Would you elect a Mormon President?

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to be
more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most people.
Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people. I
personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I don't
think it would really make any difference to me at all if the person was a
Mormon. The issues are more important.

Gactimus

2004-09-02 02:31:19 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to
be more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most
people. Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people.
I personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I
don't think it would really make any difference to me at all if the
person was a Mormon. The issues are more important.

As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

JTEM

2004-09-02 02:44:48 UTC

Post by Gactimus
As long as the Mormon was socially conservative
I don't think it matters.

The Mormon is question is Mitt Romney, currently
pretending to be governor of Massachusetts while
engaged in the full-time career of seeking higher office.

Mitt is socially conservative... and moderate... and
liberal... all depending on what audience he's speaking
to.

BUY HIS BOOK.

Well, at least that's what he keeps telling people.

Osprey

2004-09-02 02:45:00 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to
be more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most
people. Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people.
I personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I
don't think it would really make any difference to me at all if the
person was a Mormon. The issues are more important.

As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

I agree.

Relaxification

2004-09-02 21:02:25 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to
be more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most
people. Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people.
I personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I
don't think it would really make any difference to me at all if the
person was a Mormon. The issues are more important.

As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

I agree.

Ugh. Social conservatism. (shudder)

Worst thing about this country.

Osprey

2004-09-02 21:07:24 UTC

Post by Relaxification

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to
be more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most
people. Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people.
I personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I
don't think it would really make any difference to me at all if the
person was a Mormon. The issues are more important.

As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

I agree.

Ugh. Social conservatism. (shudder)
Worst thing about this country.

Why?

What do you think is better and why?

Mr. N

2004-09-02 02:27:37 UTC

Post by Gactimus
As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

So as long as the Mormon was a Big Government mormon, you'd vote for him,
huh?

--
-My Real Name
*************************
"That flag is our flag. We served under that flag. We got up and stood
reveille formation, we stood taps, we fought under that flag. We've seen
men die for that flag, and we've seen men buried under that flag. No Dick
Cheney or John Ashcroft or Tom DeLay is going to take that flag away from
us."
-Retired Army General Wesley Clark

Gactimus

2004-09-02 12:07:13 UTC

Post by Mr. N

Post by Gactimus
As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

So as long as the Mormon was a Big Government mormon, you'd vote for
him, huh?

He would have to be both, although social conservatism is more important
in my opinion.

Tracey123

2004-09-02 16:31:06 UTC

See the latest radar and satellite photos of Frances:
http://tracey5190.tripod.com/

Relaxification

2004-09-02 21:03:42 UTC

Post by Mr. N

Post by Gactimus
As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

So as long as the Mormon was a Big Government mormon, you'd vote for
him, huh?

He would have to be both, although social conservatism is more important
in my opinion.

I've got to know. Why is social conservatism so important to you?
Doesn't it kind of contradict the whole "land of the free" thing we're
supposed to be all about?

I'll take fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism. You pay lower
taxes and get better art.

Yang, AthD (h.c)

2004-09-02 07:11:54 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Frankly I think it would depend on the issues. Some issues are going to
be more important to me than others, as I am sure it is with most
people. Would I be happy that he or she was a Mormon?
I really don't know. I know some Mormon's, they are very nice people.
I personally don't choose that religion; however, to each his own. I
don't think it would really make any difference to me at all if the
person was a Mormon. The issues are more important.

As long as the Mormon was socially conservative I don't think it matters.

And nothing says socially conseravtive like having multiple wives. I
mean, what's up with this liberal monogamy bullshit anyway?

-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -977 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 02:21:30 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood, by checking his
line of authority, yes, for it would be good to have someone who is
able to obtain God's guidance.

Gactimus

2004-09-02 02:25:10 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 03:34:19 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

Brian Westley

2004-09-02 05:01:46 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

"Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb"
-- Dark Helmet

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 15:56:51 UTC

Post by Brian Westley

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

"Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb"
-- Dark Helmet
---
Merlyn LeRoy

That is neither historical correct, nor is it currently true.

CASE in point: The evil sorcerers Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses,
and were able to imitated every miracle that Moses did, however, Moses
was always one-step ahead of them. For example, when Moses turn his
rod into a snake, Jannes and Jambres brag just like Dark Helmet, they
said to Moses, tricks which we can do also! Moreover, Jannes and
Jambres did the same and cast two rods to the ground and were turn
into snakes, however, Moses snake swallowed up Jannes and Jambres
snakes. Therefore, historical speaking God is always one-step ahead of
evil.

NOW, currently this holds true also, that SATAN the grandmaster of ALL
EVIL, has yet to find away to recreate life out of non-living matter.
That right, SATAN cannot have his own children, so he must resort to
stealing his adopted children from God.

NOW, what does that say for you almighty and powerful master SATAN?

IT says that SATAN with all his powers has not been able to become a
god, for he does not have the knowledge to create life, and make his
own children. And you should be glad, because there is nothing
flattering about being slaves for all time to Satan's real children.
YES, you think SATAN cares about you, but if SATAN ever finds out how
to have his own children, then you will be ones to licking the soles
of his children's feet, yes, that is all you have to look forward too
in the future.

THEREFORE, you have God to thank, that Satan does not know how to have
his own children, because once he knows how, you will be out in the
cold, licking smell feet.

BOTTOM LINE: SATAN is not a god, because he cannot have his own
children. Therefore, he is only as powerful as an angel, but no angel
has yet triumph over any God, because that is silly and pure dumb, but
then again that is the nature of person like Dark Helmet, to be dumb
and silly by following the greatest liar of all time, SATAN, right?

It is so stupid to think that your adopted father, called the Father
of Lies, will ever tell you the truth. You make me laugh.

Erick Gemmell

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 16:01:50 UTC

I WAS INSPIRED, when I said:

I am lead of God, and I am well studied in the history of our great
nation, therefore, I am approval of God to defend the Truth in the
Light of Day, or in the darkest valleys of Brain Westly's mind.

THREE ARE DARK VALLEYS IN YOUR MIND!

AND WHEN I SAID:
....what I will not overlook is his hatred for God, which the root of
his lying ways, and the real reasons why he drum up a false report.

YES, GOD IS ALWAYS ONE-STEP AHEAD OF EVIL, and he makes it known unto
those who love him, like me. YES, I knew you, even before you confess
your hatred for GOD, for I said you had an hatred for GOD.

Post by Brian Westley

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

"Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb"
-- Dark Helmet
---
Merlyn LeRoy

Yang, AthD (h.c)

2004-09-02 07:10:11 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

It worked for Osama, he talks to "God" all the time.

-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -977 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless

David Moffitt

2004-09-02 07:16:14 UTC

%%%% Yes.

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 20:46:49 UTC

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:10:11 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"

Post by Yang, AthD (h.c)
It worked for Osama, he talks to "God" all the time.

Everyone talks to God, even the Devil, but that does mean they know
how obtain what they want from God, now that's what we call really
talking with God.

JTEM

2004-09-02 21:46:53 UTC

There isn't a hypothetical "Mormon" candidate for President.
Just get that stupid idea out of your mind. There's a man by
the name of Mitt Romney who's actively selling himself as
the 2008 Republican nominee, and he calls himself a Mormon.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-115603-6819r.htm

Mitt Romney, like all the oh so religious candidates, is
actually an atheist.

Don't believe me?

Well, would a real Mormon go on TV and lie about his
opponent? Would a real Mormon perjure themselves in
testimony before a government body?

Massachusetts is one of those weird states that has a
residency requirement for everything. No, it has
nothing to do with those "Liberals" the GOP propaganda
keeps going off about. It's actually a hold-over from the
days when the Brahmans ruled the roost. One of the
strictest residency requirements is on candidates for
governor.

