View Full Version : Why do xians insist that USA was founded on xianity?
WhiteRaven
03-15-2007, 10:58 PM
to xians: you xians are fond of this lie. I am curious, could you maybe explain the reason, I would think it was to try to control people, but then, that would be immoral wouldn't it?
read this for proof that america is not based on xianity (http://churchofsatan.tv/america.html)
Ausinus
03-15-2007, 11:01 PM
Because they like to believe that the US should treat them as special (which it shouldn't). Im so glad the Republicans are starting to see that they won't get elected by obeying the wishes of the Crazy Christian Right (which they shouldn't).
theicidal maniac
03-16-2007, 02:23 AM
to xians: you xians are fond of this lie. I am curious, could you maybe explain the reason, I would think it was to try to control people, but then, that would be immoral wouldn't it?
read this for proof that america is not based on xianity (http://churchofsatan.tv/america.html)
It's the same people that want you to believe that English is the language this country was founded on, and wanna deport anyone with an accent.
English isn't even native to England. It was an immigrant language, brought by the invading hordes of what is now germany. A lot of people think that Old English is this;
"Ye olde potatoe shoppe"
That's modern victorian English with quirky mispellings.
THIS is OLD ENGLISH from BEOWULF, chapter X:
Ša him Hrožgar gewat mid his hęleža gedryht,
eodur Scyldinga, ut of healle;
wolde wigfruma Wealhžeo secan,
665
cwen to gebeddan. Hęfde kyningwuldor
Grendle togeanes, swa guman gefrungon,
seleweard aseted; sundornytte beheold
ymb aldor Dena, eotonweard abead.
Huru Geata leod georne truwode
670
modgan męgnes, metodes hyldo.
ša he him of dyde isernbyrnan,
helm of hafelan, sealde his hyrsted sweord,
irena cyst, ombihtžegne,
ond gehealdan het hildegeatwe.
675
Gespręc ža se goda gylpworda sum,
Beowulf Geata, ęr he on bed stige:
"No ic me an herewęsmun hnagran talige,
gužgeweorca, žonne Grendel hine;
foržan ic hine sweorde swebban nelle,
680
aldre beneotan, žeah ic eal męge.
That's how much english has changed in only one thousand years. This is the first recognizable era of anything that is actually called ENGLISH. Recognize it??
something
03-16-2007, 02:36 AM
It reminds about the german languages that I speak. English is actually not far away from dutch.
Ausinus
03-16-2007, 02:56 AM
It reminds about the german languages that I speak. English is actually not far away from dutch.
That's because English was originally a Germanic language. However, English became influenced by French after the Norman invasion in 1066 CE by William the Conqueror.
Most words with more than two syllables are French in origin, such as "entertainment", "theatre", "letter", and even the words "beef" and "ok".
theicidal maniac
03-16-2007, 03:03 AM
That's because English was originally a Germanic language. However, English became influenced by French after the Norman invasion in 1066 CE by William the Conqueror.
Most words with more than two syllables are French in origin, such as "entertainment", "theatre", "letter", and even the words "beef" and "ok".
Exaaaaaactly...(although I'm not so sure about that two or more syllables thing, but whatever) It was an immigrant language, influenced by other immigrant languages, and I bet the whole time the native islanders were bitching about the damn foreigners not bothering to learn the "native languages" of Celtic, Gaelic, Welsch, etc
People don't understand just how flux language is. An English speaker 3 or 400 years from now would have tremendous difficulty even understanding what I am typing right now.
something
03-16-2007, 07:51 AM
Exaaaaaactly...(although I'm not so sure about that two or more syllables thing, but whatever) It was an immigrant language, influenced by other immigrant languages, and I bet the whole time the native islanders were bitching about the damn foreigners not bothering to learn the "native languages" of Celtic, Gaelic, Welsch, etc
People don't understand just how flux language is. An English speaker 3 or 400 years from now would have tremendous difficulty even understanding what I am typing right now.
Scientists say that during a time of 600 years does a language change o much that it isn't the same anymore.
hitekredneck
03-16-2007, 09:22 AM
Exaaaaaactly...(although I'm not so sure about that two or more syllables thing, but whatever) It was an immigrant language, influenced by other immigrant languages, and I bet the whole time the native islanders were bitching about the damn foreigners not bothering to learn the "native languages" of Celtic, Gaelic, Welsch, etc
People don't understand just how flux language is. An English speaker 3 or 400 years from now would have tremendous difficulty even understanding what I am typing right now.
hell, i have problems understanding some of the speech by younger people as it is...lol :D
General Septem
03-16-2007, 11:40 AM
Because they like to believe that the US should treat them as special (which it shouldn't).
