Colin Kaepernick sits during national anthem to protest racial discrimination (low income, violent crime)

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by livinfairfax

What is the big difference? Constitution was founded on biblical thoughts like humans are imperfect.

The founders came from Europe to escape intolerance of certain religions. They wanted ALL religions to be practiced freely and not have the government interfere with it.

Wow. I would suggest you do some research about the Church of England. You might then have a better understanding. One big difference is that there is a huge difference between interfere and influence.

"Under god" was added in 1950s because of the conservative movement to quell progressive movements.

What relevance does this have to my reply? Answer: NONE....for at least 3 reasons (in no particular order):

1. The last 'founder' died well over 100 years before the 1950's.

2. Kap sits through "The Star-Spangled Banner". The words "Under god" were added in the 1950s to the "Pledge of Allegiance", NOT "The Star-Spangled Banner".

3. Given that this has no relevance re my reply, I imagine that you think I'm a 'god person' because my views in general are to the right of yours. Nope. I'm Agnostic.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Obviously in is irrelevant in your own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that that assessment of irrelevance didn't make it into your post. You only addressed my first paragraph in your post, not including any response to my second paragraph.

You toss a great word salad.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Wow. I would suggest you do some research about the Church of England. You might then have a better understanding. One big difference is that there is a huge difference between interfere and influence.



What relevance does this have to my reply? Answer: NONE....for at least 3 reasons (in no particular order):

1. The last 'founder' died well over 100 years before the 1950's.

2. Kap sits through "The Star-Spangled Banner". The words "Under god" were added in the 1950s to the "Pledge of Allegiance", NOT "The Star-Spangled Banner".

3. Given that this has no relevance re my reply, I imagine that you think I'm a 'god person' because my views in general are to the right of yours. Nope. I'm Agnostic.

NONE of your comments in this thread so far have relevance. Move on. Try a history report on why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge and stand and sing to anthem and flag. I'm sure you can find some relevance there to CK?

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You toss a great word salad.

If you choose to define the truth as a word salad, that is certainly your prerogative.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

NONE of your comments in this thread so far have relevance. Move on. Try a history report on why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge and stand and sing to anthem and flag. I'm sure you can find some relevance there to CK?

You aren't a mod. This particular back and forth between you and me is re your opinion/reply re my post to livinfairfax, not a post/reply I made to you.

Livinfairfax felt the founder's intent was relevant. I didn't initially mention it, livinfairfax DID.

I was just putting the record straight re his incorrect interpretation.

If you truly believe that discussing the founders on this thread is out of context, then you would have chastised BOTH me and livinfairfax, not just me.

Why didn't you chastise liveinfairfax as well? There is only one logical answer, which would be obvious to anyone who chose to read the posting history of the three of us. You agree with livinfairfax ideologically, and you disagree with me.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

You aren't a mod. This particular back and forth between you and me is re your opinion/reply re my post to livinfairfax, not a post/reply I made to you.

Livinfairfax felt the founder's intent was relevant. I didn't initially mention it, livinfairfax DID.

I was just putting the record straight re his incorrect interpretation.

If you truly believe that discussing the founders on this thread is out of context, then you would have chastised BOTH me and livinfairfax, not just me.

Why didn't you chastise liveinfairfax as well? There is only one logical answer, which would be obvious to anyone who chose to read the posting history of the three of us. You agree with livinfairfax ideologically, and you disagree with me.

I don't know what either of your ideologies are. Don't care either. I don't like ANY ideologies. I live in Spock's world of logic and facts. Ideologies are a poor excuse for lazy intellect.

So, now we are off further into the weeds. Share your opinion re: CK, if you care to.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I don't know what either of your ideologies are. Don't care either. I don't like ANY ideologies. I live in Spock's world of logic and facts. Ideologies are a poor excuse for lazy intellect.

So, now we are off further into the weeds. Share your opinion re: CK, if you care to.

I respectfully disagree that you live in a world of logic and facts. I think it's the opposite to be honest. I think you should learn to open your mind a bit more.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Land510

The Irony

I can debate in favor of either side if I had to, it doesn't mean I agree, but it shows I understand why people on the opposing side think like they do.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I respectfully disagree that you live in a world of logic and facts. I think it's the opposite to be honest. I think you should learn to open your mind a bit more.

As always, you make a declaration - supported by no facts or data. You "think" - but you don't know and can't show. Give examples where I have been non-factual and or illogical. Ever.

You can't. Yet we readers here are entertained by your endless enthusiasm to provide opinions based on, well, nothing but your feelings. You have been challenged over and over in this thread and others by not only me but many posters to back up what you say (like CK converted to Islam - when there's no evidence that he did). Nadda. Only more ideological and idiotic rhetoric.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As always, you make a declaration - supported by no facts or data. You "think" - but you don't know and can't show. Give examples where I have been non-factual and or illogical. Ever.

You can't. Yet we readers here are entertained by your endless enthusiasm to provide opinions based on, well, nothing but your feelings. You have been challenged over and over in this thread and others by not only me but many posters to back up what you say (like CK converted to Islam - when there's no evidence that he did). Nadda. Only more ideological and idiotic rhetoric.

Roleplay for a moment if you actually want to prove your head isn't stuck in the sand (pretend you are a Trump Republican).

Explain why Trump and Republicans would be better for the country.

If you do this, I will explain why Hillary and Democrats would be better for the country.

---

Showing you can effectively debate in defense of the other side is the easiest way to prove someone isn't brainwashed or stuck in the sand. It doesn't mean you actually agree with it, but you at least understand it.

Most people these days cannot do this. Extreme Republicans will say, "Oh because Hillary will help give us everything for free, so we can watch old re-runs on Oprah all day while the lazy wealthy people pay more taxes to support us" Extreme Liberals will say, "Oh because Trump wants to kick out all poor people and/or non-Whites because we want America to be great again"

So if you want to take the challenge, please explain why Trump and Republicans in general would better our country more and if you can actually prove to me you aren't brainwashed, I will do the same about Hillary and Democrats to prove myself as well.