Yup, if you want to run for governor in Massachusetts
you not only have to be a resident, but you have to be
a resident for the seven years prior.

Back in 2002, before dropping out, Mitt Romney's
opponent in the Republican primary raised a little
matter concerning Mitt's residency, and the fact that
he failed to meet the states requirements.

In at least one of the previous three years (and remember
you need to be a resident for the seven years prior to
running), Mitt had filed a non-resident Massachusetts state
income tax form for income earned in Massachusetts.

Well the GOP power brokers don't like contested races
so they eventually talked his opponent into dropping out.
In the mean time though, Mitt's obviously illegal
candidency was gaining more & more uncomfortable
attention for Mitt, and something had to be done.

A state board was commissioned (by the acting Republican
governor) to look into the issue which, at that point, Mitt
was now pretending was raised by the Democrats. Mitt
perjured himself before that board, knowingly & intentionally
lying before a state board of elections. How do we know Mitt
Romney perjured himself? That's easy. Mitt can't escape the
facts.

Mitt Romney had filed his 1999 Massachusetts state income
tax form (for income earned in Massachusetts) as a part-time
state resident, and his 2000 Massachusetts state income tax
form as a non-resident. He did change these though. When?

In 2002.

After Mitt decided to run for governor of Massachusetts in
2002, he changed his 1999 & 2000 state income tax returns.
He refiled them declaring himself as a resident in 2002.

A little more time went by and something else came to light.
In addition to claiming a non-resident status on his Massachusetts
state tax return, he was claiming permanent resident status in
the state of Utah, netting himself a cool $50,000 in savings off
his Utah property tax in just three years!

I guess that was his excuse, huh? "I'm a tax cheat, a criminal,
not a resident of Utah!"

What a sleaze.

Another interesting lie that Mitt Romney knowingly &
intentionally plastered all over television (and remember
that a good chunk of New England is included in the
Boston media market): His claims that his Democratic
opponent (a state office holder) raised her own salary.

Mitt knew this was a lie. Heck, he had an entire salary
plan of his own which included hefty increases in the
salaries for the governor's staff. Mitt knew that constitutional
office holders don't have the power to raise their own
salaries -- that only the legislature can do that -- but Mitt
didn't care.

It made his opponent sound greedy. Mitt, a VENTURE
CAPITALIST, one of the very people behind the dot coms
and other scams, intentionally lied about his opponent in
an attempt to smear her as greedy.

Another way of putting it: Mitt Romney, the man who
brazebly claims that his a criminal, a tax cheat, knowingly
lied in an attempt to smear his opponent as greedy.

That's evil. And, no, I'm not just saying that. You have to
be evil to look at yourself in the mirror and say, "Gee,
I really am scum. I should try to paint my opponent as me.
That'll really hurt them."

Mitt Romney is an evil, greedy, power hungry liar.

R. Measures

2004-09-02 23:49:00 UTC

Surely

Post by JTEM
Would a real Mormon perjure themselves in
testimony before a government body?

No problem for Mormons accustomed to spreading the 'milk doctrine'.

Post by JTEM
...

--
R. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

Gactimus

2004-09-03 03:08:24 UTC

Post by JTEM
There isn't a hypothetical "Mormon" candidate for President.
Just get that stupid idea out of your mind. There's a man by
the name of Mitt Romney who's actively selling himself as
the 2008 Republican nominee, and he calls himself a Mormon.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-115603-6819r.htm
Mitt Romney, like all the oh so religious candidates, is
actually an atheist.
Don't believe me?
Well, would a real Mormon go on TV and lie about his
opponent? Would a real Mormon perjure themselves in
testimony before a government body?
Massachusetts is one of those weird states that has a
residency requirement for everything. No, it has
nothing to do with those "Liberals" the GOP propaganda
keeps going off about. It's actually a hold-over from the
days when the Brahmans ruled the roost. One of the
strictest residency requirements is on candidates for
governor.
Yup, if you want to run for governor in Massachusetts
you not only have to be a resident, but you have to be
a resident for the seven years prior.
Back in 2002, before dropping out, Mitt Romney's
opponent in the Republican primary raised a little
matter concerning Mitt's residency, and the fact that
he failed to meet the states requirements.
In at least one of the previous three years (and remember
you need to be a resident for the seven years prior to
running), Mitt had filed a non-resident Massachusetts state
income tax form for income earned in Massachusetts.
Well the GOP power brokers don't like contested races
so they eventually talked his opponent into dropping out.
In the mean time though, Mitt's obviously illegal
candidency was gaining more & more uncomfortable
attention for Mitt, and something had to be done.
A state board was commissioned (by the acting Republican
governor) to look into the issue which, at that point, Mitt
was now pretending was raised by the Democrats. Mitt
perjured himself before that board, knowingly & intentionally
lying before a state board of elections. How do we know Mitt
Romney perjured himself? That's easy. Mitt can't escape the
facts.
Mitt Romney had filed his 1999 Massachusetts state income
tax form (for income earned in Massachusetts) as a part-time
state resident, and his 2000 Massachusetts state income tax
form as a non-resident. He did change these though. When?
In 2002.
After Mitt decided to run for governor of Massachusetts in
2002, he changed his 1999 & 2000 state income tax returns.
He refiled them declaring himself as a resident in 2002.
A little more time went by and something else came to light.
In addition to claiming a non-resident status on his Massachusetts
state tax return, he was claiming permanent resident status in
the state of Utah, netting himself a cool $50,000 in savings off
his Utah property tax in just three years!
I guess that was his excuse, huh? "I'm a tax cheat, a criminal,
not a resident of Utah!"
What a sleaze.
Another interesting lie that Mitt Romney knowingly &
intentionally plastered all over television (and remember
that a good chunk of New England is included in the
Boston media market): His claims that his Democratic
opponent (a state office holder) raised her own salary.
Mitt knew this was a lie. Heck, he had an entire salary
plan of his own which included hefty increases in the
salaries for the governor's staff. Mitt knew that constitutional
office holders don't have the power to raise their own
salaries -- that only the legislature can do that -- but Mitt
didn't care.
It made his opponent sound greedy. Mitt, a VENTURE
CAPITALIST, one of the very people behind the dot coms
and other scams, intentionally lied about his opponent in
an attempt to smear her as greedy.
Another way of putting it: Mitt Romney, the man who
brazebly claims that his a criminal, a tax cheat, knowingly
lied in an attempt to smear his opponent as greedy.
That's evil. And, no, I'm not just saying that. You have to
be evil to look at yourself in the mirror and say, "Gee,
I really am scum. I should try to paint my opponent as me.
That'll really hurt them."
Mitt Romney is an evil, greedy, power hungry liar.

How does any of the above make Romney an atheist?

JTEM

2004-09-03 14:47:07 UTC

Post by Gactimus
How does any of the above make Romney an atheist?

How does the fact that Romney is a lying, self-described
criminal make him an atheists?

So another way of phrasing your question would be: How
do I know that Romney isn't a Satanists who commits so
many sins because he longs to be in Hell with Satan?

JTEM

2004-09-03 15:07:21 UTC

Post by Gactimus
How does any of the above make Romney an atheist?

The alternative is that he's a Satanist, as you argue.

Why else would a man intentionally hurt so many people
out of love for money & power, and break so many laws
(as he himself claims) if he believed that a God was going
to send him to Hell for it?

Your argument requires Mitt Romney to be a Satanist who
adores the idea of one day reaching Hell and bowing before
his master, Satan.

Gactimus

2004-09-03 15:09:24 UTC

Post by JTEM

Post by Gactimus
How does any of the above make Romney an atheist?

The alternative is that he's a Satanist, as you argue.

I haven't argured anything. I coudln't care less if he was a Mormon or not.

