Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is the American Flag next?

FARRAKHAN: I DON’T GET DEBATE OVER CONFEDERATE FLAG, ‘WE NEED TO PUT THE AMERICAN FLAG DOWN’

Crowd Roars.

I5YdWhVEpPU


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/

Farrakhan, who's been irrelevant since the 90s?

No, the US Flag stands against what the Confederate Flag stands for, so there's no worry about a slippery slope there.

What was that rule that got posted up recently about the answer to any article or opinion piece posed as a question?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines

Incidentally about the exact same question.

A fascinating post, I was riveted by the usage of the word "Edit".

I remember a similar rule applying to tv shows for a different reason. A show called "So you think you know how to dirve?" used to show in the UK; its idea was to show people who thought they were good motorists that they were not.

But it didn't get watched that much and one theory is that casual viewers looked at the title and just mentally answered "Yes I do" and watched something else.

But let's see what the spirit of this is before it dies off. What possible reason would the kind of people wanting the Confederate Battle Flag removed- regardless of the rights or wrongs of that debate- have to ban the Stars and Stripes?

Originally posted by Surtur
A fascinating post, I was riveted by the usage of the word "Edit".

Apparently you cant have a question mark in the thread title or did you not read what ush said?

Removing the question mark doesn't actually stop it being a question- it just makes it a badly punctuated question.

Regardless, the point was to get across that this appears to be a ridiculous worry that I would like explained.

I wasn't being serious. Anyways speaking of flags on the radio I heard a cop was either punished or even fired for posting a picture of himself on Facebook(or one of those sites) wearing boxer shorts with the confederate flag on them.

Have trouble believing that is true, but iirc, civil servants are obliged to stick to a code of conduct even when off duty, so maybe.

But if true, good, one less racist cop in America and that police department can use the money saved from his salary to hire another cop who hopefully isn't racist. win/win

What is happening with the Confederate Flag is not in the same vain as the American flag.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have trouble believing that is true, but iirc, civil servants are obliged to stick to a code of conduct even when off duty, so maybe.

But if true, good, one less racist cop in America and that police department can use the money saved from his salary to hire another cop who hopefully isn't racist. win/win

I found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-charleston-sgt-shannon-dildine-fired-wearing-confederate/story?id=32038900

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Is the American Flag next?


Nope, that's stupid. Next question?



The American flag will change when we get another state, and not before. It's a very, very different symbol than the confederate battle flag.

Originally posted by Q99
Nope, that's stupid. Next question?



The American flag will change when we get another state, and not before. It's a very, very different symbol than the confederate battle flag.

Your stupid, next question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have trouble believing that is true, but iirc, civil servants are obliged to stick to a code of conduct even when off duty, so maybe.

But if true, good, one less racist cop in America and that police department can use the money saved from his salary to hire another cop who hopefully isn't racist. win/win

So wearing a pair of shorts with that flag on it AUTOMATICALLY means your racist? Must be nice to have the ability to see what a person is really like by looking at his shorts.

And I didn't think there was no such thing as a NON RACIST Cop.


No questions marks at the end....Did I do good?

This thread is a mess.

Originally posted by Digi
This thread is a mess.



Indeed

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your stupid, next question.

Says the guy who thought the American flag would go the way of the confederate flag

Originally posted by Q99
Says the guy who thought the American flag would go the way of the confederate flag

Quote me saying that.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quote me saying that.


"Is the American Flag Next?" - Time-Immemorial


You really are not good at this

Originally posted by Q99
"Is the American Flag Next?" - Time-Immemorial


You really are not good at this

Posing a statement/question for the forum is a personal opinion now? Interesting trolling. Quit taking hormones.

The answer is no dude lol.

A country needs a flag. Every country has a flag. Even with a redesign I very much doubt they would change the flag so extensively.

Yeah, obviously the answer is no. Anyone claiming otherwise is on a paranoid slippery slope acid trip. Or maybe a marijuana high...I hear that stuff's legal nowadays.

I guess Farakhan was in left field. I don't know why people say stuff like that.

