Bobby Jindal: GOP's "Obama"

flynavy · Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:15 am

Quote:
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- Last weekend, 18 days after Barack Obama decisively defeated their candidate for president, a mostly Republican crowd of self-described conservatives received their first introduction to someone many prominent members of the GOP think could be the party's own version of Obama.

[ s a r c a s m ]

At first glance, he's a little too "brown" I think to be seriously considered by conservative right-wing America.

[ / s a r c a s m ]

- He doesn't kill babies: he's pro-life, with a 100% pro-life voting record.
- He doesn't think GLBT Americans deserve equal rights: he has a 0% approval from the Human Rights Campaign, as he opposes gay marriage (even civil unions) and favors a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
- He's a Bible thumper: he supports the teaching of intelligent design in taxpayer-funded public schooling.
- He also looks like a complete goofball: almost as goofy as Obama looks.

I'd say he's right up the GOP's alley.

All jokes aside, should he run in 2012 and/or 2016 and get elected, it would be the second (or third) election in a row where Caucasian white male isn't elected, not to mention that he's a first-generation citizen as he is the son of two Indian immigrants to the U.S.

I would much rather watch a debate between an incumbent President Obama and Governor Jindal rather than Governor Palin. A debate between Obama and Jindal would be, in my view, much more interesting. Should the GOP take back the White House in 2012/2016, I'd much rather have the Nuclear codes in Jindal's hands vice Palin's.

[Edited 2008-11-30 02:29:34]

EMBQA · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:12 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):
All jokes aside, should he run in 2012

Will he even be old enough to run for President....?? and was he born here...? I thought I read he was born in India and moved here when he was very young. Bobby is the youngest Govenor currently... maybe ever in the history of the US. I think he's 33-34..? I've only seen snipits on the news about him, but what I've seen I'm impressed with him. Smart guy...

flynavy · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:16 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
Will he even be old enough to run for President....?

Bobby Jindal is currently 37 years-old. Minimum age for the office is 35 years.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
was he born here...?

He was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, yes.

DocLightning · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:37 pm

The thing I don't get is that the GOP has worked so hard for so long to ensure that minority rights are minimized.

How can Bobby Jindall support such a platform? Or is it that he got his and that's OK, then?

flynavy · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Or is it that he got his and that's OK, then?

Well, he's Catholic. God was cool with the idea of a straight brown dude having equal protection under the Constitution and what not...

eyebrow

DocLightning · Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:58 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 4):

Well, he's Catholic. God was cool with the idea of a straight brown dude having equal protection under the Constitution and what not...

eyebrow

God's only been cool with that since the '60's. Before that, God was most DEFINITELY not cool with brown people having equal rights. Jesse Helms was quite clear on that matter.

Mir · Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:28 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):
Should the GOP take back the White House in 2012/2016, I'd much rather have the Nuclear codes in Jindal's hands vice Palin's.

Yeah, but that isn't saying much. Why does the GOP have a love affair with people with such crazy social platforms? They could do very well were they to just stick to economic issues.

-Mir

flynavy · Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:51 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
They could do very well were they to just stick to economic issues.

Because God is their chief adviser. He thinks guns and queers are more important to America's future.

mdsh00 · Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:20 pm

Bobby Jindal is a very intelligent man and supposedly done a lot of good things for Louisiana, and would most definitely be a better candidate than Sarah Palin. However, IMO, he's a kook when it comes to social issues and I think it would be a major turn-off on a national level. Even being the son of Indian Immigrants myself, I could not find myself voting for him.

Regardless of how Obama does as a president, the GOP should really go back to their roots and be the party of fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism.

Falcon84 · Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:26 pm

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 8):
Regardless of how Obama does as a president, the GOP should really go back to their roots and be the party of fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism.

Bingo! The man wins the prize. If they go with social conservatives like Palin or Jindal, they'll get trounced in '12. They have to get away from the crowd of hate, and go back to what they were BEFORE Ronald Reagan-fiscal conservatives, who don't believe in this "taxcut and spend" mentality that they've had since 1980.