JTEM

2004-09-03 17:33:31 UTC

Post by JTEM
The alternative is that he's a Satanist, as you argue.

I haven't argured anything.

You are, if you're arguing that he's not an atheist (which
you do seem to be arguing).

You then say you don't care if he's a Satanist. I find that
interesting.

Robert B. Winn

2004-09-03 23:10:09 UTC

Post by JTEM

Post by Gactimus
How does any of the above make Romney an atheist?

The alternative is that he's a Satanist, as you argue.
Why else would a man intentionally hurt so many people
out of love for money & power, and break so many laws
(as he himself claims) if he believed that a God was going
to send him to Hell for it?
Your argument requires Mitt Romney to be a Satanist who
adores the idea of one day reaching Hell and bowing before
his master, Satan.

Mitt Romney used to go to church at the same ward I did. He believed
in Jesus Christ back then. I have seen nothing that would convince me
he has changed since that time.
Robert B. Winn

JTEM

2004-09-03 23:25:34 UTC

Post by Robert B. Winn
I have seen nothing that would convince me
he has changed since that time.

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 07:05:07 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"

"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"

"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"

"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"

"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."

"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."

"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."

"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"

"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."

"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."

"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!

"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

who

2004-09-02 11:13:50 UTC

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:05:07 GMT, C. Wilson <night-***@swbell.net>
Coughed, cleared the throat, stepped onto the soap box and shouted

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"
"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."
"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."
"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!
"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

LOL
HooOoorooOoo

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 16:38:27 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"
"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."
"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."
"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!
"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Carl Wilson, your no Flip Wilson, that's for sure.

People tuned in for Wilson's hilarious monologues (often his stories
would go on for five minutes or so), ad-libs, and for skits where the
host would appear in drag to portray sassy 'Geraldine,' a
wise-cracking smart-ass with an unseen boyfriend named 'Killer.'

During his stint in the Air Force, Wilson was nicknamed Flip for his
irreverent, flippant humor. The name stuck. The affable comedian's
talents were showcased as host of television's The Flip Wilson Show
from 1970 to 74. His most memorable character on the variety show was
the sassy Geraldine who liked to quip "The devil made me do it" and
"What you see is what you get."

SO, Carl Wilson are you aspiring to be a second rate Flip Wilson? A
second runner upper?

Lets be reasonable, why not be yourself, because nobody wants to be a
second runner upper to anyone, okay?

NOW, if you want to say, "The devil made me do it" that find with me,
but if "What you see is what you get" is your dying philosophy then
your just a comedian, right? Then why should anyone take you serious?

I rather take you serious, but I am a serious person, but you must be
what you must be, right?

Now, having said this much, if I were to take you serious, I would
have told you what I was told, by someone who meet a former buddy of
Osama bin Ladin. Osama will never be caught, is what he said, and do
you know why? Because he said, Osama is the Devil, for I saw him
change his face, and then change back again. Yes, Osama can transform
himself.

NOW, the real reasons for going to war, was because Osama bin Ladin
was working on building a pipe line from Russia through Afghanistan.
And that's the reason why, when the FBI wanted to ask Osama bin Ladin
family question about the pipeline, yes, there were about thirty
members of his family here in America, they were flown out quickly
before the FBI could as questions, yes, they were flown out of the
reach of the FBI. Now, I don't know why, but it does make one think,
right?

"There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive
for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence
America's decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government?
The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious
questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision
to invade Afghanistan, especially in light of Bush's substantial links
with the oil industry. Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the
September the 11th disaster, which triggered the "war on terror"
military campaign, could have been prevented. If there is enough
public support, we will issue a formal request for a public statement
from the American government. In the meantime, we invite you to
consider the evidence below and form your own opinions."

YES, you can read about here:
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/debate.asp

JIG

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 20:25:18 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"
"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."
"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."
"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!
"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Carl Wilson, your no Flip Wilson, that's for sure.

That's OK, because I'm not trying to be.

But what is it that you're trying to be, other than a god-soaked
idiot?

[Snip biography of Flip Wilson and remaining rant ]

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 22:54:11 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
But what is it that you're trying to be, other than a god-soaked
idiot?

It not me that is stuck on the word "god", but it has some special
meaning too you.

I never said I believed in a 'god', but I do understand what you are
trying to say. What you are saying is that there are no being with
high intelligence, right?

Now, I would be a foolish to say that you or I were the most
intelligent persons in the universe.

Because there is always someone who will be smarter than the both of
us will be, right?

Now, that is what I call "god", it only a man, and he is more
intelligent than anyone on this planet.

Now, we do not have to call him "god", and that okay with him.

We can call him "holy man".

Now, that what I believe in, it is in a "holy man".

However, you keep my man of holiness "god", so what am I to do?

THEREFORE, if anyone is misinformed it is you, for calling him god,
and for not even knowing what I am talking about, right?

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 22:34:10 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
But what is it that you're trying to be, other than a god-soaked
idiot?

It not me that is stuck on the word "god", but it has some special
meaning too you.

Yeah, to me it means a person who can't think for themselves, and
therefore must rely on what they believe some imaginary being wants
them to do.

Post by Erick Gemmell
I never said I believed in a 'god', but I do understand what you are
trying to say. What you are saying is that there are no being with
high intelligence, right?

How do you go from a person not believing in god(s) to not believing
in intelligent beings?

Post by Erick Gemmell
Now, I would be a foolish to say that you or I were the most
intelligent persons in the universe.

You've said foolish things before, so don't let that stop you.

Post by Erick Gemmell
Because there is always someone who will be smarter than the both of
us will be, right?
Now, that is what I call "god", it only a man, and he is more
intelligent than anyone on this planet.
Now, we do not have to call him "god", and that okay with him.
We can call him "holy man".
Now, that what I believe in, it is in a "holy man".
However, you keep my man of holiness "god", so what am I to do?
THEREFORE, if anyone is misinformed it is you, for calling him god,
and for not even knowing what I am talking about, right?

OK, so you don't believe in god(s) but instead follow some man you
consider "holy". Doesn't make you appear any more rational to me.
HTH

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 23:20:42 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
OK, so you don't believe in god(s) but instead follow some man you
consider "holy". Doesn't make you appear any more rational to me.
HTH

Well, Wilson of all people it is you that should understand why I must
behave this way. Because if I were to let everyone know what I think,
they would treat me the way they treat you, right?

Know that I allow people to assume they know what I believe in,
because it make no difference at all what they say, if they say they
believe in my holy man, it make no difference to him at all, it
neither make him more or less, and if they say they don't believe in
him, it changes nothing at all.

So, I allow everyone to think whatever make the comfortable, each
person has his own comfort zones.

As for me, I have seen my holy man, and know that he is a man.

Now, what good is this holy man? What has he done for me?

He has save my life many times, on time from the Hands of Death.

Hands of Death, is the group that Henry Lee Lukas belong too, and it
is reported that he killed more than 200 persons who cross paths with
him. Know that I escape from his car, and I excape with the help of my
friend, who I call Holy Man. Sometimes, I call him SunWalker, for the
stars are only a stepping stones for him. This man has so much power,
that I call him Holy.

Now, tell me do you still think it is silly to believe in a god?

Well, I think it is silly too, because I don't believe in a god
either, but I do believe in what I have seen, and he is a Holy Man,
and he never calls himself god.

