It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

page: 26
53
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Then please acknowledge that I am AWARE that the title was a mistake!
PLEASE.


Okay. No worries. I understand that you don't think we are a corporate theocracy. I will do my best not to imply that you do




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Then please acknowledge that I am AWARE that the title was a mistake!
PLEASE.


Okay. No worries. I understand that you don't think we are a corporate theocracy. I will do my best not to imply that you do


But it is, apparently, a very real possibility in the near future. Or so I have been informed recently.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Okay. No worries. I understand that you don't think we are a corporate theocracy. I will do my best not to imply that you do


Aww. And NavyDoc and Buzzy walked off into the sunset, arm in arm.

"You crazy gun nut, you ain't so bad after all", Buzzy cooed.

"You're pretty okay yourself, you tree-huggin Lib", came his gruff, but loving response.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


But wouldn't a religious litmus test for not holding office be just as wrong as one for holding office.


Did I say anything about issuing a "religious litmus test"? No, I did not.

But if I'm considering voting for someone, and in their campaign they withhold the fact that they want to unsecularize this country until AFTER they are in office, I would be pissed. Just like I'm pissed at Obama for failing to do what he claimed he would do, and especially for continuing the idiotic drone program that is escalating the tension globally.

Anyway, thanks for your previous post about not implying I'm unaware. I do appreciate it. I am unaware of MANY things, but what these people hope to accomplish is not one of them.

Fine. We have "checks and balances" built into the system. What if Obama WAS a Muslim (as some claim)? Well - if he'd done what he said he would do, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter if he was a Pastafarian, an Atheist, a JW, or anything else - as long as he delivered. It's the underhandedness of politicians that frightens me.

I want to be able to trust the people I vote for - and know what it is they stand for and WANT.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Okay. No worries. I understand that you don't think we are a corporate theocracy. I will do my best not to imply that you do


Aww. And NavyDoc and Buzzy walked off into the sunset, arm in arm.

"You crazy gun nut, you ain't so bad after all", Buzzy cooed.

"You're pretty okay yourself, you tree-huggin Lib", came his gruff, but loving response.



And then the cheezy 1970's music starts--bom-chick-a-bom-bom.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc


But wouldn't a religious litmus test for not holding office be just as wrong as one for holding office.


Did I say anything about issuing a "religious litmus test"? No, I did not.

But if I'm considering voting for someone, and in their campaign they withhold the fact that they want to unsecularize this country until AFTER they are in office, I would be pissed. Just like I'm pissed at Obama for failing to do what he claimed he would do, and especially for continuing the idiotic drone program that is escalating the tension globally.

Anyway, thanks for your previous post about not implying I'm unaware. I do appreciate it. I am unaware of MANY things, but what these people hope to accomplish is not one of them.

Fine. We have "checks and balances" built into the system. What if Obama WAS a Muslim (as some claim)? Well - if he'd done what he said he would do, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter if he was a Pastafarian, an Atheist, a JW, or anything else - as long as he delivered. It's the underhandedness of politicians that frightens me.

I want to be able to trust the people I vote for - and know what it is they stand for and WANT.


Well, no, just wanted to be clear.

Here's the thing. In a free society you should be able to vote for whomever you want to. That's cool and I can swing with it. The only thing I'd have an issue with is a systemic or legal restriction or limitation based on religion or no religion. If you don't want to vote for Joe-Bob because he's a Christian, you have every right. If the state says Bible thumpers can't campaign or contribute to campaigns or silences them because they are "hate speech," or restricts their political speech in any way, then there is a problem.

What you seem to say is that you are worried about them and will not vote for them and will encourage others not to. I may disagree with your premise, but that is well within your rights and part and parcel of a free society.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I've already asked to have the title changed.
I was under the impression we were to use the title OF THE ARTICLE when we post from other sites.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I've already asked to have the title changed.
I was under the impression we were to use the title OF THE ARTICLE when we post from other sites.



I've almost never done that. I just provide a link to the source article. No need to perpetuate yellow journalism anymore than I have to.

edit on 9-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



Good. Now, hand me your pistol so I can go destroy some beer cans.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What changed your mind through the course of the thread?

You mentioned elsewhere something that is strikingly similar to the thread title, but in your own words, and no article involved.

I ask because if you are truly seeing things differently, that is a good thing. If you just capitulated to pressure, and think the same as always, this type of thing can continue to be used to dominate the majority of the people (on a multitude of different topics).
edit on 9-7-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc



Good. Now, hand me your pistol so I can go destroy some beer cans.




My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I've already asked to have the title changed.
I was under the impression we were to use the title OF THE ARTICLE when we post from other sites.


In the Breaking News Forums that is a rule for posting but it is optional in the other forums although I think it could not hurt to use it if there is one.



edit on 9-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What changed your mind through the course of the thread?

You mentioned elsewhere something that is strikingly similar to the thread title, but in your own words, and no article involved.

I ask because if you are truly seeing things differently, that is a good thing. If you just capitulated to pressure, and think the same as always, this type of thing can continue to be used to dominate the majority of the people (on a multitude of different topics).


I believe the word is caved, not capitulated.

HEIL GRAMMAR!



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?


I have a felling Buzzy could handle your, erm, 'pistol'.

Just sayin.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I've already asked to have the title changed.
I was under the impression we were to use the title OF THE ARTICLE when we post from other sites.


In the Breaking News Forums that is a rule for posting but it is optional in the other forums although I think it could not hurt to use it if there is one.




Unless the title is as blatantly sensational as the one in this thread.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Unless the title is as blatantly sensational as the one in this thread.


Yeah, but a juicy title always gets more attention for a thread, and honestly, we are all here for a good debate anyway.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


What changed your mind through the course of the thread?

Changed my mind? The fact that readers/posters were trying to put the onus of the stupid title on ME...
I did not compose it.
AND
I have felt reassured that the threat is not as large as delineated in the title. Again - I learned about this crowd only last year. I had never heard of them, and they started when I was still in high school - in 1975. Was I taught about them? No.
Not until last year when I attended a conference. Then I started digging. I expect there are MANY people, well-intentioned, educated, sincere voters - who were also unaware that this organization exists, and that the agenda is a LARGE part of what the group intends to push through once they have enough power.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I prefer a Colt or Ruger .22, or better still, a 38 special.

I could handle the 10mm, but the kickback would knock me sideways.


Don't worry, you'll be glad to have me get your back.

But regardless, since that is not going to happen - and to stay on-topic, I am (as I've said) relieved to know that intelligent members don't see the threat as being as clear and present a danger as I worry about. I appreciate being helped to de-escalate my alarm.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity


I believe the word is caved, not capitulated.


I didn't cave. My perspective was tweaked, with help from people I respect.


edit on 7/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I dunno, Im pretty happy with my word choice...

Its more fun to "say," Im sticking with it like a stickety wicket.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join