N867DA · Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:29 pm

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 8):
Bobby Jindal is a very intelligent man and supposedly done a lot of good things for Louisiana, and would most definitely be a better candidate than Sarah Palin. However, IMO, he's a kook when it comes to social issues and I think it would be a major turn-off on a national level. Even being the son of Indian Immigrants myself, I could not find myself voting for him.

I would never vote for someone like Jindal and I too am an Indian immigrant. I'd go further and encourage everyone I know in the Indian community to see this "kook" for what he is.

The GOP would do well if they highlighted their economic policy and quit pandering to the 'religious right'. If they have grievances they ought to be encouraged to start their own party. If they are truly as influential and large as we are led to believe that should be no problem.

BN747 · Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:07 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The thing I don't get is that the GOP has worked so hard for so long to ensure that minority rights are minimized.

How can Bobby Jindall support such a platform? Or is it that he got his and that's OK, then?

Two words:Clarence Thomas

And Jindal is an exact copy of the Thomas ploy...the GOP are going for a guy with skin color in order to 'appear' inclusive. Sorry guys...inclusives means much more that putting a token out on the front porch for all to see. Plus Jindal is darker than Obama, those few degress of darkness is going to ostracize that hardcore 20% of the GOP base that won't go near anything that's not white & prosestant--period!

You'll find his degrees are in the Medical field, which is nice and respectable...but this will be used against against him. Jindal is smart....but he's not in Obama's league of smart.

Lastly, he's Gov. of a state with 'questionable standing' ....like the Palin/Alaska combo, it begs the question....'if he/she can do it...who can't?' Now were he from a state with a little more 'heft' .... like say Jersey, Washington, Florida or Pennsylvania? He might have a slim chance. I hope they run Jinal/Palin...the comedians will have a field day with that 'diverse' in 'symbolism only' ticket.

But sorry GOP'ers, stop with the 'our Obama'...Jindal isn't even close. It's just a play on skin color and nothing more.

BN747

PPVRA · Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Looking him up on wikipedia he doesn't seem any different from any other status-quo republican.

He's young and of Indian decent, that's it. Sounds like a marketing ploy.

[Edited 2008-11-30 15:27:50]

Superfly · Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:37 am

Bobby Jindal is not the GOP version of Barack Obama. He is the Indian version of Clarence Thomas or Henry Bonilla.

BN747 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:41 pm

Piyush Jindal...his real name..

While the new diverse GOP continues to has fun with Barack Hussein Obama...they're just gonna LOVE

wrapping their tongues around PIYUSH JINDAL ... the famed 20% will never go for that!

BN747

DocLightning · Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:52 pm

Quoting BN747 (Reply 14):
Piyush Jindal...his real name..

Good. Make it known. If the GOP base is willing to vote for it, then make it known.

EMBQA · Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:54 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Good. Make it known. If the GOP base is willing to vote for it, then make it known.

Make what known........????

iairallie · Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:31 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The thing I don't get is that the GOP has worked so hard for so long to ensure that minority rights are minimized.

You need to relearn your history. The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

You folks need to objectively read the disgusting tripe you are posting on this thread. It makes you look like a bunch of slavering hatemongers. It is truly repugnant.

Falcon84 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:16 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):
You need to relearn your history. The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

The GOP hasn't been for Civil Rights in any form for 60 years now. In 1948, when Truman desegregated the Armed Forces, the Dixicrats began their long march into the GOP, and since that time, the GOP has been against almost every civil rights movement that has arisen.

Superfly · Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:33 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):
You need to relearn your history. The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

That may be true of all history bookes printed before 1948. You may want to read up about the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) switch to the Republican Party since the 1960s.
What's so "repugnant" is the conservatives today pretend this never happened.
Something conservatives need to think about now that they are completely out of power.

BN747 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:06 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):

You need to relearn your history. The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

You folks need to objectively read the disgusting tripe you are posting on this thread. It makes you look like a bunch of slavering hatemongers. It is truly repugnant.

If you really, honestly believe a single word of wha you wrote here.... then you must have a valid answer to the GOP being AWOL (actually antagonistic) during the most salient and impact-driven Civil Rights period in history..from the mid-1950s to the late 1980s..when it counted most and covered FAR MORE territory than any civil rights period in US history itself.