JIG

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 23:41:54 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
OK, so you don't believe in god(s) but instead follow some man you
consider "holy". Doesn't make you appear any more rational to me.
HTH

Well, Wilson of all people it is you that should understand why I must
behave this way. Because if I were to let everyone know what I think,
they would treat me the way they treat you, right?
Know that I allow people to assume they know what I believe in,
because it make no difference at all what they say, if they say they
believe in my holy man, it make no difference to him at all, it
neither make him more or less, and if they say they don't believe in
him, it changes nothing at all.
So, I allow everyone to think whatever make the comfortable, each
person has his own comfort zones.
As for me, I have seen my holy man, and know that he is a man.
Now, what good is this holy man? What has he done for me?
He has save my life many times, on time from the Hands of Death.
Hands of Death, is the group that Henry Lee Lukas belong too, and it
is reported that he killed more than 200 persons who cross paths with
him. Know that I escape from his car, and I excape with the help of my
friend, who I call Holy Man. Sometimes, I call him SunWalker, for the
stars are only a stepping stones for him. This man has so much power,
that I call him Holy.
Now, tell me do you still think it is silly to believe in a god?
Well, I think it is silly too, because I don't believe in a god
either, but I do believe in what I have seen, and he is a Holy Man,
and he never calls himself god.

OK, so you've substituted a belief in a being you call "SunWalker",
"for the stars are only a stepping stones for him" in place of the
more commonly believed in god(s).

Is this supposed to make us think you're any less silly for some
reason?

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-03 01:08:06 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
OK, so you've substituted a belief in a being you call "SunWalker",
"for the stars are only a stepping stones for him" in place of the
more commonly believed in god(s).
Is this supposed to make us think you're any less silly for some
reason?

Believing in the negative, while claiming to be positive is what
Christians do.

It is cool to read history and watch them repeat over and over the
same silly notions.

Take the history of the Mayan people when confronted by the Spaniards.

The Spaniards were no match for Montezuma II and his mighty empire.

HERE is a link: http://home.echo-on.net/~smithda/montezuma2.html

And here is the negative of which I speak, and the positive which
silly Christians do:

"When the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés arrived in Mexico in
1519, Montezuma believed that he was the Aztec god-king Quetzalcoatl.
Accordingly, Cortés was presented with elaborate gold and silver
gifts. Later, fearful that the Aztecs would attack the outnumbered
Spanish troops, Cortés held Montezuma hostage. In June 1520, the
Aztecs, growing restive under Spanish control, revolted. Cortés called
on Montezuma to quell the revolt, but the Aztec ruler was stoned while
addressing his subjects. He reportedly died three days later.
Montezuma was succeeded by Cuitlahuac and 80 days later by his nephew,
the last Aztec ruler, Guatemotzin."

AS you can see, this is an good example of believing in the negative,
while claiming to be positive.

Montezuma could have destroyed Cortés and his tiny outnumbered Spanish
troops, but his weakness was that Montezuma believed in the Aztec
"god-king Quetzalcoatl", and this is what I call "believing in the
negative".

Now, Montezuma allowed the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés to
conquer his mighty empire, and not the first time just thing have
happen, and that is what I call, believing in the negative (god),
while claiming it to be something positive".

YES, I see it all the time, history always repeats the same silly
mistake.

However, that is how the Christian conquer the world, by believing in
something negative like "god", while claiming it to be something
positive." YES, if it had not been for the "positive" thought that
Hernán Cortés was believe to be the return of the "god-king
Quetzalcoatl", the Spaniards would never had a chance.

NOW, that is why the world believes in the silly notion of god today,
and it has worked miracles in defeating the any opposition.

However, it is not base upon truth, but weakness, yes, weakness of the
mind, whenever we believe in something like "god".

NOW, it is you, that continues to think the positive that I preach
Holy Man, but he is just another name for "god", right?

NOW, are you being fair with me? Now, I have been very forward with
you and honest, more honest than I have been with the Christians,
therefore, just consider your position with me, Are you not doing the
same silly mistake that Montezuma II did?

YES, you continue to think in the positive, that what I claim and call
"Holy Man" is what others refer to as "god".

However, I would like to point out to you that "god" refers to a
"Supreme Being" a Creator of Worlds, but I never said that my "Holy
Man" was a Supreme Being.

NOW, you have not been fair with me, but I have been very fair with
you, for I have not withhold anything from you.

Now, if there are such things as a Supreme Being that is an Alien
Intelligence in our universe, then I don't know anything about him,
for I am not a believer of the negative "god" theory nor do I preach
the concept of a 'god' but many weaker mind call my Man of Holiness a
'god' and I allow them to do it, but I no that it is only wishful
thinking on their, because it is the nature of Christians to want to
be positive, right?

Now, that you know me better, you also know that it is you "positive"
that makes you think that my Holy Man is "god", right?

THEREFORE, if you do not believe in "god" then don't say that my Holy
Man is god, okay? Because then you doing what all the weak minded
Christians do, right? And I allow them, but I thought you were smarter
than that.

NOW, nothing is more dangerous than the Truth, and my Holy Man is a
danger to the Christians concept of 'god'.

THEREFORE, it is a shame that you do not know how to fight your
enemies, and lack deep knowledge about my mission, to destroy false
claims, for that is what I do best.

Joshua Gemmell

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-03 01:38:03 UTC

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:08:06 -0500, Erick Gemmell <***@non.net> wrote:

I left out this part, but I add it because I don't want to be

Post by Erick Gemmell
Take the history of the Mayan people when confronted by the Spaniards.

NOW, the great Mayan king did the same mistake that the Aztec Emperor
did when confronted by the Spaniards.

While I was down in Guatemala, I had a chance to see the monument of
the great Mayan king, and learn of his great mistake, of think that
the Spaniards upon horses were "gods", yes, the return of the god
Kukulkán, another name for Aztec god-king Quetzalcoatl, but in this
case the end was a little bit different, the great Mayan king, fought
against this "god". And we have to give him credit for doing this, but
his great mistake, was in trying to kill the horse first, and the
story is well known among the Mayan people, that their great leader
thought that by killing the horse, he would in fact kill the evil god.
However, he did kill the horse, but the Spaniard kill the great Mayan
king.

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 16:39:46 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"
"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."
"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."
"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!
"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 20:29:33 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.

"Shrub II to Gawd... Shrub II to Gawd... Come in Gawd"
"Satan ...er... I mean Gawd to Shrub II. What do you want this time?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. How do I get Usama Bin Ladin, O Lord?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. Why is that suddenly so important?"
"Shrub II to Gawd. The elections draw near O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Right! Have you tried marching your soldiers
around Tora Bora while blowing trumpets? According to the Bible it
worked for Joshua at Jericho you know..."
"Shrub II to Gawd. Umm... He already escaped Tora Bora a long time
ago O Lord . I didn't commit enough American ground troops to
Afghanistan because I wanted to be sure to have enough fresh troops to
invade Iraq later."
"Gawd to Shrub II. Well hell! That's what I get for watching Fox
News! Have you tried the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
"Shrub II to Gawd. Good idea O Lord! Is it n.. nu.. nuc.. atomic?"
"Gawd to Shrub II. You'll have to ask Dick about that."
"Shrub II to Gawd. I haven't had a conversation with my dick since my
drinkin' days, but if you insist O Lord."
"Gawd to Shrub II. I was talking about Dick Cheney you idiot!
"Shrub II to Gawd. You mean there's a difference?"

Post by Erick Gemmell
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

So he's a bad dancer too?
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Carl Wilson, your no Flip Wilson, that's for sure.

[snip]

Posting the same bullshit twice doesn't make you less of an idiot, you
know. HTH

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-03 20:46:26 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
[snip]
Posting the same bullshit twice doesn't make you less of an idiot, you
know. HTH
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

I do the best I can with an old computer that only has 45 MB of RAM.

AND my internet provider does not offer quality control, sometime it
does not post my posts, and I have to wait a day or so. That why I
sometime repost my post, and then when it shows up, it does not allow
me to retrack anything.

Just be happy that your not with my internet provider, however, that
does not point towards having evidence of personal ignorance, and I
hope you do not get too upset if I start correcting your lack of
discernment in such matters.

