(January 20, 2019 at 4:24 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously.  In fact, it says "unanimous" on he actual document.  This is a replica, as you can barely see it on the original since the whole document has faded a lot.

Hot damn. Look at all those unanimous native american signatures. 

It's easy to get "unanimous" when you pick and choose.

We're talking about the relationship between government, church, and state.  Native Americans are inclusive with today's state.  Of course it wouldn't have been unanimous with them back in 1776 because they had a completely different understanding of land and government, but that still doesn't change us being unified and our independence.  But this is where your argument fails.  The Native Americans believed everything was unified.  It didn't matter if it was a person or a rock, they all existed as one.  This was also part of the problem, because they didn't understand things like "land ownership."  It was simply something that existed in oneness with them.  So when you have people offering you things in exchange for land, they just seen it as someone giving them resources.  Of course the settlers viewed it as a binding agreement, and that in turn led to violence.  I think most would agree today that it was unfortunate, so really can't see why you would use it as a prop.

(January 20, 2019 at 6:06 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 4:24 pm)wyzas Wrote: Hot damn. Look at all those unanimous native american signatures. 

It's easy to get "unanimous" when you pick and choose.

We're talking about the relationship between government, church, and state.  Native Americans are inclusive with today's state.  Of course it wouldn't have been unanimous with them back in 1776 because they had a completely different understanding of land and government, but that still doesn't change us being unified and our independence.  But this is where your argument fails.  The Native Americans believed everything was unified.  It didn't matter if it was a person or a rock, they all existed as one.  This was also part of the problem, because they didn't understand things like "land ownership."  It was simply something that existed in oneness with them.  So when you have people offering you things in exchange for land, they just seen it as someone giving them resources.  Of course the settlers viewed it as a binding agreement, and that in turn led to violence.  I think most would agree today that it was unfortunate, so really can't see why you would use it as a prop.

Then why did you use 1776 and the declaration and tie it to unanimous? It was not an example of unanimous no mater what spin you try to put on it. It's an example of a pre-selected group unanimity. But in the end, that's what you really want.

(January 14, 2019 at 1:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 14, 2019 at 1:01 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: No that's not what the founders did.  The founders wanted just the opposite.  A government for the people, by the people.  Not a government that makes the people its subjects.

FFRF is pushing communism.  We don't need their censorship or them telling us what we can or cannot do.  People can think and decide for themselves.

The founders DID NOT want a theocracy, they did not want religious pecking orders.

Their attitude was to agree to either let it all in, or agree to keep it all out. The problem with our right wing is that they will NOT agree to let it all in, because when you call them out on it, they suddenly make the setting neutral. 

Our right wing wants a religious pecking order.

AND DONT YOU dare bring up the BULLSH*T argument of communism. THAT is not what FFRF wants.

FYI if you knew a damned thing about Russian history you'd know religion never left Russia, not even under Stalin.

Especially not under Stalin. Lenin and Khrushchev were anti-religion, though neither went so far as to ban it, Stalin was openly orthodox, apart from a short period in the 30s.

Unfortunately I am seeing on my local cable company ads for this monstrosity of a monument to fiction.

(January 18, 2019 at 4:35 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 4:15 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: But you're preaching communism.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a...

How is asking if the government allows or prevents you from seeing Ham's Ark equal to preaching Communism??

Because if we aren't forced to believe the most stupid version of christianity out there we'll become Communists.

They're using flouride in the water to steal our vital essences, don't you know?

(January 20, 2019 at 2:43 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: So what are you saying?  You can't refute it directly?

Of course I can refute it directly.
You obviously didn't take American History classes, but there were these people called the Loyalists who didn't want to separate from Britain. There were quite a few of them.

(January 20, 2019 at 7:10 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 6:06 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: We're talking about the relationship between government, church, and state.  Native Americans are inclusive with today's state.  Of course it wouldn't have been unanimous with them back in 1776 because they had a completely different understanding of land and government, but that still doesn't change us being unified and our independence.  But this is where your argument fails.  The Native Americans believed everything was unified.  It didn't matter if it was a person or a rock, they all existed as one.  This was also part of the problem, because they didn't understand things like "land ownership."  It was simply something that existed in oneness with them.  So when you have people offering you things in exchange for land, they just seen it as someone giving them resources.  Of course the settlers viewed it as a binding agreement, and that in turn led to violence.  I think most would agree today that it was unfortunate, so really can't see why you would use it as a prop.

Then why did you use 1776 and the declaration and tie it to unanimous? It was not an example of unanimous no mater what spin you try to put on it. It's an example of a pre-selected group unanimity. But in the end, that's what you really want.

Not unanimous, only says "unanimous."  Nice logic there slick.

---

(January 20, 2019 at 8:30 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 2:43 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: So what are you saying?  You can't refute it directly?

Of course I can refute it directly.
You obviously didn't take American History classes, but there were these people called the Loyalists who didn't want to separate from Britain. There were quite a few of them.

Are you serious? So now you know what classes I've taken?  Wow, you must have super powers or something.  The "Loyalists" were defeated.  Many were imprisoned, killed, or fled back to Great Britain.  Even Benjamin Franklin's son was a Loyalist who was imprisoned.  I guess the history books aren't your friend.

The colonies were unanimous, not the people in them.

For my money, my bet is on Max simply being extremely fucking stupid, rather than a troll. He's an even bigger moron than Drich.

(January 20, 2019 at 9:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The colonies were unanimous, not the people in them.

So you don't consider the Declaration of Independence valid? The original 13 states were unified. Now we're 50 states who are supposed to be unified.

Division is how you lose.  Divide and conquer = Greatest and oldest trick in the book.