Now, I could go on a long diatribe about how our evolutionary foundations make us inclined to create in-groups and out-groups, and how this began as tribes of early humans, and how we can still see vestiges of these instincts today, and how the state is yet another in-group that many use as a mask for xenophobia and entitlement, or to dehumanize those outside of it, and how a truly enlightened society would be one that continually knocks down boundaries, be they state, geography, continent, race, religion, even species, to the point where we only see sentient, feeling beings working together toward common goals, and how the deconstruction of modern symbols of patriotism could, in the long run, be a good thing toward this end.

I could say all that. But it takes us pretty far off topic, and could lend undue credence to what is little more than a hate-mongering speech in OP's video. In a perfect society, we probably would take down the American flag. But I'd want to do it for entirely different reasons, and after long, sweeping social progress that we're nowhere near at this point (and, frankly, may never be).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Posing a statement/question for the forum is a personal opinion now? Interesting trolling. Quit taking hormones.


It's a question that you asked.


And remember, you're the one who believed the nuke thing. You've got a track record of being gullible as heck. If you're gonna say something really stupid but want to make it clear that you don't believe it, you should indicate it so, because it's not like your personal history is any indication.

Originally posted by Q99
It's a question that you asked.


And remember, you're the one who believed the nuke thing. You've got a track record of being gullible as heck. If you're gonna say something really stupid but want to make it clear that you don't believe it, you should indicate it so, because it's not like your personal history is any indication.

Again you never can quote me on anything you claim I said, You dodged the nuke thing over and over again, so I'll ask you again. Quote me saying "The US Nuked Yemen" Like you did over and over.

And you can never stay on topic. In the Iran Framework thread you off on a tangent about gay marriage.

So again you are wrong, and you can't stay on topic for longer then 2 seconds..so make more or less hormones. I dunno but quit making shit up.

Where was a gullible here? Did I make that video?

Prove that one as well, oh wait you can't so stfu.

Wait don't bother responding Q99, I figured out your a troll. Put you on ignore.

Originally posted by Digi
Now, I could go on a long diatribe about how our evolutionary foundations make us inclined to create in-groups and out-groups, and how this began as tribes of early humans, and how we can still see vestiges of these instincts today, and how the state is yet another in-group that many use as a mask for xenophobia and entitlement, or to dehumanize those outside of it, and how a truly enlightened society would be one that continually knocks down boundaries, be they state, geography, continent, race, religion, even species, to the point where we only see sentient, feeling beings working together toward common goals, and how the deconstruction of modern symbols of patriotism could, in the long run, be a good thing toward this end.

I could say all that. But it takes us pretty far off topic, and could lend undue credence to what is little more than a hate-mongering speech in OP's video. In a perfect society, we probably would take down the American flag. But I'd want to do it for entirely different reasons, and after long, sweeping social progress that we're nowhere near at this point (and, frankly, may never be).

The first part I take your word on it.

Now why in a perfect society would you want to take the US flag down?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wait don't bother responding Q99, I figured out your a troll. Put you on ignore.
Star has trained you well.

Slavery existed and thrived under Old Glory too. I think it is hypocritical to single out only the Confederate flag. The current incarnation of that flag was never flown during the Civil War anyway.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Slavery existed and thrived under Old Glory too. I think it is hypocritical to single out only the Confederate flag. The current incarnation of that flag was never flown during the Civil War anyway. The currently popular version was designed in the civil war, by the side that wanted to maintain slavery. It then rose to prominence in the 20th century by being adopted by people in favor of segregation.

It's always been a symbol of racism, and it should not be condoned by any government, nor by companies who want to appear ethical.

Originally posted by Q99
Says the guy who thought the American flag would go the way of the confederate flag


Give it time. They are already starting to take control over how we eat, speak and even how we dress ourselves.

Next they'll tell us how to drive, or who not to kill....it's political correctness gone mad!!!!

So how do you respond to the new laws passed on food regulations where "Trans-Fats" will be slowly zoned out in the next 3 years. Making BIG changes inwhat foods will actually still be around ?

State Colleges are already going so far as to ban students from saying words and even phrases on their grounds?

Or as even stated in this forum about how that one cop got fired for wearing a pair of confederate flag shorts on his own time and property?

Yeah. FREEDOM U.S. A!!!!!

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The first part I take your word on it.