Erick Gemmell

JTEM

2004-09-03 23:22:56 UTC

Post by Erick Gemmell
AND my internet provider does not offer quality control,
sometime it does not post my posts, and I have to wait a
day or so. That why I sometime repost my post, and then
when it shows up, it does not allow me to retrack anything.

It wasn't too long ago when I had an ISP that would multiply
my already staggering number of typos.

Very common would be the double/repeated word or line.

That's because the damn thing would freeze for whatever
reason. I would be typing away then look up and see that
it wasn't there. So I'd start over at whatever point it left
off (maybe saying the exact same thing, maybe just a little
bit different), only to have what I originally typed magically
appear.

It was kind of funny. Stuff like:

"....So I went So then I went to the store and saw that saw
that..."

Relaxification

2004-09-02 21:04:32 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

Is anybody else kind of creeped out right now?

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 20:59:18 UTC

Post by Relaxification

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

Having men that know how to talk with God, can be the secret weapon
that wins all wars.
For evil can advance towards the light of the world, but God shall
always be one step ahead of evil.

Is anybody else kind of creeped out right now?

Fundy nut-jobs like Erick tend to do that to those who aren't
god-soaked idiots. But don't worry, you'll get used to it. ;-)

E.E.Bud Keith

2004-09-02 04:05:59 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If it can be shown that he has the Holy Priesthood,

Why would that be important?

One would hope that all of you were believers in the constitution, and it is
mute on religion as a Presidential qualification.

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 04:32:03 UTC

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:05:59 -0500, "E.E.Bud Keith"

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
One would hope that all of you were believers in the constitution, and it is
mute on religion as a Presidential qualification.

That is just an opinion, not a truth.

Truth is that our founding fathers establish our constitution only
after they first acknowledging God by prayer.

YES, they try to write it many times, but could not. However, once
they had started having opening prayers at their meetings, the
constitution was written up fast. Therefore, having more "religious"
men for leaders only mean we need more men with high morals willing to
acknowledge their Creator.

Moreover, our nation has need of good men with high morals, because
that is how our founding fathers wrote the constitution, which became
the foundation of our Republic under God, and that is what being
religious means.

I have heard it said that separation of state and religion is the law,
but that only refers to religion as an organized church trying to
impose its creed upon another, but it has no reference to electing the
religious which means having high morals to positions of power.

Therefore we do not need religion impose upon state affairs, but we do
need more religious men of high morals willing to acknowledge a
Creator first.

Brian Westley

2004-09-02 05:16:07 UTC

Post by Erick Gemmell
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:05:59 -0500, "E.E.Bud Keith"

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
One would hope that all of you were believers in the constitution, and it is
mute on religion as a Presidential qualification.

That is just an opinion, not a truth.
Truth is that our founding fathers establish our constitution only
after they first acknowledging God by prayer.

No, that would be truth's more common enemy, lies.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_history_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20History
...
Delegates from Virginia and other large states demanded that voting in
Congress be according to population; representatives of smaller states
insisted upon the equality they had enjoyed under the articles. With the
oratory degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin
appealed for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the
aged philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . . illuminate our
understandings." Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled; the
convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a preacher.
...

Post by Erick Gemmell
YES, they try to write it many times, but could not. However, once
they had started having opening prayers at their meetings, the
constitution was written up fast. Therefore, having more "religious"
men for leaders only mean we need more men with high morals willing to
acknowledge their Creator.

Fantasy history worthy of the bible.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 15:09:40 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Do You know, the ones who painted the picture of America . . .

"It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel his hand upon me)
the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies.
All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me.
There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit,
because He comforted me with the rays of marvelous inspiration from
the Holy Scriptures . . . For the execution of the journey to the
Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is
simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied.. ." --
Christopher Columbus(Book of Prophecies)

"In The Name of God, Amen. . . . Having undertaken for the Glory of
God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our
King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern
parts of Virginia, Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the
Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves
together into a civil Body Politick. . ." -- The Mayflower Compact
(November 11, 1620)

"The Governor and his six elected officials would "have power to
administer justice according to the laws here established; and for
want therof according to the rule of the word of God." -- Fundamental
Order of Connecticut (1638-39, the Fundamental Orders are considered
the direct predecessor to the US Constitution

". . . Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed
to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God
and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to
lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound
knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, Let
every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him.
Proverbs 2:3." -- Rules and Precepts of Harvard University (1642)

"Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same
end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ
and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity and peace; and
whereas in our settling (by wise providence of God) we are further
dispersed upon the sea " coasts and rivers than was at first
intended." -- New England Confederation (May 19, 1643)

"The colonies are to pursue with peace and loyal minds their sober,
serious, and religious intentions . . . in holy Christian faith . . .
A most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained . . .
with a full liberty in religious concernments . . . rightly grounded
upon Gospel principles." -- Royal Charter of Rhode Island (1663)

"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of
revelation (the Bible), depend all human laws." -- William Blackstone
(Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765) An eminent British Jurist
and legal scholar, his writings were extremely influential in shaping
the legal philosophy of the American colonies and our current system
of jurisprudence.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not by
religions, but by the gospel of Jesus Christ." -- Patrick Henry

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be
obedient. He reigns in heaven and . . . from the rising to the setting
sun, may His kingdom come." -- Samuel Adams (July 2, 1776)

"The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion.
Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be
no liberty. . ." -- Benjamin Rush (colonial physician and college
professor, signer the Declaration of Independence)

. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness. -- The Declaration of Independence (July 4,
1776)

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion . . . reason and experience both forbid us
to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle. " -- President George Washington (Farewell Address)

"He who shall introduce into public affairs principles of primitive
Christianity will change the face of the world." -- Benjamin Franklin

". . . it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the
Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand . . ." -- President
John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- President
John Adams

"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the
social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first
precepts of Christianity?" -- John Adams

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
their liberties are the gift of God?" -- President Thomas Jefferson

"...Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe." --
James Madison (also known as "the architect of the Constitution)

"Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the
Universe. . . Let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him
who raises up and puts down the empires and kingdoms of the earth as
He pleases." -- John Hancock (President of the Continental Congress)

"No man can be a sound lawyer in this land who is not well read in the
ethics of Moses and the virtues of Jesus." -- Fisher Ames (leading
American lawyer during the Colonial period)

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters,
friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into
each other." -- James Wilson (signer of the Constitution)

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of
that law which is divine." -- James Wilson (1804)

"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and
freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts
of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes.
Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of
governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for
licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed."
-- John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

"Where there is no religion, there is no morality . . . With the loss
of religion. . . the ultimate foundation of confidence is blown up;
and of life, liberty and property are buried in ruins." -- Timothy
Dwight (President of Yale, on July 4, 1798)

"The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges
Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction, and will
find His Word in his greatest darkness, a 'lantern to his feet and a
lamp unto his paths.' He will therefore seek to establish for his
country in the eyes of the world, such a character as shall make her
not unworthy of the name of a Christian nation." -- Francis Scott Key,
(February 22, 1812, composer of the Star Spangled Banner)

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought
to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the
miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition,
injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising
or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." -- Noah Webster,
famed American educator and founding father who compiled the American
Dictionary of the English Language in 1828.

"If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if
we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect His
Commandments . . . we may have the highest hopes of the future
fortunes of our country . . . but if we and our posterity neglect
religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal
justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly
destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can
tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our
glory in profound obscurity." -- Daniel Webster, early American
educator and Secretary of State

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious
harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile
fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines
and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to
the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with
righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.
America is great because she is good and if America ever ceases to be
good, America will cease to be great." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
(Democracy in America)

"It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading
people. " -- Horace Greeley (journalist, statesman, founder of the New
York Tribune.

