Have we lost our Country?

Thomas Paine was not an idiot, and he never wrote that.

One of the odder characteristics of the Krazy Kristers is their habit of inventing quotes, even entire narratives, for famous historical figures to have said or been involved in. I'm not sure what the motive is. My guess is that it comes from the necessity (not just the habit) of always arguing from authority when your beliefs have no other basis - the same reason they search Darwin's writings for errors to present as evidence against evolutionary theory, or Einstein's for homage to deity, as evidence of theirs.

The America that we are supposed to have lost in this election has never yet existed. That narrative is fiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An interesting point ... for another discussion

You do make a certain point, sir, although I confess I find it the wrong one for the occasion. Nonetheless, I would point out that far, far, far more people are killed each year by pollution. Should we ban industry?

Hyperbole, yes, but also suggestive that what we call evil is a matter of priorities. Yet, I must reiterate that, while your point is valid, that validity comes in a different context than the issue you addressed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh, i dont think so. one thing i found interesting in the OP was the inclusion of this statement:

"Or is it so, that "educators" have finally succeeded in dumbing down enough people in order to match their low level of intelligence, that we have lost our discernment between right and wrong?"

That can be problematic and compounded even further by the internet. The other day we had someone here (Scott) passing off links that were almost entirely made up as factual.

To ad to the OP's query i would ask -is the internet making us dumber? I have grown up, pretty much, using the internet but i have a natural tendency towards disbelief so from my point of view i read a web site and think - BS, until i verify what is stated.

Your post, on the other hand, contained no facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is called being honest. You should try it sometime. You may want to think twice before debating this specific issue because the evidence is against you. As a matter of fact it is overwhelming.

 

I don't want to worry you, but that's not America.
The clouds are real, but someone has drawn those black lines with a pen.

 

how is a move towards theocracy anti american and/ or unconstitutional?

 

I blame the high schools.

 

Ha, ha! Perhaps the country is lost, eh?

"Firing squads work better when we're not standing in a circle."
-Clusteringflux 2008

 

I blame evolution or more simply de-evolution. America has become too easy, and the stupid breed like crazy.

 

Basically, the OP is suggesting that because Obama supports abortion rights, he is:
1. not religious
2. doesn't know right from wrong

Secondarily, he suggests that soveriegnty rests on ignoring the rest of the world, another strawman argument. We can care about the world and still make our own decisions.

 

(chortle!)

Which is why you're so willing to provide it. Hell, now you've piqued my curiosity. "This specific issue"? I might wonder what you think that issue is.

 

you are correct...I stand corrected It is William Penn who said that.

 

And at this point I add this: There is but one war on Earth...guess who the two parties are that are a war. Guess who's gonna win, and finally, as ol' "kung fu" asked in one salient scene ..."Choose"

 

Yup, 21st century people and those stuck in the past. I'm with the future, the progressives, environmentalists, scientists, secularists, those that envision a better society.

 

Really, I think he never would have got the nomination.

 

Integrity can not be regulated. Piety can not be legislated. Criminal laws which attempt to do either are fairly meaningless to those who do not need them and fairly pointless to those who do.

 

If you throw enough darts ....

You are most likely correct in that, Mr. Roam. Were the people better educated, George W. Bush would never have been president, and the dramatic decline of the nation that set the stage for Obama's rise to prominence would not have occurred.

 

And Bill Clinton would have been impeached and convicted, or lets go back to Jimmy Carter, he never would have been elected, the Shah would have stayed in power and Iran would still be a Allie, and all this shit would never have taken place, no war between Iraq and Iran, and Saddam would still be in power, and O Bin Lid wouldn't have gotten his panties in a bunch over infidels in the Ummah.

 

(Insert title here)

On that count I disagree. The people would have laughed the Republican Inquisition out of town.

It is entirely possible that they would have; after all, who was the alternative? Ford? Now that's a counterintuitive selection right there.

The problem with going back to Carter, of course, is the same problem as any what-if.

If the people were better educated, what wouldn't have happened? Vietnam, for instance. Or ...

... perhaps we never would have overthrown the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, thus securing the Shah's power.

Still, though, how would the Shah still be in power?

Again, we run into the problem of what wouldn't have happened. But how would the Shah still be in power? This is the second time you've connected the election of Jimmy Carter to the Iranian Revolution as if there is some sort of causative connection. You tacitly refused to answer the question before, by the simple expedient of ignoring it. Still, though, the question persists: How is Jimmy Carter responsible for the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi?

Wow, that's a lot to stack on Jimmy Carter. Especially when Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Norman Schwarzkopf are thus excused.