If you've no answer to that..you're simply one of those 'phony history-revisionists'...who tries to act like todays' GOP is instep with Lincoln's GOP. Which discloses nothing but a personal super BOGUS concern for civil rights at all.

Jindal is perfect for that kind of a mindset. BTW..so is Palin...she reeks of it.

BN747

tsaord · Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:27 pm

The big test for the GOP will be about inclusion. The GOP is seen largely as the old white mans party with very few exceptions like Condi Rice, Powell, Watts, and nothing but bible thumpers. You all saw the convention.

The Dems have a vast array of different people, races, sexs, and sexual orientations. They are seen as the party of equality unlike the GOP. I think until the GOP as a whole change their image while still maintaining the main goals of their party then they can get back on top. How many more GOP politicians will come out of the closet in restrooms?? lol.

I'm independent. I like Palin and I like Jindal. But unless Obama does something extremely stupid he will win reelection. The GOP can just take back the White House in four years?? It took eight and an unpopular president to take down the GOP.

Dougloid · Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:31 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):
The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

Somebody. Tell me when the satire stops.

laughing

AGM100 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:56 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
What's so "repugnant" is the conservatives today pretend this never happened.

No ... we just take for granted that everyone in the US is equal and has the same rights. There are no laws that say a African American can not make lots of money , work for the largest companies , invent things , buy stocks , go to the moon or become president. The Dem's work overtime at proving we are all different and that race is such a big issue. The only reason the democratic party exists is because they have convinced half of the country that they are mistreated and deserve special attention.

I can not answer for the "dixicrats" and frankly dont give a crap about them. The past is the past in my opinion . I define US citizen as just that a citizen .. no matter of color or religion .

With the election of PE Obama I am hopeful that it heals alot of the old wounds and it should. We need to move along and get past it , and expect our citizens to thrive and prosper.

Jindal is fiscal conservative .. he has my support no matter what color skin he has.

DocLightning · Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:44 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 23):

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):
The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

Somebody. Tell me when the satire stops.

He's right. HISTORICALLY, the GOP was responsible for ending slavery. See, the DNC used to be the conservative party and the GOP was the liberal one. Then they swapped. Those old Southern Democrats were beyond conservative. Lincoln was a Republican, if I recall. And although JFK was a Democrat, he had staunch opposition from the Southern elements of his own party when it came time to pass civil rights legislation.

Of course, this isn't 1968, this is 2008. And times have changed. The GOP has opposed every important piece of important civil rights legislation since I was born. And the historical record is worth absolutely nothing when the tables have turned so dramatically.

Dougloid · Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:08 am

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 25):
Jindal is fiscal conservative .. he has my support no matter what color skin he has.

It's a lot easier being a fiscal conservative in state government when you are required to operate with a balanced budget as Louisiana is.

Falcon84 · Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:55 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 28):
s a lot easier being a fiscal conservative in state government when you are required to operate with a balanced budget as Louisiana is.

Then maybe the GOP should stop pushing Constitutional Amendments about such "important" things as gay marriage and flag burning, and push one for balancing the federal budget. That's what they should be concentrating on-not some Amendment to make some Americans less equal than others, or in labling a legit form of protest a crime.

AGM100 · Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:02 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
The GOP has opposed every important piece of important civil rights legislation since I was born.

Your right about the party shift , the Dems have gone basically socialist /green/rainbow/who knows. And now we have seen the GOP becoming like the Dems under JFK if not a little left . Thats why the party is screwed .

Curious about your quote above , any specific pieces of legistaltion examples? Not doubting you , just cant think of any major issues that could be called "civil rights"

Falcon84 · Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:58 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 27):
And now we have seen the GOP becoming like the Dems under JFK if not a little left . Thats why the party is screwed .

Excuse me, but how is the GOP like the Dems under Kennedy. Kennedy was the first Democrat, besides Truman, to really push for civil rights for blacks. The GOP is nothing like that. Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was signed into law after his death.

