equally. Freedom to practice religion without persecution from others is the concept that is within out framework. Keeping a particular religion, or religious belief out of the affairs of state is the other concept. They are not mutually exclusive. Bush has prayer sessions in the White House. Do you think many of his staff members are praying to Allah and reciting the Koran outloud in their prayers, bowing to the east on a prayer rug? There should be no organized religious groups in the White House praying on company time. If they want to get together after work, that is fine. But for taxpayers to pay for the time they "pray" to their God is not in the spirit of the constitution. Here is the test. Imagine that Kerry is elected and for some unknown reason converts to Islam. Would you support him bringing into his cabinet members of the Nation of Islam and holding Islamic prayer meetings in the White House during business hours?
Lol. Firstly, where the fuck did I ever divulge the CONTENTS* of private exchange (the way you just did)? You are a disgrace and a phony, be sure of it. *what I said was that I was able to determine that RS7 was a fully fledged "liberal", even by the widest definition of the word (as opposed to the independant minded observer he flogs himself of as), given what we discussed in private. This is something EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS, yet, according his twisted logic, it is "betraying the confidentiality of a private message". Yeah. Right. Secondly, I suppose you think you really nailed me there huh? Why else would you post that? Well, to speak up for myself. Yeah, I do find it fun to piss off dorkish liberal pussies (like you). So what? I don't "really" mean it, in the sense that in "real life" I don't go around picking fights with liberals. No shit. Being congenial in "real life" has its obvious benefits. As much as I think you are all a bunch of cockriders I still have to share this world with you; unecessarily pissing people off is just plain stupid and mean. I'm neither. And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about my Iraq comment, I totally support the decision. It was absolutely the best decision for the long term. That doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, I can see right through the phony reasons flogged to the public. Doing that was the right thing too; idiot sixpack would never have supported otherwise. Anyway, no way is it "complete bullshit" that you are the king of inane rhetorical questions. You are. And comic idiot to boot. And I honestly mean that!
I think the First amendment is clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." There's a tremendous difference between "establishment of religion" ala' Church of England vs. mere governmental sponsored observance. IMO the liberal courts are OUTSIDE their Constitutional bounds by ruling nativity scenes, ect., as unconstitutional.
Thank you. Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. And just because Max posted information he could have ONLY GOTTEN from you, and then deleted it when he was smart enough to realize that A): It had no relevance to anything, and B): Was a dead give-away that you had done your best to instigate something that needed no instigating. I used to think you were a bright kid Dan. And I respected your diligence when you would make an argument. You were, or made yourself well informed. Now I still think you are a bright kid. But I no longer have any respect at all for you. It is one thing to incite and offend for the sheer hell of it, as you have been doing forever. But feeling compelled to supply Max with information (useless information at that) makes you pathetic. Max and I have been butting heads for over two years. I think he's nuts and he thinks the same of me. But I respect Max for being true to himself and his own beliefs (despite the fact that I disagree with him on virtually any issue you can think of). Who are you true to? By your own words, we know you are not true even to yourself. Certainly you have no family and probably never will. And though you made noises about becoming an officer in the Australian Army, you don't even have enough patriotism to stay in (let alone serve) your own country. The only thread you ever participated in in an active way was "the worst religion" thread. When it comes to intolerance and hate, you are at your best. Hope you find a useful outlet for your special talents. RS