I'd be happy if this country would just stop fucking us in the ass. The hell with being treated special at this point.
da420
03-16-2007, 11:48 AM
Because they like to believe that the US should treat them as special (which it shouldn't). Im so glad the Republicans are starting to see that they won't get elected by obeying the wishes of the Crazy Christian Right (which they shouldn't).
I'll comment on the Republican comment.
The Republican is no longer the conservative small government party. The way I see it they are just religious Liberals.
conspiracy
03-16-2007, 11:50 AM
I'll comment on the Republican comment.
The Republican is no longer the conservative small government party. The way I see it they are just religious Liberals.
I guess that makes Democrats Atheist Immoral jackasses. :eek:
MrJim
03-16-2007, 01:27 PM
Why do xians insist that USA was founded on xianity?[/URL]
Murder, theft, lying, adultery... The first two send you to jail/prison, the second two get you in trouble in court.
WhiteRaven
03-16-2007, 06:53 PM
adultery doesn't get you in trouble, neither does lying unless it's purgery, and nearly every society has outlawed murder and theft.
General Septem
03-16-2007, 07:03 PM
adultery doesn't get you in trouble, neither does lying unless it's purgery, and nearly every society has outlawed murder and theft.
That's perjury, and adultery gets you in trouble if your spouse divorces you for it.
WhiteRaven
03-16-2007, 07:22 PM
why the hell did I spell it like that? oh well... that's not really being in trouble unless your spouse lacks a job, then you have to pay an alimony.
General Septem
03-16-2007, 07:25 PM
why the hell did I spell it like that? oh well... that's not really being in trouble unless your spouse lacks a job, then you have to pay an alimony.
In any event, it does often affect the outcome of the legal proceedings.
MrJim
03-16-2007, 08:35 PM
That's perjury, and adultery gets you in trouble if your spouse divorces you for it.
WhiteRaven, that's what I was referring to. And we have no alimony in Texas, but your wife can take half your stuff... and the kids and other demands if it is proven you had an affair.
Slutter McGee
03-16-2007, 09:13 PM
Murder, theft, lying, adultery... The first two send you to jail/prison, the second two get you in trouble in court.
Umm theft is perfectly legal. Our government does all the time by taking the money I earn...and giving it somebody who did not earn it.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
General Septem
03-16-2007, 09:15 PM
Umm theft is perfectly legal. Our government does all the time by taking the money I earn...and giving it somebody who did not earn it.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
The first post you've made that I agree with. :D
MrJim
03-16-2007, 09:22 PM
Umm theft is perfectly legal. Our government does all the time by taking the money I earn...and giving it somebody who did not earn it.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Good point. I was referring more to shoplifting. Clear as mud guys? :D
Slutter McGee
03-16-2007, 09:35 PM
I'll comment on the Republican comment.
The Republican is no longer the conservative small government party. The way I see it they are just religious Liberals.
That is not true. Bush is only enlarging the government to be in a future position to make it smaller. come on da...this seems like common sense to me.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
WhiteRaven
03-16-2007, 11:02 PM
"And we have no alimony in Texas, but your wife can take half your stuff... and the kids and other demands if it is proven you had an affair."
ah... I do not live in Texas, so I did not know that. still, it's only cheating/stealing/whatever other "evil" deed if you get caught, if you don't get caught it's intelligence and cunning. rofl.
"Umm theft is perfectly legal. Our government does all the time by taking the money I earn...and giving it somebody who did not earn it."
indeed.
still, as I said, burglary, perjury, murder, xianity was not the first religion to outlaw these things.
"Bush is only enlarging the government to be in a future position to make it smaller. come on da...this seems like common sense to me."
Bush isn't smart enough to know how to enlarge his own cock.
MrJim
03-17-2007, 12:14 AM
I'll comment on the Republican comment.
The Republican is no longer the conservative small government party. The way I see it they are just religious Liberals.
Bipartisanship. No one can satisfy the voters without giving in to views they don't support.
Ausinus
03-17-2007, 11:46 AM
Umm theft is perfectly legal. Our government does all the time by taking the money I earn...and giving it somebody who did not earn it.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
BEEP. Sorry, that answer is incorrect, but you do win this lovely pen as a consolation prize.
1) You get your taxes back in the form of infrastructure.
2) Everyone in a society has the obligation to help support the other members of the society.