I'm just looking for some clarification on that statement, because, to me, it makes no sense.

jm017 · Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:03 pm

Quoting BN747 (Reply 11):
Two words:Clarence Thomas

And Jindal is an exact copy of the Thomas ploy...the GOP are going for a guy with skin color in order to 'appear' inclusive. Sorry guys...inclusives means much more that putting a token out on the front porch for all to see.

Exactly. It should take more than the color of a person's skin. Issues, baby, issues. What are their political positions? Jindal's skin color is not an indication of the inclusiveness of the GOP.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 17):
You need to relearn your history. The GOP has a much stronger record on civil rights throughout it's history than the Dems do.

You mean "had." As others have stated, the two parties flip-flopped their respective stances on civil rights.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):

Of course, this isn't 1968, this is 2008. And times have changed. The GOP has opposed every important piece of important civil rights legislation since I was born. And the historical record is worth absolutely nothing when the tables have turned so dramatically.

Bingo.

DocLightning · Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:36 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 27):

Curious about your quote above , any specific pieces of legistaltion examples? Not doubting you , just cant think of any major issues that could be called "civil rights"

The latest group is gays. And just like the Democrats did with the Blacks, the GOP is now trying to block every attempt by gays to become full citizens with the same equal protections as everyone else.

AGM100 · Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:57 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28):
Excuse me, but how is the GOP like the Dems under Kennedy

Cutting taxes , fighting our enemies abroad , strengthening the military , downsizing government .

JFK did not start pushing for civil reforms ... Kennedy saw the train coming from pressure apllied by Dr.King and the movement. Dont get me wrong he deserves alot of credit for his performance , but you can not assume that a republican would not have done the same.

RSWA330 · Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:11 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):
At first glance, he's a little too "brown" I think to be seriously considered by conservative right-wing America.

He did fine getting elected in Louisiana. Isn't that state kind of like the poster child for conservative right-wing America?

Maybe right-wing America isn't as racist as you libs try to portray them as.

Dreadnought · Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:08 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The thing I don't get is that the GOP has worked so hard for so long to ensure that minority rights are minimized.

You miss the point entirely. There should be no special rights granted to anyone - that is a basis of conservatism. "Minority rights" is making the law favor a special few who have political clout.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 8):
Regardless of how Obama does as a president, the GOP should really go back to their roots and be the party of fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism.

Agreed. Fiscal conservatism should be the dominant driver for the GOP, but social conservatism cannot be dumped by the wayside. Social liberalism has given us a high criminality rate, a numbness towards violence, lack of respect of ones' fellow man, lack of respect for parents, and a culture of entitlement. Don't you think that these are things worth fighting against?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 14):
Piyush Jindal...his real name..

Good. Make it known. If the GOP base is willing to vote for it, then make it known.

What's wrong with it?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 25):
It's a lot easier being a fiscal conservative in state government when you are required to operate with a balanced budget as Louisiana is.

LOL, tell that to the dozens of state governors who have gone way into the red. Arizona, whose governor is now selected to work for Obama (thankfully, not in an economic roll), is running a 40% deficit! California's deficit is large enough to buy the entire nation of Honduras.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26):
Then maybe the GOP should stop pushing Constitutional Amendments about such "important" things as gay marriage and flag burning, and push one for balancing the federal budget.

If it's absolute, then no. You have to be able to deficit-spend when you need to and have a surplus when you can. But something does need to be done to bring spending under control. I would have an amendment that does not allow any government salaries, welfare checks, social security checks, and all other forms of benefits to increase at all (including inflation adjustments) if the budget is in deficit.

If you pass that, I will guarantee you the budget will get balanced because of all those government workers, retirees and other government recipients will vote you out of office if you don't.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
The latest group is gays. And just like the Democrats did with the Blacks, the GOP is now trying to block every attempt by gays to become full citizens with the same equal protections as everyone else.

They have every single right anyone else has. They can get married too, just like I can. But just like you can't marry a fencepost, a cockroach or your lawnmower, you can't marry someone of your own sex. It's perfectly equitable.

