I need to start out correcting an error I made yesterday. I stated that friends my same age were being drafted. This is wrong. There were two friends in my class that were my same age group but they are 2 to 3 years older.
This actually brings to my main point. Since you are so much more educated on the Selective Service than I am, I wonder why it never occurred to you to simply ask me my birth date. Had you done so this entire fiasco you created could have been avoided. Since it is in 1954 you would then instantly have realized that student deferments had ended a couple of years earlier and that the year my number was picked (1973) was the first year that no one was drafted under the new lottery (actually no one during the last half I think). Frankly, after I realized back then that there was almost no chance I would be drafted (i.e. after my very high number was drawn) I quit paying attention to how things worked. The U.S. participation was winding down and I was moving towards a life that did not include doctorate degrees in related affairs. But even after I posted the link you still were not done distorting what I said one year ago. Now you question what I called a “form of deferment” was a medical or “psych” deferment. All you did through all of this was nitpick my terminology in order to support the incorrect conclusion you had already made. A normal person when presented with data that does not make sense to them does not assume the very worst motives regarding the delivery of the data.-- Modified on 8/2/2014 12:02:44 PM
Millions came here to avoid religious persecution. This country is a Democratic Republic and not a Theocratic Watermelon! If these Republicans want to run their governments by "God's Will", they can leave and go somewhere else like Pakistan or Afghanistan or even Israel. They are all rich in theocracy.
From the early beginnings of what was to become the USA, people have been fleeing religious persecution only to become the persecutors once they became the majority.
The GOP may be the party of the Thumpers today, but this has been going on since the days of the Mayflower and even before. If you doubt me, name one politician who holds national office who is an 'out of the closet" atheist or agnostic from either party.
You really want that SPOTY, don't you? Ok, if you really want to enter the competition that badly, I will set a "morning line" on you and put you on the leader board. lol
There have been a couple. Ventura in MN and Lori Brown Nevada state senator in the 90's but it very limited. In some cases atheists' that won elections were barred from even taking office.
and I think by your response that you actually agree with me.
If you publicly denounce believing in a "higher power" you are effectively committing political suicide. Even in "enlightened" places like California.
...of the atheist closet in 2007.
James Woods of AZ is running for Congress and is openly campaigning as an atheist.
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/04/27/meet-james-woods-first-open-atheist-elected-congress/
Religious people are not persecuted in this country, people wanting freedom "from" religion are the outcasts. and while I will agree that the GOP is the party of the thumpers, the Dems are hardly immune from it, otherwise pols wouldn't have to "come out" about being atheists/agnostics.
Funny, people would bend over backwards to claim to be "open minded" and "accepting" of the beliefs of a Muslim, but admit you think it's all hogwash and your political career might as well be over.
...didn't say: "Name several atheists because if you name one or two you'd have to agree that those are 'exceptions' which would prove my point."
You wanted one, you got one, possibly two and now they're just exceptions? Make up your mind.
Especially since I bet we agree on the larger point. but this has become tiresome. So please GFY
I won't make the mistake of attempting to agree with you again.
...move the goalpost because when you were shown one atheist, as you requested, you wanted ME to agree with YOU that one was only an exception when you only asked for one in the first place. You couldn't even tell the truth about who was attempting to agree with whom.
You want to know what's tiresome? Your continuous obfuscation instead of just admitting you were wrong. You got the info you requested, then you started dancing, saying it was only an "exception." You better up your GaGame.
You showed me one example of a guy who had to lie to get elected, and another who hasn't even been elected. As I said, I was trying to be agreeable, but as usual even your nit picking is inaccurate. Time to put those bon bons down and up your game
Here is the opening paragraph from your own linked article
"If he is successful, Arizona’s James Woods will be the first person elected to United States Congress to openly campaign as an atheist."
Now would you care to provide a REAL example, or would you prefer to follow your own advice and simply admit you were wrong?