You retain the right to leave the society at any time.
Ausinus
03-17-2007, 11:47 AM
That is not true. Bush is only enlarging the government to be in a future position to make it smaller. come on da...this seems like common sense to me.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
No, that isnt true. Bush is enlarging the government because he is a fascist and wants it to be cubersome for when the Dems take over ^_^
WhiteRaven
03-17-2007, 11:58 AM
"1) You get your taxes back in the form of infrastructure."
taxes aren't the only thing, but they are problems in certain ways, I do not feel that health care should be stopped completely, but we should stop helping people with things that are a result of their own stupidity.
"2) Everyone in a society has the obligation to help support the other members of the society."
Indeed?! So if someone sticks steel wool in a microwave and sits there and gets hurt by watching it explode, I am not allowed to just let the dipshit die? that is ridiculous!!
and Bush doesn't have enough intelligence to plan anything, the fool, We were fighting a war and he decides to start another one?! what kind of idiot... no that's an insult to idiots everywhere, and John Kerry was no better, drawing the troops out of Iraq before Saddam was dead would just be stupid. Bush's attack on Iraq was stupid, but now it must be seen through to the end, even with Saddam dead, his allies must be silenced, but the idiot wastes time trying to help free Iraq.
Ausinus
03-17-2007, 12:00 PM
Indeed?! So if someone sticks steel wool in a microwave and sits there and gets hurt by watching it explode, I am not allowed to just let the dipshit die? that is ridiculous!!
Well you wouldnt be charged because of it; however it would be the more ethical thing to do. ^_^
WhiteRaven
03-17-2007, 12:22 PM
depends on your point of view, if the person is that stupid, then he'd have many more injuries, so letting him die could be considered more merciful.
General Septem
03-17-2007, 01:05 PM
1) You get your taxes back in the form of infrastructure.
The government hasn't done dick for me personally besides tell me what I can and cannot do. They could all die and the only thing that would affect me is I could drink and date girls under 17.
2) Everyone in a society has the obligation to help support the other members of the society.
That's called wealth redistribution and is a socialistic concept. I have nothing against contributing to a free society, but not a socialistic or communistic society.
Slutter McGee
03-17-2007, 08:51 PM
BEEP. Sorry, that answer is incorrect, but you do win this lovely pen as a consolation prize.
1) You get your taxes back in the form of infrastructure.
Yes and others get my taxes back in the form of monetary gain.
2) Everyone in a society has the obligation to help support the other members of the society.
You retain the right to leave the society at any time.
I have no obligation but to myself. If I wan't to help society, then I do so because it makes me feel good. I should have no other reason. What you are suggesting is that the government has an obligation to take my money and give it to somebody else to help support the other members of society. How is this different from theft? Or socialism for that matter. This is the glorification of the unearned. It does nothing but promote an lethargic attitude of life...when others are entitled to your profit. When your hard work benefits others who did not or are incapable of working hard. I have NO duty or obligation to support my self destruction.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Ausinus
03-17-2007, 09:25 PM
Yes and others get my taxes back in the form of monetary gain.
No, they get infrastructure as well. Its only government paid workers who are paid with tax dollars and they pay income tax ANYWAY.
[quote]I have no obligation but to myself. If I wan't to help society, then I do so because it makes me feel good. I should have no other reason. What you are suggesting is that the government has an obligation to take my money and give it to somebody else to help support the other members of society. How is this different from theft? Or socialism for that matter. This is the glorification of the unearned. It does nothing but promote an lethargic attitude of life...when others are entitled to your profit. When your hard work benefits others who did not or are incapable of working hard. I have NO duty or obligation to support my self destruction./QUOTE]
Obviously you don't believe in public healthcare, education, or assistance for the homeless to get on their feet through education and other forms of non-monetary assistance.
Slutter McGee
03-17-2007, 09:44 PM
No, they get infrastructure as well. Its only government paid workers who are paid with tax dollars and they pay income tax ANYWAY.
i have no problem paying government employees. are there two many of them. sure. but the fact is they are being paid for providing a service. I am not against paying taxes. I just don't like those taxes being used, in conjunction with the manipulation of General Welfare Clause, to support people who do not contribute to society.
Obviously you don't believe in public healthcare, education, or assistance for the homeless to get on their feet through education and other forms of non-monetary assistance.