Now why in a perfect society would you want to take the US flag down?

For reasons quite explicitly stated in the first paragraph of my last post.

These are all things that have precedences and reasons. Laws, rules and policies are things that change with time, to expect that the rules that were in place when you were younger will be the same rules later on is silly. Circumstances changes, and "freedom" means different things in different ages.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So how do you respond to the new laws passed on food regulations where "Trans-Fats" will be slowly zoned out in the next 3 years. Making BIG changes inwhat foods will actually still be around ?

State Colleges are already going so far as to ban students from saying words and even phrases on their grounds?

Or as even stated in this forum about how that one cop got fired for wearing a pair of confederate flag shorts on his own time and property?

Yeah. FREEDOM U.S. A!!!!!

Most employers retain the right to fire for discretionary reasons.

Obviously we could sit here and find cases of this going too far. The world is a big place, and people can be really dumb. The more difficult approach is to realize that not everything is a slippery slope, at which point rational discussions of individual stories can take place. We make progress when we recognize context. We doom ourselves with generalizations and reactionary fear.

They are already talking about taking the Jefferson memorial down and taking Alexander Hamilton of the $10..Alexander Hamilton was actually opposed to slavery and has some historic battle stories fighting side by side and leading black soldiers. Anyone who disagrees open a book.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They are already talking about taking the Jefferson memorial down and taking Alexander Hamilton of the $10..Alexander Hamilton was actually opposed to slavery and has some historic battle stories fighting side by side and leading black soldiers. Anyone who disagrees open a book.

wytAaOyE7vo

Can't see it whatever it says is prolly wrong you can't change history off opinion.

It's John Oliver of Last Week Tonight talking about a woman being on the 10 dollar bill, and how, while it is progress, it's not particularly much, the 20 dollar bill would have been much better for many reasons, for one Hamilton actually was pretty awesome, like you said. Additionally the woman will have to share the 10 dollar bill with a man, which is sort of insulting.


Here's the full link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wytAaOyE7vo

thomas jefferson knowingly sold his own children into slavery.

**** thomas jefferson.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's John Oliver of Last Week Tonight talking about a woman being on the 10 dollar bill, and how, while it is progress, it's not particularly much, the 20 dollar bill would have been much better for many reasons, for one Hamilton actually was pretty awesome, like you said. Additionally the woman will have to share the 10 dollar bill with a man, which is sort of insulting.


Here's the full link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wytAaOyE7vo

Yes they want to put the first woman leader of the Cherokee nation called Mankiller.

Obvious left move

Insulting? Hahah why are you so easily offended?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
thomas jefferson knowingly sold his own children into slavery.

**** thomas jefferson.

You sound like you care very deeply about something that happened 100 years ago. Do you light candles every night?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes they want to put the first woman leader of the Cherokee nation called Mankiller.

Obvious left move

Insulting? Hahah why are you so easily offended?

I'm not, I'm not a woman, my gender has been extremely well represented on currency and in almost everything else of importance around the world.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You sound like you care very deeply about something that happened 100 years ago. Do you light candles every night?

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between words on the internet and RL. Obviously he doesn't. He's just rightly denouncing someone who condoned and practiced slavery.

Similarly, it seemed clear that Bardock wasn't personally offended.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Can't see it whatever it says is prolly wrong

Lol. Objective indeed.

As you see above I already knew what it was talking about. I can't view the video atm

Since everybody seems intent on banning everything they choose to call "racist" then I guess the $5 bill needs to be banned and the Lincoln Memorial should be destroyed/removed ASAP. Afterall, it was "Honest Abe" who said this:



I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.-Abraham Lincoln


Now, according to what people today consider to be "racist", that sounds like a pretty damn racist statement to me. So I guess anyone caught using a $5 bill is obviously "racist". At least until that racist "Honest Abe" is taken off it, right?

Yes, a raindrop and the ocean are the same thing

Originally posted by Star428
Since everybody seems intent on banning everything they choose to call "racist" then I guess the $5 bill needs to be banned and the Lincoln Memorial should be destroyed/removed ASAP. Afterall, it was "Honest Abe" who said this:



I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.-Abraham Lincoln


Now, according to what people today consider to be "racist", that sounds like a pretty damn racist statement to me. So I guess anyone caught using a $5 bill is obviously "racist". At least until that racist "Honest Abe" is taken off it, right?

