Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[PoliticalChic]

Word salad.

A poorly designed and diaphanous fib on your part.

You have fallen in respect, and would have been better served by simply not trying to answer.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Rightwingers???
Republicans?


Didn't you know that it was begun by Bill's wife????
A Democrat/Liberal/Progressive.....


"Bombshell: ‘Washington Post’ Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther Movement
...the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.
As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton.


Everything began in March of 2007 when Hillary’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a now-infamous campaign memo laying out his overall plan to win the election.
[Penn] wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”
Bombshell: 'Washington Post' Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther Movement - Breitbart


You've become the best friend the Right can have.
Thanks a bunch.

Hillary Clinton did not start the birther movement. Breitbart and PoliticalChic are incapable of telling the truth.

But it's Politico that said this.....

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.


Read more: Birtherism: Where it all began
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I would like one quote of Hillary Clinton ever making the charge, ever telling others to make the charge, ever confirming that she believed the charge, ever saying she approved of using this in the campaign.

Yes, and I'd like you to post something reasonable.

Neither of us is going to get his wish.

Hillary, the liar, didn't survive this long by admitting anything.

So it's unreasonable to ask for actual credible evidence for the accusation that Hillary is responsible for the birther movement?

Good one.

Please don't hurt your back moving the goal posts.

You claimed that people were liars. When they can reach right over to Politico.

I would more than agree that a quote would be great.

No quote is not as convincing, if it is convincing at all.....

But your claim that they are "liars" puts you in league with Jillihag. It's quite a stretch.

Now that I think of it, you do seem to be a student of hers.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When one begins a sentence with "So....," it implies that the sentence to follow flows from the material to which you are responding.

As that is not the case....you post is a form of lying.

Try to be both more honest, and grammatically correct.

France was not the first nation to throw of Papal control and financial gains through religion..

What does this have to do with post #346.....or, have you retreated from that issue?


It appears that many of your posts are more of the 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' variety.


But....If I'm simply helping you fatten up your post totals.....well, at least it prevents you from hanging out on the street corner.

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

I said I don't agree with her on many things.....I never said one way or the other on the OP.

So you don't disagree with her preposterous assertion that the French Revolution was bloodier than the American Revolution because of Christianity here and not there.

Great. You're as stupid as she is.

I have not read the premise of the OP.....

I think I said....I had not made a comment one way or the other on the OP.

Are you always this prone to make stuff up to argue against.....or has Jillihag been giving you lessons ?

Is that a confession that you are in this thread in total disregard of the topic of this thread?

I am in this thread because a left wing jackass made claims about the founders.

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

France was not the first nation to throw of Papal control and financial gains through religion..

What does this have to do with post #346.....or, have you retreated from that issue?


It appears that many of your posts are more of the 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' variety.


But....If I'm simply helping you fatten up your post totals.....well, at least it prevents you from hanging out on the street corner.

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

So you don't disagree with her preposterous assertion that the French Revolution was bloodier than the American Revolution because of Christianity here and not there.

Great. You're as stupid as she is.

I have not read the premise of the OP.....

I think I said....I had not made a comment one way or the other on the OP.

Are you always this prone to make stuff up to argue against.....or has Jillihag been giving you lessons ?

Is that a confession that you are in this thread in total disregard of the topic of this thread?

I am in this thread because a left wing jackass made claims about the founders.

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

 

[there4eyeM]

Word salad.

You don't recognize when someone is being gentle.

 

[Dot Com]

France was not the first nation to throw of Papal control and financial gains through religion..

What does this have to do with post #346.....or, have you retreated from that issue?


It appears that many of your posts are more of the 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' variety.


But....If I'm simply helping you fatten up your post totals.....well, at least it prevents you from hanging out on the street corner.

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

Just as vulgar as the Popes that bought their way into the position..

PC is the sort of Catholic who thinks Catholics can do no wrong, unless of course they lean left, like her current Pope.

^ that

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

Just as vulgar as the Popes that bought their way into the position..