"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power
within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or
by the strong arm of man either by the Bible or the bayonet." --
Robert Winthrop (former speaker of the House)

"But for [the Bible] we could not know right from wrong. All things
most desirable for men's welfare. . . are to be found portrayed in
it." -- Abraham Lincoln

"We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being." -- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

Now what do you think ... does Brian Westley have the verdict of
history on his side or not?

It's the Founding Father's who framed the Republic and they were
pretty clear about things . . . the foundation of law is God. The
basis of our nation is Biblical religion. They'd say that we better
never forget that because if we do we'll start thinking that's
government which has the ultimate authority of law. But that's the way
they did back in Caesar's day. The state was all-powerful. The state
was the final determiner of right and wrong. The state figured what
rights were and who got them and who didn't.

You see, here's the way it works. You've got three choices. Either God
is the source of Law and we all put ourselves in obedience to him. If
we do that the result is freedom and security.

If we don't choose that route then there are only two options left ...
option A is that it's the state which is the supreme authority and
then we've got dictatorship coming at us hard and fast.

And if we don't' like Option A then we choose Option B -- each person
is the source of law. We decide for ourselves what we like and what we
don't like. Each of us becomes a "mini-nation" running around choosing
right and wrong. The word for that is "anarchy".

Our Founding Fathers knew that those were the choices -- God,
dictatorship, or anarchy.

It's pretty clear that Brian Westley don't like God, nor does he like
Option A, but has chosen to side with Option B, Brian wants "each
person as the source of law. Let them decide for themselves what they
like and what they don't like. A "mini-nation" running around chossing
right and wrong. And this is another world apart from our great
Repbulic under God, for it what we call ANARCHY!

Now, having said this much, what more can I say?

Well I can say that Brain Westley is also a liar, but he will disagree
for that is the nature of a liar, right?

Now what proof do I have that he lies?

Because he made it clear that prayer was never paid for, therefore
never took place. This is the proof that he give, he names one soul
person, Hugh Williamson as noted, to have said, "Benjamin Franklin
appealed for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun,
the aged philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . .
illuminate our understandings." Then Brain Westley adds his opinion to
this by saying, Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled,
because Franklin the inventor had no funds to pay a preacher.

THAT is just too silly to even consider.

However here is what really happened:

The National Day of Prayer tradition predates the founding of the
United States when the Continental Congress issued a proclamation
setting aside a day of prayer in 1775. In 1952 Congress established an
annual day of prayer, and in 1988 that law was amended, designating
the National Day of Prayer as the first Thursday in May.

Motion for Prayers in the Convention
By Benjamin Franklin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion made June 28, 1787
Mr. President,

The small Progress we have made, after 4 or 5 Weeks close Attendance
and continual Reasonings with each other, our different Sentiments on
almost every Question, several of the last producing as many Noes as
Ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy Proof of the Imperfection of the
Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our want of political
Wisdom since we have been running all about in Search of it. We have
gone back to ancient History for Models of Government, and examind
the different Forms of those Republics, which, have been orig[i]nally
formd with the Seeds of their own Dissolution, now no longer exist;
and we have viewd modern States all round Europe, but find none of
their Constitutions suitable to our Circumstances.

In this Situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark
to find Political Truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when
presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto
once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate
our Understandings? In the Beginning of the Contest with Britain, when
we were sensible of Danger, we had daily prayers in this Room for the
Divine Protection. Our Prayers, Sir, were heard; and they were
graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the Struggle, must
have observed frequent Instances of a superintending Providence in our
Favour. To that kind Providence we owe this happy Opportunity of
Consulting in Peace on the means of establishing our future national
Felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long
time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this
Truth, that GOD governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot
fall to the Ground without His Notice, is it probable that an Empire
can rise without His Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred
Writings that "except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain
that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that,
without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political
Building no better than the Builders of Babel; we shall be divided by
our little, partial, local Interests, our Projects will be confounded,
and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and a Bye-word down to future
Ages. And, what is worse, Mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate
Instance, despair of establishing Government by human Wisdom, and
leave it to Chance, War, and Conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move,

That henceforth Prayers, imploring the Assistance of Heaven and its
Blessing on our Deliberations, he held in this Assembly every morning
before we proceed to Business; and that one or more of the Clergy of
this city be requested to officiate in that Service.*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SO WHAT HAPPEN: WAS THE MOTION FOR PRAYER ACCEPTED?

The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers
unnecessary!" [Franklin's note.]

DID THEY PRAY?

YES!

NOW, who thinks that I am a liar?

NOW, who thinks that Brian Westley, is a liar and love to mislead the
public?

Now, we all know that Brian Westley claims that the founding fathers
did not have money to pay a preacher for the prayer! Now that silly,
right? Since when do you need money to offer a prayer?

NOW, perhaps, Brian Westly is not a liar, I am will to think that he
has misunderstood what really happen, and has been mislead into
thinking that prayers were not offered, but what I will not overlook
is his hatred for God, which the root of his lying ways, and the real
reasons why he drum up a false report.

However, he did pick the wrong person to fool right?

I am lead of God, and I am well studied in the history of our great
nation, therefore, I am approval of God to defend the Truth in the
Light of Day, or in the darkest valleys of Brain Westly's mind.

Joshua/Erick Gemmell

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 20:34:54 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Guess God didn't know about the Americas either. Go figure...

Post by Erick Gemmell
All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me.
There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit,
because He comforted me with the rays of marvelous inspiration from
the Holy Scriptures . . . For the execution of the journey to the
Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is
simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied.. ." --
Christopher Columbus(Book of Prophecies)

God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.
[...]

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 21:55:32 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Guess God didn't know about the Americas either. Go figure...

God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.
[...]

IF you hate GOD, does that mean that you hate yourself too?

FOR YOUR IN GOD IMAGE, right?

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 22:26:44 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Guess God didn't know about the Americas either. Go figure...

God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.
[...]

IF you hate GOD, does that mean that you hate yourself too?

How can you hate something you don't believe exists? For example: Do
you hate or love Santa Claus?

Post by Erick Gemmell
FOR YOUR IN GOD IMAGE, right?

You seem to be confused. That's your belief, not mine.

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-03 02:49:22 UTC

Post by Erick Gemmell
IF you hate GOD, does that mean that you hate yourself too?

How can you hate something you don't believe exists? For example: Do
you hate or love Santa Claus?

Post by Erick Gemmell
FOR YOUR IN GOD IMAGE, right?

You seem to be confused. That's your belief, not mine.

NOT if god is MAN, right?

Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you, right?

In addition, I say, if the kingdom is within MAN, then the king of
that kingdom is within MAN also.

MOREOVER, look at what the Old Testament says, which all Christian
ignore

(Ps. 82: 6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High.

NOW, this should please you right? For it says that we are gods. Now
the Christian says there is only one god, right?

But their own bible says that there are many gods, and that we are
gods, right?

Therefore, I have just given you proof that that Christians only
believe out of fear, not out of wisdom, right?

For they fear in offending an imagery god, but their own scriptures
says, they are gods, and I say, if we are gods then why should we
fear?

THEREFORE, my "god" cannot be the Creator, right? For if man is god,
man never made the universe in which we live.

NOW, what have I done? I have destroyed the silly notion of "god"
being a Creator.

FOR if men are gods, then god is not the Creator of all things, but he
is human in nature.

THEREFORE, the Creator does not exist, only MAN exists.

Now what does MAN do, that sets him apart from the animals?

Man organizes the elements, that is all that he does, therefore, the
only human-god is the human organizer.

Do you organizes your affairs, well the animals cannot do that, even
if they were smarter than us, they don't have fingers like us.

So, it fingers that make us different, right?