DocLightning · Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:32 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):

They have every single right anyone else has. They can get married too, just like I can. But just like you can't marry a fencepost, a cockroach or your lawnmower, you can't marry someone of your own sex. It's perfectly equitable.

Well in Arkansas they aren't allowed to adopt and in the federal government, you can be fired simply for being gay. Also aren't allowed to serve in the military and, in spite of DADT, there are still witch-hunts for gays.

In fact, the arguments the GOP makes against such legislation are essentially IDENTICAL to the arguments the Southern Democrats made against civil rights legislation.

This isn't a discussion of gay rights, but since the civil rights issue was brought up, I find it interesting how the flip-flop has occurred.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Social liberalism has given us a high criminality rate, a numbness towards violence, lack of respect of ones' fellow man, lack of respect for parents, and a culture of entitlement.

Can you back that statement up with data?

N867DA · Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
They have every single right anyone else has. They can get married too, just like I can. But just like you can't marry a fencepost, a cockroach or your lawnmower, you can't marry someone of your own sex. It's perfectly equitable.

When fence posts, cockroaches, and lawnmowers can understand the significance and legal ramification of marriage, when they can sign their name and say 'I do' they should definitely be able to marry anyone or thing they choose. The two are not equitable--not at all.

Bobby Jindal has many pluses for the Republican party. He is probably exactly what they need (except the ridiculous social conservative baggage he carries) and that's exactly why I'll never be able to vote for him.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Social liberalism has given us a high criminality rate, a numbness towards violence, lack of respect of ones' fellow man, lack of respect for parents, and a culture of entitlement.

Social liberalism lets me get citizenship, vote in the United States, and be looked upon as a human. Social liberalism lets your wife vote and shut down a lot of slave auctions not 5 miles from my house. As long as it doesn't get ahead of itself it is a good thing. Like all things, in high dosages it is harmful to society as a whole.

It's not like crime didn't exist 200 years ago. It's not like children didn't talk up to their parents a century ago. Lack of respect toward fellow man? You're right, I'm sure people in the French and Indian war thought, "gee...if I stick this bayonet into that guy's spleen I may be showing disrespect to my fellow man. I think we'll settle it over chess and coffee." Imagine if Cain showed respect for his fellow man. Imagine if the Mahabharata didn't occur, if people didn't sell one another and force their daughters into getting married to people 5 times their age.

If the past sounds like a utopia (or even more appealing than today) I seriously wonder what sort of world you'd like to live in. For all the drawbacks of today's social liberalism--and there are several--I'll take this world over that of yesteryear.

DocLightning · Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:25 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):

What's wrong with it?

I see nothing wrong with the name Piyush Jindal. A rose by any other name... I do see something wrong with the man

BUT... I think that there are many in the GOP voting base who would not vote for him if they knew that name.

There are far fewer in the DNC voting base who would not vote for a man because his name was Barack Hussein Obama. And that's part of why he got elected. In spite of GOP supporters really harping on that middle name of his.

I find it sad that Mr. Jindal felt it necessary to anglicize his name to "Bobby" in order to get elected. It says something about his support base.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:45 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
BUT... I think that there are many in the GOP voting base who would not vote for him if they knew that name.

Why?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
There are far fewer in the DNC voting base who would not vote for a man because his name was Barack Hussein Obama. And that's part of why he got elected. In spite of GOP supporters really harping on that middle name of his.

There is a big difference between the names Hussein and Piyush. Piyush is a Hindu name. Hussein is a Muslim name. We have no problems with the Hindus of the world, but we do have a problem with Islam - or more precisely, we have a problem with the fact that they seem to have a problem with the rest of the world. Was it a cheap shot to emphisis Obama's middle name? Yes, but it was due to the fact that it was a Muslim name, given to him by his Muslim father, not just because it's "fur'in"

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
I find it sad that Mr. Jindal felt it necessary to anglicize his name to "Bobby" in order to get elected. It says something about his support base.

Hardly. I'd say it says more about Obama. It is a very common practice to adopt a more local name, and not just in the US. Jindal chose the name "Bobby" when he was 4 years old. Are you saying he did that for political reasons at age 4?