Do you just not get the whole point of Abe Lincoln's life? "A first rate second-rate man", as the abolitionists called him?

The whole point is that Lincoln never went in with an anti-slavery platform, never intended to free the slaves by war, never really considered the wider moral case for true equality, but over the course of the war he changed his mind and redeemed himself into this positive figure. Still the second-rate man in terms of abolitionism if you look at the whole thing objectively, yet a hero all the same.

Same deal with Oskar Schindler. This is a man who employed Jews as slave labour because it was cheaper than paying proper wages, and plenty of people saved more Jews than him, but he was the man who redeemed his views during the war. There's a value to that.

So quoting pre-war quotes from Lincoln about slavery is a totally misleading activity. Anyway, Lincoln was also being politically expedient. Frederick Douglass always backed him as the man who would free the slaves.

Originally posted by Star428
Since everybody seems intent on banning everything they choose to call "racist" then I guess the $5 bill needs to be banned and the Lincoln Memorial should be destroyed/removed ASAP. Afterall, it was "Honest Abe" who said this:



I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.-Abraham Lincoln


Now, according to what people today consider to be "racist", that sounds like a pretty damn racist statement to me. So I guess anyone caught using a $5 bill is obviously "racist". At least until that racist "Honest Abe" is taken off it, right?




Btw, if anyone was wondering, that famous quote of his was from a public debate he had with Senator Stephen Douglas. Here's much more proof that he was a racist:



http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/abe-lincoln-racist-fascist/



http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2009/02/abraham-lincoln-racist.html



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html

You are completely blind to nuance. Don't you ever worry about how little respect people have for what you say because of that? How utterly unconvincing you always are?

Originally posted by Star428
Btw, if anyone was wondering, that famous quote of his was from a public debate he had with Senator Stephen Douglas. Here's much more proof that he was a racist:



http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/abe-lincoln-racist-fascist/



http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2009/02/abraham-lincoln-racist.html



http://www.americanthinkers.com/articles/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130730090148/date-a-live/images/f/fd/Godzilla-facepalm.png

This guy is ragging on one of the manliest men to ever live.

He was, his opinions changed to be less so, and oh yes, he lead the war that ended Slavery in the US.


Which kinda outweighs any other racism by many orders of magnitude.

Here's the thing, we don't require our heroes to be perfect. We can acknowledge they had flaws without tossing out the celebration of the good they did, especially if the good was on such a massive scale.

I mean, the Confederacy was literally a country founded on protecting slavery. The civil war put an end to a massively evil institution.

Originally posted by psmith81992
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130730090148/date-a-live/images/f/fd/Godzilla-facepalm.png

This guy is ragging on one of the manliest men to ever live.




LOL. And other ignorant people are "ragging" on the Confederate flag and anything associated with it or the Old South like the movie 'Gone With the Wind' as if they all represent "racism" because of the evil actions of one very sick and racist individual. It's as if they think he speaks for the entire white population of the South. Are they really that phucking dumb?

I don't much care what "they're" ragging on. It's a symbol and just like the swastika, it has no place in a public domain. You want the confederate flag, have fun on your lawn.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You sound like you care very deeply about something that happened 100 years ago. Do you light candles every night?


funny that you were so quick to be offended. did i make your sacred candle flicker by pointing out what a literal child-whoring POS he was?

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. And other ignorant people are "ragging" on the Confederate flag and anything associated with it or the Old South like the movie 'Gone With the Wind' as if they all represent "racism" because of the evil actions of one very sick and racist individual. It's as if they think he speaks for the entire white population of the South. Are they really that phucking dumb?


Are you? You really think Southern racism is limited to one guy?

The flag was founded on slavery. It's heavily used by racist groups. Heck, it was largely out of use for a long time until the 1960s, when it had a revival among the opposition to the civil rights movement.

People don't dislike it just because of the historic context- though there is a certain disregard for one's fellow Americans to use a flag that was literally raised to try and keep their ancestors in slavery- but also the modern, very real racism that many have experienced first hand.