...that someone "name one politician who holds national office who is an 'out of the closet' atheist or agnostic from either party."
I named Pete Stark who served 17 terms in Congress then came out of the closet in 2007 as an atheist and served three more terms. Obviously he was campaigning openly as an atheist for three terms. Yet you're grasping at the article in a vain attempt to save face. ROFLMAO!
Let me tell you something. There is no GOD that we can see in person, talk to or listen to! To Use that invisible and non-existent "thing" to drive your policy and force others to follow you is persecution. People who want to use the same thing to legislate should go somewhere else where Theocracy is accepted.
Here we have internet (you are able to write your BS! LOL), Facebook, Twitter, we can deposit our checks and cash in an ATM, make airline reservation using smart phones, and like in my house lock, unlock doors, turn on and turn off lights with iphone. We have come a long way and left invisible and non existent things far behind, LOL.
We are not living in the 15th century!
atheism in itself is a system of beliefs. It is a religion. It is all in your mind, it is invisible and it is non-existent. And yes, that fact applied in the 15th century as well as it does today.
Do you outlaw these religions?
Do you prohibit them from holding public office?
Do you take away their voting rights?
Do you take away their freedom of speech?
Or do you just continue to attempt to humiliate them?
Just keep your religion at your home, LOL. Don't force it and your beliefs down the throats of other people. Last but not least, don't legislate using your religious beliefs that can prevent others from living their lives like they want it
OK, murder and stealing were declared wrong in the Old Testament. Are you saying they should not have been codified as crimes? Of course we'll agree that idea is absurd. So when other ideas of morality that are cited in the bible, you or the atheists should be the sole arbiters of the validity of each point.
Apparently you DO want to prevent religious people from participating in politics. That's the reality of what you are saying because asking or requiring them to check their religion at the door is absurd.
""To Use that invisible and non-existent "thing" to drive your policy and force others to follow you is persecution. People who want to use the same thing to legislate should go somewhere else where Theocracy is accepted.""
You do realize that "invisible" and "non-existent" are 2 separate qualities. I don't think there are quarrels about "it's" visibility but to "it's" existence, unless you are able to provide PROOF, that is an open issue. To claim non-existence without proof is close-minded idiocy. Maybe you just take it on faith.....Oh dread!
For $100dogdick and no one else, the dotted line denotes a separate between MY words and the written words of others. Being a blabbering moron, I'm sure he'll still accuse me to trying to plagiarize the Declaration of Independence!!!
.........................................................................................................................................
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.............................................................................................................................................
When you consider that this document is the very starting point of our republic, it suggests that if YOU don't like it, YOU should leave.
"""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"""
So you see, government's primary function is to serve as a vehicle to ensure the rights given to us by our Creator endowed us with. Note the capitalization of "Creator".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
A creator deity or creator god (often called the Creator) is a deity responsible for the creation of the world (cosmos or universe). In monotheism, the single God is often also the creator deity. A number of monolatristic traditions separate a secondary creator from a primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[1]
Word
Your dumb ass even used quotes and subheadings to give proper credit! I see you made the needed corrections! So after you were taken to school and embarrassed, you learned your lesson! Way to go idiot! Nice try, you just proved you are a fucking idiot and retard that did not have a clue about citations. Remember, you learned that in elementary school bitch! Like I told you old racist, you are fucking with the wrong one! Now stfu!
You do realize that "invisible" and "non-existent" are 2 separate qualities. I don't think there are quarrels about "it's" visibility but to "it's" existence, unless you are able to provide PROOF, that is an open issue. To claim non-existence without proof is close-minded idiocy. Maybe you just take it on faith.....Oh dread!
For $100dogdick and no one else, the dotted line denotes a separate between MY words and the written words of others. Being a blabbering moron, I'm sure he'll still accuse me to trying to plagiarize the Declaration of Independence!!!
.........................................................................................................................................
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.............................................................................................................................................