PC is the sort of Catholic who thinks Catholics can do no wrong, unless of course they lean left, like her current Pope.

Napoleon had the right idea of how to deal with a defunct religious empire..

Napoleon!

Yet another topic that you know less than nothing about.

He actually reversed the excesses of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution's attempts at dechristianization proved such a failure, and mistake, that Napoleon reversed same, and entered into a concordat with the church in 1801.

He reversed the following:
"April 13, April 13, 1798, was a Friday. But it was springtime inrevolutionary Paris, meaning that under the Directory’s new calendar it was the twenty-forth day of the month of Germinal in the Year Six, and the next day of rest was still six days distant, not two.

Has any reform been more futile?The Government’sarrogant discard of Christianitymeans that weeks have been extended to ten days instead of seven. The revision’s intent is to supplant the papal calendar with a uniform alternative of twelve months of thirty days each, based on the system of ancient Egypt. Bibles themselves were torn up to make paper gun cartridges in the grim days of 1793, and now the biblical week has been guillotined, each month instead divided into three decades of ten days, with the year, with the year beginning at the autumn equinox and five to six holidays added to balance idealism with our solar orbit. Not content with regimenting the calendar, the government has introduced a new metric system for weight and measure.

There are even proposals for a new clock of precisely 100,000 seconds each day.Reason, reason!...The new calendar is the kind of logical idea imposed by clever people that completely ignores habit, emotion, and human nature and thus forecasts the Revolution’s doom.

Your colonial revolution [the American Revolution] was one of political independence. This one in France is about the very order of life. My God, a king guillotined! Thousands sent to slaughter! Wars unleashed on every French border! Atheism enshrined! Church lands seized, debts ignored, estates confiscated, rabbles armed, riots, anarchy, and tyranny!"
From the novel “Napoleon’ Pyramids,” by William Dietrich; one gets the sense of the utter stupidity of the "Cult of Reason."

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." "A Laboratory of Liberty: The Transformation of Political Culture in Republican Switzerland, 1750-1848 (Studies in Central European Histories)" By Marc Lerner, p. 83-84
From " Joseph de Maistre: Considerations on France (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)"
byJoseph de MaistreandRichard A. Lebrun





Written in 1797...."There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future."

Maistre could not have imagined the scions of the French Revolution....the Soviet communists, nor Mao.....

The Catholic church should not have been so abusive, or a required tithe collector....Nor should they have hated other sects of Christianity....to the point of exterminating them...

It was not the Church that was responsible for over a half million deaths that resulted from the French Revolution....
...it was the birth of totalitarian governance.
Napoleon was the first modern dictator...

1. The French Revolution, under Robespierre interpreted violence as the ‘language’ that explained to the masses the ideals of the revolution. “If the spring of popular government in times of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror….Terror is nothing other than justice.” Robespierre speech, February 5, 1794.

a. “For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of 'terrorists' as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. The Terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention.” http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5829848/Robespierre-and-the-terror-Marisa.html

b. Sorel and every other advocate of the left, learned and understood this message.

c. Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920


And, of course, the 32nd President of the United States was the facilitator of international communism.

There were civil wars in France in the period that accounted for the 600,000 number.

Remarkably, the death toll for the American Civil War is generally set at 600,000.

Apparently PoliticalChic's Christian Americans had a knack for slaughter too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Word salad.

Only if you believe a salad is of no value.

 

[Dot Com]

A poorly designed and diaphanous fib on your part.

You have fallen in respect, and would have been better served by simply not trying to answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." .

See, now that is classic PC fallacious reasoning at work.

Somebody named Joseph de Maistre declared the French Revolution 'satanic', and that's it,

from that point on every outrageous conclusion about the French Revolution and atheism, or secularism, or humanism, or liberalism that you wish to attach all becomes real and true, because it has the imprimatur of

Joe de Maistre.

too funny

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

 

[Moonglow]

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." .