It's never represented Southern culture as a whole as much as some claim, it's represented the part of the South that is most tied with racism.


And the South has so much good stuff *outside* that era, that it's disappointing to see it lionized at the expense of ignoring their accomplisments.

Am I the only one who doesn't care whose face is on the money? I don't even notice it anymore. If they removed all faces from all currency it wouldn't bother me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes they want to put the first woman leader of the Cherokee nation called Mankiller.

Obvious left move

Insulting? Hahah why are you so easily offended?

That seems more insulting to women actually.

Originally posted by Surtur
Am I the only one who doesn't care whose face is on the money? I don't even notice it anymore. If they removed all faces from all currency it wouldn't bother me.



That seems more insulting to women actually.

I agree

Originally posted by Surtur
Am I the only one who doesn't care whose face is on the money? I don't even notice it anymore. If they removed all faces from all currency it wouldn't bother me.



That seems more insulting to women actually.

Again, it's easy to say that when the people on all the pictures are like you. "What's the big deal, doesn't matter to me.", well it is a big deal to all the young girls looking at this and seeing that none of the people we honor the most are like them, it has a deep impact, and it needs to change.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, it's easy to say that when the people on all the pictures are like you. "What's the big deal, doesn't matter to me.", well it is a big deal to all the young girls looking at this and seeing that none of the people we honor the most are like them, it has a deep impact, and it needs to change.

But if it has such a deep impact why choose someone nicknamed "Mankiller" ?

Originally posted by Surtur
But if it has such a deep impact why choose someone nicknamed "Mankiller" ?

It's not a nickname. Surely she should be judged by her deeds, not her last name.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a nickname. Surely she should be judged by her deeds, not her last name.

It is not a big deal if it is just her last name. Just the way I read it made it seem like it was a nick name.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is not a big deal if it is just her last name. Just the way I read it made it seem like it was a nick name.

Yes, the way TI wrote it made it seem that way. Far be it from me to suggest any sort of biased phrasing.

Originally posted by Surtur
But if it has such a deep impact why choose someone nicknamed "Mankiller" ?

Because the liberals are on a all out assault on traditional marriage, traditional family values, there is a war on men. He'll even people on Mew are saying now that children do not belong to their parents.

The liberals aren't on the assault for anything. They're just constantly bored and in need of a crusade.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because the liberals are on a all out assault on traditional marriage, traditional family values, there is a war on men. He'll even people on Mew are saying now that children do not belong to their parents. Originally posted by psmith81992
The liberals aren't on the assault for anything. They're just constantly bored and in need of a crusade.

I know you two have your Republican talking points, but can you try to explain, outside of the party orders, how these claims in any way relate to some people suggesting that a popular and influential Native American chief could be printed on the 10 dollar bill?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because the liberals are on a all out assault on traditional marriage, traditional family values, there is a war on men. He'll even people on Mew are saying now that children do not belong to their parents.

Well a person shouldn't belong to anyone, regardless of age.

Oh yeah, missed that. Children most definitely do not belong to their parents. They are human beings with rights, and the government must ensure that their rights and autonomy is not infringed beyond what is reasonable for raising them. Parents should see themselves as guardians, stewarding their children into adulthood, not as owners...

You keep talking about Republic talking points, you don't see me yelling at your liberal/democratic liberal talking points. My "points" had nothing to do with what the previous guy said or support for him in any way. My point was, liberals love crusades. Over the past 20 years, they've created so many isms to fight against, it makes my head spin. But I hardly agree that liberals are "assaulting" traditional marriage.

Anyways, no thoughts on the cop being fired though? I wonder if it only happened because he doesn't live that far from where the recent racist shooting in the church happened? If he'd been from Maine or California or somewhere else would he of still been fired?

Would he have any grounds to sue for wrongful termination?

Originally posted by psmith81992
You keep talking about Republic talking points, you don't see me yelling at your liberal/democratic liberal talking points. My "points" had nothing to do with what the previous guy said or support for him in any way. My point was, liberals love crusades. Over the past 20 years, they've created so many isms to fight against, it makes my head spin. But I hardly agree that liberals are "assaulting" traditional marriage.