That is true. Replace the word public with the word private and I would probably agree.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Slutter McGee
03-17-2007, 09:47 PM
No, that isnt true. Bush is enlarging the government because he is a fascist and wants it to be cubersome for when the Dems take over ^_^
Impressive, you misinterpret obvious satire and then make a completely illogical statement of your own.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
conspiracy
03-17-2007, 11:00 PM
No, that isnt true. Bush is enlarging the government because he is a fascist and wants it to be cubersome for when the Dems take over ^_^
You have NO idea what FASCIST means. You use it alot but sill have no idea...
MrJim
03-18-2007, 12:28 AM
Slutter, I am drinking rum tonight, does hell await me and my family? or is that part of your religion seeing as jesus turned water into wine? Just curious, i've been working my ass off all day trying to build a better life for my children coming.
Ausinus
03-18-2007, 12:38 AM
You have NO idea what FASCIST means. You use it alot but sill have no idea...
I am aware fascism is a form of extreme nationalism that revolves around the creation of a strong government. However it can also be used as a pejorative term for someone who is overly controlling.
Ausinus
03-18-2007, 12:40 AM
i have no problem paying government employees. are there two many of them. sure. but the fact is they are being paid for providing a service. I am not against paying taxes. I just don't like those taxes being used, in conjunction with the manipulation of General Welfare Clause, to support people who do not contribute to society.
Do I think the current system of welfare is effective? No. Instead I support a system that gives them food and education, not money.
That is true. Replace the word public with the word private and I would probably agree.
Except private healthcare, education, etc is all elitist bullshit.
MrJim
03-18-2007, 12:45 AM
Do I think the current system of welfare is effective? No. Instead I support a system that gives them food and education, not money.
Except private healthcare, education, etc is all elitist bullshit.
I agree with you, bitch! :D Food and education is important to everyone, though I do think the parents should try the best they can before they scream 'government take care of me', instead of gorging on fast food for them and their kids, then crying 'we have no money feed us' fuck you, show us some effort first.
General Septem
03-18-2007, 07:38 AM
Do I think the current system of welfare is effective? No. Instead I support a system that gives them food and education, not money.
So do I. But don't tax me for it and let me give voluntarily. It's still wealth redistribution, just a different kind of wealth, but it makes little difference to me on tax day.
Slutter McGee
03-18-2007, 03:37 PM
Do I think the current system of welfare is effective? No. Instead I support a system that gives them food and education, not money.
Except private healthcare, education, etc is all elitist bullshit.
Why should my money be taken from me in order to provide healthcare for somebody else? What mutual exchange has been made. none. Therefore its theft. You can call it theft for a good reason if you want. But its still theft. My money is taken against my will and given to somebody else for their benefit. If a man is broke, and breaks into my apartment, steals my tv, and pawns it in order to feed his family...its still an immoral act, because he has no right to my property. He did not earn it.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Ausinus
03-18-2007, 03:40 PM
Why should my money be taken from me in order to provide healthcare for somebody else?
Because you have an obligation to support the society that supported you.
What mutual exchange has been made.
You have more people working to pay taxes to buy better infrastructure.
Therefore its theft.
Its not, because its consentual.
My money is taken against my will and given to somebody else for their benefit.
No, you gave your consent by participating in this society in the first place.
Fucking elitists.
General Septem
03-18-2007, 03:59 PM
Its not, because its consentual.
"Consent or we'll shoot you, take away the house you earned, and put you in jail" is not consent.
Slutter McGee
03-18-2007, 03:59 PM
Because you have an obligation to support the society that supported you.
Your making an argument for collectivism. The specific individual has done nothing for me. You are saying that I owe society, and that the merits of the individual are not important because individuals comprise the whole of society. If everybody is entitled to everything, then no mutual exchange of goods are made. One side simply loots from the other. How do you increase production when doing so gives no individual benefits?
You have more people working to pay taxes to buy better infrastructure.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I full understand that taxes are needed, and that they benefit me when used to build better infrastructure. Roads, education at the state level, the military. You cannot argue, however, that money given to an individual benefits me in the long run. It benefits them. I am not arguing against taxation. I am arguing about wealth distribution policies.
Its not, because its consentual.
Just how the fuck are taxes consentual. You get arrested if you do not pay them. Therefore there is coersion. If I was to simply refuse to pay my medicare and social security taxes...what would happen. The government would sieze my belongings. There is nothing consentual about taxation for the purposes of wealth distribution.
No, you gave your consent by participating in this society in the first place.
No I did not. And recind my consent everytime I step into a voting booth. That is why we are a republican democracy...not a communist state.
Fucking elitists.
Fucking looters,
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.