Saving South Africa...

Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
147
Counter to what your average american idiot believes, america was founded by secular humanists who were all about tolerance. Admitidly they slipped up a bit with slavery and what not, but hey thats why you guys had a civil war.

Tolerance of Europeans, sure there is different cultures of all the many European nations but they all basically share the same common identity (Christian and white). Founding fathers were humanists? I don't think so, secular yes to a certain extent, the separation of church and state. Don't come here trying to say that the founding fathers were a bunch of hippies who loved blacks and every other non-white race under the sun, far from so.

Also, the civil war wasn't about slavery :rolleyes:. Do you actually believe the north went to war with the south because they had slaves?
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
147
I didnt get that memo :rolleyes: Who is this person that decided that the definition of a liberal changed? I, as a liberal, never consented to this. Maybe its the US's political name calling that resulted in this, but if there is neocons (those funny conservatives), these funny liberals can be described as neoliberals at best...

Neo-cons != conservative

Also you're a liberal, that's sad, spit on you.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
35,114
Tolerance of Europeans, sure there is different cultures of all the many European nations but they all basically share the same common identity (Christian and white). Founding fathers were humanists? I don't think so, secular yes to a certain extent, the separation of church and state. Don't come here trying to say that the founding fathers were a bunch of hippies who loved blacks and every other non-white race under the sun, far from so.

Also, the civil war wasn't about slavery :rolleyes:. Do you actually believe the north went to war with the south because they had slaves?

4. Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called *****. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile, or death "in furea"....

The words of a secular humanist. Do you know enough of your own history to know who said that? Im guessing not.
 

Reason

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
40
Behold the Creepy Crawly otherwise known as the automated pool cleaner.

The Confederatos, the reason why you see todays liberals as not being "liberals" is as a result of the careful and deliberate propaganda that you have been raised on. That is why so many citizens of the United States of America persist in voting for the party that results in their economic destruction.

Here is some more about what liberalism is about.

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.

Let me tell, being a slave to corporates is not freedom. Rule of a nation by the corporates who inevitably destroy the "free market" is not freedom, it is fascism.

Did you know the confederacy actually started the "War against Northern Aggression?"

And the naturalization act of 1790 was written in what was a frankly racist era. Liberalism is about the improvement and the progression of humanity and it is thanks to liberalism that we can see why such a law would be stupid. Or at least I hope we can all see what a law that discriminates on such an ephemeral thing as race is rather silly.

Nick333, I would guess that to be Jefferson. But that wouldn't help, you see because Confederatos probably views Jefferson as being a traitor and would most likely say the same about Thomas Paine, Adam Smith and Benjamin Franklin. He would also spit upon them as he has now "spit" upon us.

PS The Confederatos do not drink the Kool Aid!
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
35,114
Nick333, I would guess that to be Jefferson. But that wouldn't help, you see because Confederatos probably views Jefferson as being a traitor and would most likely say the same about Thomas Paine, Adam Smith and Benjamin Franklin. He would also spit upon them as he has now "spit" upon us.

It is indeed. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_carr.html for more.

Meaningless Confederatos? You mean you didn't understand it or choose not to.
 

Reason

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
40
Well, he is a conservative citizen of the United States of America. So either is likely.

War is peace, and Liberals are Tax and Spend and the Republicans are fiscally conservative. They believe in what they want, reality does not apply.
 
Top