See, now that is classic PC fallacious reasoning at work.

Somebody named Joseph de Maistre declared the French Revolution 'satanic', and that's it,

from that point on every outrageous conclusion about the French Revolution and atheism, or secularism, or humanism, or liberalism that you wish to attach all becomes real and true, because it has the imprimatur of

Joe de Maistre.

too funny

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

Polichic dreams of the day she too can be a Sans-culotte...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What does this have to do with post #346.....or, have you retreated from that issue?


It appears that many of your posts are more of the 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' variety.


But....If I'm simply helping you fatten up your post totals.....well, at least it prevents you from hanging out on the street corner.

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

I have not read the premise of the OP.....

I think I said....I had not made a comment one way or the other on the OP.

Are you always this prone to make stuff up to argue against.....or has Jillihag been giving you lessons ?

Is that a confession that you are in this thread in total disregard of the topic of this thread?

I am in this thread because a left wing jackass made claims about the founders.

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

 

[Dot Com]

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

ironic isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you always romanticized about living under an enlightened despot and the abuses of the Catholic church?

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

Is that a confession that you are in this thread in total disregard of the topic of this thread?

I am in this thread because a left wing jackass made claims about the founders.

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

ironic isn't it?

Undoubtedly she also admires Robert Filmer's defense of the divine right of kings,

which was the counterpoint to John Locke's arguments for government by the consent of the governed.

Robert Filmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

ironic isn't it?

Undoubtedly she also admires Robert Filmer's defense of the divine right of kings,

which was the counterpoint to John Locke's arguments for government by the consent of the governed.

Robert Filmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sure she will get around to ostracizing the philosophe's desire for a religion of the head and not the heart.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." .

See, now that is classic PC fallacious reasoning at work.

Somebody named Joseph de Maistre declared the French Revolution 'satanic', and that's it,

from that point on every outrageous conclusion about the French Revolution and atheism, or secularism, or humanism, or liberalism that you wish to attach all becomes real and true, because it has the imprimatur of

Joe de Maistre.

too funny

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

Polichic dreams of the day she too can be a Sans-culotte...

You scoff at the idea of being a victim of the Guillotine because, in your case, it would have no effect on your posts.

 

[Moonglow]

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." .

See, now that is classic PC fallacious reasoning at work.

Somebody named Joseph de Maistre declared the French Revolution 'satanic', and that's it,

from that point on every outrageous conclusion about the French Revolution and atheism, or secularism, or humanism, or liberalism that you wish to attach all becomes real and true, because it has the imprimatur of

Joe de Maistre.

too funny

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

Polichic dreams of the day she too can be a Sans-culotte...

You scoff at the idea of being a victim of the Guillotine because, in your case, it would have no effect on your posts.

And they would still be more interesting than yours, with a head....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The French Revolution was viewed as anti-Christian in general and anti-Catholic in particular. Joseph de Maistre, resident in Lausanne, declared in 1797, "There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or are likely to see in the future." .

See, now that is classic PC fallacious reasoning at work.

Somebody named Joseph de Maistre declared the French Revolution 'satanic', and that's it,

from that point on every outrageous conclusion about the French Revolution and atheism, or secularism, or humanism, or liberalism that you wish to attach all becomes real and true, because it has the imprimatur of

Joe de Maistre.

too funny

Oh, btw, de Maistre was in fact an extreme, unrepentant, absolutist defender of the French monarchy, an authoritarian Catholic church,

and tyranny in general.

IOW, an ideal spokesman for the America that PC envisions.

Joseph de Maistre: An Unusual Reactionary | Sveinbjorn Thordarson

Polichic dreams of the day she too can be a Sans-culotte...

You scoff at the idea of being a victim of the Guillotine because, in your case, it would have no effect on your posts.

And they would still be more interesting than yours, with a head....

Both absurd, and blasphemous!!!


You, trying to add to or alter my posts would be akin to drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Word salad.

You don't recognize when someone is being gentle.

You can run, but you can't hide.