Oh, must we get so deep, that we will offend everyone not ready for
this?

Joshua Gemmell

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 22:04:39 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.
[...]

That not true, because God invented language, and if it had not been
for language, you would be speaking like a monkey.

C. Wilson

2004-09-02 22:27:11 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.
[...]

That not true, because God invented language, and if it had not been
for language, you would be speaking like a monkey.

Thanks for proving my point.

---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665
Alt.Atheism Veteran #22

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-03 03:22:15 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
Thanks for proving my point.
---
Carl Wilson a.a.#1665

Oh wise one, just because I use the Tower of Gullible, yes, the
infamous Tower of Babel where all language were invented, it does not
chapter make, it only the beginning of a new approach, into the
mysteries.

I never claim to know all mysteries, but I do know a few. And if I
think your above the commoner, and ready for the more advance stuff, I
shall cast always all the silly notions that your are able to detect,
is that fair?

It was not a chapter in the mysteries, but only a tangent direction, a
new approach I took with you, for I see that you are able to bear more
advance stuff.

YES, having seen past the blinding light of Truth, you saw that there
was more, right?

Most people are content, with my tangent direction and leave it at
that, but you were different, were you not?

YOU said, thanks for proving me right. Okay, so I could not blind you
with the Lord's light of Truth. So what am I to do?

I am to go into the more advance stuff with you.

HERE it is:

IF we know that God did not invent language, but yet we have found the
Tower of Babel, and like the story goes, part of it is buried, and
part is burnt, and part is visible, all according the bible, is that
not Truth?

YES, but is a lie, but man cannot search it out, because what happened
was that man made up the story of the Tower of Babel, and created the
buried part so, and burnt part of so, and left part visible, in order
to fool the nations into thing it happened, right?

So, I could not fool you, even the evidence of such a place could not
work to fool you, right?

Therefore, you have earn the right to advance to real Truth, and not
the lies that are expound from the Lights of Deception, right?

Bottom Line: you are worthy of knowing the mysteries, therefore I can
leave the mixture of truth and error, and go on to the pure knowledge
that set all men free, right? Free from what? We must not fear the
unknown if we want to learn, right?

Joshua Gemmell

Gactimus

2004-09-03 03:26:05 UTC

Post by C. Wilson
God is always as ignorant as his followers. No more, no less.

That not true, because God invented language, and if it had not been
for language, you would be speaking like a monkey.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving you're an idiot.

James Bremner

2004-09-03 08:28:40 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Wow! The Holy Spirit was one crap navigator. Did he not remember
putting huge pair of continents between Europe and the Indies? And
where in Isaiah does it say "And Lo, there shall come unto an idiot
who doth think he is in India when verily he doth be in a whole new
fucking continent."

Brian Westley

2004-09-04 04:22:48 UTC

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
constitution,

Do You know, the ones who painted the picture of America . . .

Hey liar, how about providing a little more context of what I said
THAN JUST THE SINGLE WORD "CONSTITUTION"?

[crap deleted]
...

Post by Erick Gemmell
Well I can say that Brain Westley is also a liar, but he will disagree
for that is the nature of a liar, right?
Now what proof do I have that he lies?
Because he made it clear that prayer was never paid for, therefore
never took place. This is the proof that he give, he names one soul
person, Hugh Williamson as noted, to have said, "Benjamin Franklin
appealed for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun,
the aged philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . .
illuminate our understandings." Then Brain Westley adds his opinion to
this by saying, Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled,
because Franklin the inventor had no funds to pay a preacher.
THAT is just too silly to even consider.

Well fuckhead, all I did was post a link from the US National Archives
website, which is what I quoted:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_history_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20History

A shorter link is
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Ah yes, a religious crank who says the US National Archives has it wrong.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Relaxification

2004-09-02 21:06:48 UTC

Post by Erick Gemmell
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:05:59 -0500, "E.E.Bud Keith"

Post by E.E.Bud Keith
One would hope that all of you were believers in the constitution, and it is
mute on religion as a Presidential qualification.

That is just an opinion, not a truth.
Truth is that our founding fathers establish our constitution only
after they first acknowledging God by prayer.
YES, they try to write it many times, but could not. However, once
they had started having opening prayers at their meetings, the
constitution was written up fast. Therefore, having more "religious"
men for leaders only mean we need more men with high morals willing to
acknowledge their Creator.
Moreover, our nation has need of good men with high morals, because
that is how our founding fathers wrote the constitution, which became
the foundation of our Republic under God, and that is what being
religious means.
I have heard it said that separation of state and religion is the law,
but that only refers to religion as an organized church trying to
impose its creed upon another, but it has no reference to electing the
religious which means having high morals to positions of power.
Therefore we do not need religion impose upon state affairs, but we do
need more religious men of high morals willing to acknowledge a
Creator first.

However, if they are religious then they don't represent me. I don't
believe in god. And I don't trust people who do. Osama believes he's
right, you know? So did the dudes responsible for the Spanish
Inquisition. So do the KKK. And all in the name of god.

God rocks! Let's kill some niggers!

Erick Gemmell

2004-09-02 21:50:09 UTC

Post by Relaxification
However, if they are religious then they don't represent me. I don't
believe in god. And I don't trust people who do. Osama believes he's
right, you know? So did the dudes responsible for the Spanish
Inquisition. So do the KKK. And all in the name of god.
God rocks! Let's kill some niggers!

YOU have it all wrong, God is not "RED"

For example, red is the color of blood shed, right?

Now, the KKK is a cross on flames, right? And flames are "red", right?

Now, The Spanish Inquisition, follows the POPE, right? And the Pope's
cross is "RED", right?

Now, OSAMA believes the "RED" cresent, right?

Now, you say the "God rocks!" Now, where does it say that in the
bible?

YOU also say let go and kill, but that's not in the bible!

IT's against the Ten Commandment to kill, don't you know that!!!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!

Now it appears to me that you are confuss with "red cross" and "white
cross"!!!

GOD IS NOT A PINKO NOR DOES HE LIKE RED, only the Devil uses a "RED"
outfit, and a tight one at that.

THEREFORE, you wrong about GOD, for he is for peace, the white flag is
for peace, and he does not go for that "red cross, or cresent" or
whatever is "RED", get it??

Relaxification

2004-09-03 03:21:17 UTC

YOU have it all wrong, God is not "RED"
For example, red is the color of blood shed, right?
Now, the KKK is a cross on flames, right? And flames are "red", right?
Now, The Spanish Inquisition, follows the POPE, right? And the Pope's
cross is "RED", right?
Now, OSAMA believes the "RED" cresent, right?
Now, you say the "God rocks!" Now, where does it say that in the
bible?
YOU also say let go and kill, but that's not in the bible!
IT's against the Ten Commandment to kill, don't you know that!!!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!
Now it appears to me that you are confuss with "red cross" and "white
cross"!!!
GOD IS NOT A PINKO NOR DOES HE LIKE RED, only the Devil uses a "RED"
outfit, and a tight one at that.
THEREFORE, you wrong about GOD, for he is for peace, the white flag is
for peace, and he does not go for that "red cross, or cresent" or
whatever is "RED", get it??

Big sigh.

I was kind of kidding. You know, to make a point?

By "pinko" do you mean a communist?

Do you really believe the devil:

a) exists?
b) wears a red outfit?

I can't even go on. My post was reductionist, partly to be funny, but
also to make a point. Your post kind of scares me, and makes me think
you're insane.