I disagree with both of you, liberals don't assault, neither do they crusade, instead they *synonym of military attack*...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yeah, missed that. Children most definitely do not belong to their parents. They are human beings with rights, and the government must ensure that their rights and autonomy is not infringed beyond what is reasonable for raising them. Parents should see themselves as guardians, stewarding their children into adulthood, not as owners...

Posts like these are hilarious.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Well a person shouldn't belong to anyone, regardless of age.

A person from the illuminati would say this.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
A person from the illuminati would say this.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/804/573/f07.jpg

Apparently you didn't look at his signature..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
A person from the illuminati would say this.

We're very big on personal freedoms. Ours specifically. Some of our finest agents are children. And some of your finest children are our agents.

Originally posted by Nephthys
We're very big on personal freedoms. Ours specifically. Some of our finest agents are children. And some of your finest children are our agents.

You guys are pathetic. Illuminati are all scum bags who think they are better then everyone else and the earth is there, blah blah blah. I doubt you are even one of them. Just a wanna be.

So we are assuming the Illuminati is actually a thing?

http://naibuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/are-you-serious-wtf-meme-baby-face.jpg

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because the liberals are on a all out assault on traditional marriage, traditional family values, there is a war on men.

'War on marriage and traditional family values' = people getting married in a way that affects no-one who isn't them.

And war on men, hah. There's a very big difference between being against sexism, and being against men. Having to treat other people equally is not an attack on a group.


What we really need is a war on persecution complexes in groups who thinks others being on their level is a threat.




Well, yes, people are people, not property. The parents are their guardians and have many rights in respect to them, but obviously there's limits of what you can do with a person.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because the liberals are on a all out assault on traditional marriage, traditional family values, there is a war on men. He'll even people on Mew are saying now that children do not belong to their parents.

You're getting weirder, TI.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're getting weirder, TI.

You were already weird. So thank you

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You were already weird. So thank you

Answer me this then: How are the liberals on an "all out assault" on traditional marriage?

A man and woman can still get married just the same as before.

Can't read spoilers. Sorry

Originally posted by Robtard
Answer me this then: How are the liberals on an "all out assault" on traditional marriage?

A man and woman can still get married just the same as before.

Liberalism is anti religion, anti.christian, anti bible. Anything that the bible or this nation was founded on, such as God and the U.S. Constituion, they want done away with it. People here already say the constitution is outdated and use the excuse "Where the framers Omniceint?" Let's be real Rob you are one of those as well.

Wasn't the US constitution written with the separation of church and state in mind from the beginning?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Wasn't the US constitution written with the separation of church and state in mind from the beginning?


Yep.


It's funny how people who claim to be loyal to the constitution are meanwhile trying to retroactive re-write it to justify stuff it was most definitely not in far more egregious ways.




Personally, I think it's good, but not perfect. It was made by smart people, but we still build on stuff. And the founders knew that, hence leaving a mechanism to change it and a court to interpret it and how laws fit into it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Liberalism is anti religion, anti.christian, anti bible. Anything that the bible or this nation was founded on, such as God and the U.S. Constituion, they want done away with it. People here already say the constitution is outdated and use the excuse "Where the framers Omniceint?" Let's be real Rob you are one of those as well.

LoL, dude, just lolz.

If the US Constitution was about Christianity and the Christian God, don't you think that would have been in there somewhere? Aside from one single "In the year of our Lord" which was the common practice of the time when writing down an official dare.

The framers were not omniscient and they knew that, why they left the Constitution to be amended with Amendments, because things change with the passing of time and what seemed great in the 18th century, might not be great later on. eg Slavery

Also, notice the beginning of establishment clause of the very first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

The founding fathers were Christians who had the foresight and objectivity to take religion out of legal matters.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The founding fathers were Christians who had the foresight and objectivity to take religion out of legal matters.

I only wish all politicians would take this kind of stance. Politicians need to learn to put their country before their own personal beliefs. If they can't do that then they do not belong in politics.

Originally posted by Surtur
I only wish all politicians would take this kind of stance. Politicians need to learn to put their country before their own personal beliefs. If they can't do that then they do not belong in politics.

That wouldn't work. Politicians get into politics to be placed in a position of power. By that very reason, they're not going to do anything remotely altruistic.