When you consider that this document is the very starting point of our republic, it suggests that if YOU don't like it, YOU should leave.
"""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"""
So you see, government's primary function is to serve as a vehicle to ensure the rights given to us by our Creator endowed us with. Note the capitalization of "Creator".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
A creator deity or creator god (often called the Creator) is a deity responsible for the creation of the world (cosmos or universe). In monotheism, the single God is often also the creator deity. A number of monolatristic traditions separate a secondary creator from a primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[1]
Word!
Threads that expose people for who they really are!
Therefore it must be your personal attacks and violent references they object to.
Once again, you've proven to be dishonest.
Lastly, I'll repeat. You have become pitifully pedantic.
I realize we live in a time where any criticism is considered racist so tilt away Nutty professor!!
dumbass, your students deserve a refund
Our posts disappeared only because they were in response to your offensive post.
Your lying, racialist ways have caught up to you once again.
Be sure you try to have a nice day.
Especially the one where 2000 openly stated " he received the same type of deferment as Ted Nugent. " Little dick, you waved the white flag of defeat and was called out on that fact! 2000, where is the proof I lied about anything?
Your lying, racialist ways have caught up to you once again.
Be sure you try to have a nice day.
I have already explained to you (one year ago) in great detail what I meant by saying "the same type of deferment". I had a lottery deferment via a very high lottery number, not a student deferment. The effect was similar. I didn't get drafted when others around me, my same age were being drafted, but I wasn't asked to serve.
From that first post forward, whatever your own personal reasons were, you started calling me a draft dodger. You twisted my conversation further to support your agenda not based on any facts.
If anyone cares to look here is the link. It speaks for itself:
If one were to read the entire link, they would notice how your story changes after you were challenged. First you had a deferment like Nugent who played crazy! Are you saying you played crazy? Then you were 1A and did not know what it meant.
It was obvious you did not know what you were talking about and Google became your friend very fast. Considering 69-73 were the toughest years, your statements do not add up. Then you tried to use today's selective service to keep from being caught in a lie.
Now which one is it? Bottom line is you did not serve your country when needed. Also, I make it very clear how many minorities were denied deferments at the same time. As I also stated, I ceded the typing errors, but that is all. By the way, I thought you were through with me?
From that first post forward, whatever your own personal reasons were, you started calling me a draft dodger. You twisted my conversation further to support your agenda not based on any facts.
If anyone cares to look here is the link. It speaks for itself:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=214090&boardID=39&page=#214090
I need to start out correcting an error I made yesterday. I stated that friends my same age were being drafted. This is wrong. There were two friends in my class that were my same age group but they are 2 to 3 years older.
This actually brings to my main point. Since you are so much more educated on the Selective Service than I am, I wonder why it never occurred to you to simply ask me my birth date. Had you done so this entire fiasco you created could have been avoided. Since it is in 1954 you would then instantly have realized that student deferments had ended a couple of years earlier and that the year my number was picked (1973) was the first year that no one was drafted under the new lottery (actually no one during the last half I think). Frankly, after I realized back then that there was almost no chance I would be drafted (i.e. after my very high number was drawn) I quit paying attention to how things worked. The U.S. participation was winding down and I was moving towards a life that did not include doctorate degrees in related affairs.
But even after I posted the link you still were not done distorting what I said one year ago. Now you question what I called a “form of deferment” was a medical or “psych” deferment. All you did through all of this was nitpick my terminology in order to support the incorrect conclusion you had already made. A normal person when presented with data that does not make sense to them does not assume the very worst motives regarding the delivery of the data.
-- Modified on 8/2/2014 12:02:44 PM
That was stone cold bust for stealing others words. You should be tired of me flogging you by now but some idiots never learn! Word from Jamaica idiot!
-- Modified on 8/1/2014 6:09:25 PM
has dolled out a BILLION Dollars in compensation to those who have been molested by the church's own moral and 'God fearing' servants.
“Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"
(Voltaire