Throughout his childhood, Obama was known as Barry, not Barack. Only when he was an adult and involved with Reverend Wright's church with its afrocentric philosophy did he revert to his given name.

DocLightning · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:54 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):
Jindal chose the name "Bobby" when he was 4 years old. Are you saying he did that for political reasons at age 4?

Yes. That's EXACTLY why he did it. Not so he could become governor of Louisiana, but so that the other kids could a) pronounce his name and b) not make fun of him for it.

Which isn't too different from why he's hung on to it as an adult.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
Yes. That's EXACTLY why he did it. Not so he could become governor of Louisiana, but so that the other kids could a) pronounce his name and b) not make fun of him for it.

And Obama did the same.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
Which isn't too different from why he's hung on to it as an adult.

He's used to it. It's what everyone calls him. Why change your name again unless you were trying to make some kind of statement. What statement was Obama making when he told everyone "Don't call me Barry anymore, I'm Barack"?

DocLightning · Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:05 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):

He's used to it. It's what everyone calls him. Why change your name again unless you were trying to make some kind of statement. What statement was Obama making when he told everyone "Don't call me Barry anymore, I'm Barack"?

Probably that he wasn't ashamed of his real name. I grew up in a very multicultural neighborhood (lots of Indian Hindus, lots of Arab Muslims) and lots of kids chose anglicized names for themselves. As they grew up, most of them switched back sometime either in middle school or high school as we all matured to the point where we knew better than to harp on something as arbitrary as a name.

RL757PVD · Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:06 am

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 4):
God was cool with the idea of a straight brown dude having equal protection under the Constitution and what not...

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 7):
Because God is their chief adviser. He thinks guns and queers are more important to America's future.

Check the original source for that Wink

The Bible doesn't contain 1/2 the stuff people like him thinks it does.

If people spent less time thumping it and more time actually seeing what it says we'd have a very different conservative base. At the same time if the people rejecting what the conservative wackos looked to see the what's behind the distortion, then they too can learn something.

If you don't like the phrases "in God we trust" or "one nation under God" or the right to bear arms then get the $%&* out. Thats what this country was founded on.

At the same time, this nation was founded on religious tolerance for all creeds, so no part of one doctrine, such as the Bible should be incorporated into the constitution.

DocLightning · Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:36 am

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 41):

The Bible doesn't contain 1/2 the stuff people like him thinks it does.

It's pretty clear about the gay stuff. And I'm even gay. Of course, that's all in the Old Testament.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 41):

If you don't like the phrases "in God we trust" or "one nation under God" or the right to bear arms then get the $%&* out. Thats what this country was founded on.

Really? Then why was "One Nation Under God" added to the Pledge only in the 1950's during the McCarthy witch hunts? That's when "In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the U.S. These were both complete travesties of the original founding of the United States.

Some 150-200 years before, the Founders of the United States penned the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Amendment 1
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Treaty with Tripoli 1796, Article 11, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate and signed by John Adams
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -Article VI, Constitution.

And if you don't like the UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the country was NOT founded on Christianity or on any religion, then YOU can "get the $%&* out."

RL757PVD · Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:02 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
It's pretty clear about the gay stuff. And I'm even gay. Of course, that's all in the Old Testament.

Meaning that Jesus dude that they always reference obviously didn't have any major beef with it Wink

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
And if you don't like the UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the country was NOT founded on Christianity or on any religion, then YOU can "get the $%&* out."

IMHO God does not = "Christianity"

Rather than the viewpoint of rejecting any and all religious or spiritual aspects, the various creeds and beliefs should be embraced an encouraged as part of our culture. Rejecting and minimizing what is one of the most important cultural and social aspects of the vast majority of the country is not the answer. Nor is any emphasis on any one religion.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:03 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Amendment 1
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Treaty with Tripoli 1796, Article 11, approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate and signed by John Adams
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -Article VI, Constitution.

And if you don't like the UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the country was NOT founded on Christianity or on any religion, then YOU can "get the $%&* out."