Relaxification

2004-09-03 08:54:06 UTC

YOU have it all wrong, God is not "RED"
For example, red is the color of blood shed, right?
Now, the KKK is a cross on flames, right? And flames are "red", right?
Now, The Spanish Inquisition, follows the POPE, right? And the Pope's
cross is "RED", right?
Now, OSAMA believes the "RED" cresent, right?
Now, you say the "God rocks!" Now, where does it say that in the
bible?
YOU also say let go and kill, but that's not in the bible!
IT's against the Ten Commandment to kill, don't you know that!!!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!
Now it appears to me that you are confuss with "red cross" and "white
cross"!!!
GOD IS NOT A PINKO NOR DOES HE LIKE RED, only the Devil uses a "RED"
outfit, and a tight one at that.
THEREFORE, you wrong about GOD, for he is for peace, the white flag is
for peace, and he does not go for that "red cross, or cresent" or
whatever is "RED", get it??

Scary dude. Messed up logic, too.

Mr. N

2004-09-02 02:26:47 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Of course, why?

Bobby D. Bryant

2004-09-02 08:21:44 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

I'm afraid it might provoke a crisis as to who is the First Lady.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Gactimus

2004-09-02 13:17:10 UTC

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

I'm afraid it might provoke a crisis as to who is the First Lady.

Ha!

who

2004-09-02 11:11:31 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

There already is one in the presidency.
BTW You should be more careful with your spelling. You put an extra
'm' in Mormon.
HooOoorooOoo

Gactimus

2004-09-02 13:16:48 UTC

Post by who

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

There already is one in the presidency.
BTW You should be more careful with your spelling. You put an extra
'm' in Mormon.

Sounds like I'm not the moron after all.

who

2004-09-02 13:33:00 UTC

Post by who

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

There already is one in the presidency.
BTW You should be more careful with your spelling. You put an extra
'm' in Mormon.

Sounds like I'm not the moron after all.

No Gactimus, not you :-o
Here: http://www.funpic.hu/en.picview.php?id=8369
HooOoorooOoo

MF Ogilvie

2004-09-02 14:16:15 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

If he/she were a conservative, absolutely.

Eric Pepke

2004-09-03 01:02:15 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

(from alt.atheism)

Sure, why not?

Shawn Hearn

2004-09-05 14:51:11 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

As long as the person separates his religion from his politics, I
couldn't care less what his religion is. Frankly though, having met
several Mormons, I doubt that situation would happen.

DuTcHelMDiSeaSe

2004-09-07 04:05:14 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Especially if I agreed with his politics and was Mormon. I have also
routinely voted against Mormon's whose politics I disagree with. I am a
Mormon.

John

2004-11-27 17:46:47 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

no fucking way

David Moffitt

2004-11-27 18:38:25 UTC

Post by John

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

no fucking way

%%%% Why?

John Baker

2004-11-29 09:29:41 UTC

Post by John

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

no fucking way

Not if he was also a Republican.

Gactimus

2004-11-29 12:34:55 UTC

Post by John Baker

Post by John

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

no fucking way

Not if he was also a Republican.

If you agreed with his politics, why does it matter what party he's from?

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2004-12-04 05:37:34 UTC

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed
with his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

No. Mormonism is a flawed and false religion. Mormons are taught how
to double-think from the day they are born. They believe the Catholic
Church is the whore of the earth. They have no ethics and they merely
do what they are told and think how they are told to think. Free
dialogue is often suppressed.

Just as an example of their lack of ethics and ability to double
think, here's an article about Mormon judge Jay S. Bybee who wrote an
opinion for the Bush administration justifying torture:

"Thursday, June 24, 2004
A Little Torture Will Get You a Federal Judgeship

We're learning more about Jay S. Bybee, the former Justice Department
lawyer who wrote the notorious Aug. 2002 memo addressed to White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzales ... which asserted that El President is free
under his authority as commander in chief to order torture,
notwithstanding treaties and laws barring it.

The Mormon Bybee is a graduate of Brigham Young University and now
presides in Las Vegas as a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, to which lifetime job El Presidente appointed him, apparently
in fine appreciation of his ability to tie tiny, legalistic knots on
the president's cat o' nine tails.

For example, Bybee's memorandum defined torture only as pain like that
accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a
significant body function." Judge Bybee's memo went on to say torture
is unlawful only if the infliction of pain is the offender's specific
objective. "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result
from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks
the requisite specific intent," he wrote.

In other words, dear saints, and since we KNOW that the objective of
all interrogations is knowledge of the enemy, then ergo, no severe
pain inflicted in the extraction of that knowledge can be torture,
because torture was not the goal, only the means. Maybe it takes a
Mormon to rack reason that severely (and a Methodist to run with it
and then not only deny that he ran with it but fail to remember that
he ever saw such a memorandum). Latter Day Saints? Latter Day
Sophists!

Every time Bush now speaks on the torture issue, he's clearly
following Bybee's legal advice, that is, saying blandly "this White
House never ordered torture," when he knows very well that lawyer
Bybee told him in the memo that what was being done was NOT torture as
long as they called it something else, i.e., information extraction.
"We didn't order torture; we ordered intelligence gathering.
Therefore, I am still the Godliest president ever to occupy the Oval
Office, and the Hand of God is guiding my every act."

http://www.wataugadems.com/blog/archives/2004_06_20_archive.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17123
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politics/24MEMO.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

IncoWarren

2004-11-28 00:42:14 UTC

Only is the vice-president is muslim.

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

IncoWarren

2004-11-28 01:03:09 UTC

Better be inactive or 'non-believing' otherwise we will have another
establishment-clause-like situation which will repeat in history.

Although the mormon façade of an active member (which compriese less
than 40% of membereship) would be perfect for the Machiavellian part
of politics, the end result would be surely devastating for all
parties (see below)

People must understand that a 'believing' Mormon is fundamentalist, as
fundamentalist as those individuals that crashed planes thinking they
were doing 'god's' will.

1)
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461564454_761562572_-1_1/Joseph_Smith.html
Encyclopedia Article from Encarta

Smith, Joseph
.....
In February 1844, Smith announced his candidacy for the U.S.
presidency. He was by then one of the most famous men of the American
West. His base of appeal, however, was too narrow for him to have won
election, and his political ambitions increased the hostility of
non-Mormons. When a group of dissenting Mormons started to publish a
newspaper attacking polygamy and his leadership, Smith ordered the
press destroyed. This led to new threats of violence, and finally
Smith was charged with treason and conspiracy and placed under arrest
in the Carthage, Illinois, jail. There, despite the Illinois
governor's promise of safety, he and his brother Hyrum were
assassinated by a mob on the night of June 27, 1844.

2)
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/exposit4.htm
(The Expositor -- Nauvoo Expositor Pages 2-3)

NAUVOO EXPOSITOR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOL. I. NAUVOO, ILLINOIS, FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1844. NO. 1.

THE EXPOSITOR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVESTER EMMONS, EDITOR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTORY.

...In supporting Hyrum Smith, you, Citizens of Hancock County, are
supporting Joseph Smith, for whom he (Hyrum) goes teeth and toe nails,
for President of the United States. The question may arise here, in
voting for Joseph Smith, for whom am I voting? You are voting for a
man who contends all governments are to be put down and the one
established upon its ruins. You are voting for an enemy to your
government, hear Phelps to Joe in his affidavit before Judge King of
Missouri:--"Have you come to the point to resist all law?" "I have,"
says Joe[.] You are voting for a sycophant, whose attempt for power
find no parallel in history. You are voting for a man who refuses to
suffer criminals to be brought to justice, but in the stead thereof,
rescues them from the just demands of the law, by Habeas Corpus. You
are voting for a man who stands indicted, and who is now held to bail,
for the crimes of adultery and perjury; two of the gravest crimes
known to our laws. Query not then for whom you are voting; it is for
one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the
stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula...

Post by Gactimus
If someone was running for president and for the most part you agreed with
his politics, would you still vote for him if he was a Mormon?

Michel Catudal

2007-05-16 02:09:48 UTC