The Tripoli treaty included that language at the insistance of the Islamic partisipants, who claimed it as their right to steal from and enslave Christian nations. The US should not have caved on the issue.

As for the Constitution, think about the context. in the late 18th century, Europe had only recently ended religious wars that had lasted nearly 200 years, and had killed millions. These wars were caused by states who established a religion by not only naming an official religion (such as the Church of England where the monarch is the head of the church) but also persecuted anyone who would not convert to it, and went to war with neigboring countries who were not of the same religion.

That is not the same thing as allowing the ten commandments or a cross on public property.

DocLightning · Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:40 am

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 43):

IMHO God does not = "Christianity"

Find the word "God" in A SINGLE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT from the United States of America before the year 1800.

The closest you'll get is the Declaration of Independence that makes ONE SINGLE reference to a "creator."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):

The Tripoli treaty included that language at the insistance of the Islamic partisipants, who claimed it as their right to steal from and enslave Christian nations. The US should not have caved on the issue.

There was no caving. The decision was UNANIMOUS because the lawmakers knew well and good the danger of allowing religion into a government.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
As for the Constitution, think about the context.

Stop right there. I could give a flying fig about the context. I care about what it says. As soon as you start to talk about "context" then you run into a very dangerous set of decisions.

Because if you think about the "context" in which the 2nd Amendment was passed, we could just get rid of it now. It was written in order to allow a rebellion to happen if the government became dictatorial. That purpose is obsolete now in an age where the government has tanks, choppers, and all other sorts of fun toys that citizens aren't allowed to have.

I'll give you some context, though. The phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" is that very context. It's not in any official document, but it gives a very clear insight into what the men framing the Constitution and forming the nation had in mind.

So you can take your "context" and stuff it. The Constitution is the Law of the Land and it is quite clear that the United States is not found on Christianity or on anybody's god.

And I will fight against anyone trying to instill religion into the fabric of my country's laws.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:30 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
Stop right there. I could give a flying fig about the context. I care about what it says.

OK then, what is "establishment of religion"? I say it is the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England.

DocLightning · Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:01 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):

OK then, what is "establishment of religion"? I say it is the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England.

An establishment of religion is any religious organization. That much was clarified by the founders in their writings.

And as soon as you put "God" on the money, you have just eliminated all the Wiccans, polytheists, animists, druids, etc. from being full citizens because none of them believe in God. Well at least not the one that McCarthy was harping.

MD11Engineer · Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:33 pm

Weren't "In God we trust" and "one Nation under God" only introduced on Dollar bills and in the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s on the insistence of conservatives to show that the US
were not a "godless" country like the Communist Soviet Union with it's
enforced atheism?

Jan

RL757PVD · Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:10 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
I'll give you some context, though. The phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" is that very context. It's not in any official document, but it gives a very clear insight into what the men framing the Constitution and forming the nation had in mind.

So you can take your "context" and stuff it. The Constitution is the Law of the Land and it is quite clear that the United States is not found on Christianity or on anybody's god.

And I will fight against anyone trying to instill religion into the fabric of my country's laws.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
An establishment of religion is any religious organization. That much was clarified by the founders in their writings.

I agree that no religious organization has any place in our government, however at the same time, I think the practice, tolerance and acceptance of everyone's beliefs should be encouraged and not minimized by the government. Individual practice of one's religion/beliefs enhances our culture and strengthens moral fabric without getting the government involved, Aside from the Government ensuring that an individual groups interpretations such as those who say "Jesus Hates Gays" dont make it into our government ald laws.

for me the word "God" applies to any creed or lack their of, I would say change the word to "the one" but people may confuse that for Obama Wink

As for this group:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
And as soon as you put "God" on the money, you have just eliminated all the Wiccans, polytheists, animists, druids, etc. from being full citizens because none of them believe in God.

They comprise a small minority of people in this country and there are many many many many larger groups of people that are not " full citizens" based on government practices. Those groups have the right to practice their beliefs without descrimination, because 95% of the people would disagree that we are a "Godless nation". Again, keep it on the personal level, and keep spcific creeds out of the government, while the government can still encourage the culture, beliefs and will of (most of) the people.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net