Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Hi Everyone:

Not too long ago I heard an interview on Hannity and Colmes with Alphonse D'Amato where he stated that he had already endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Now the interview had nothing to do with poker or gambling of any sort, but I can't help but wonder what Thompson's views are in this area?

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Yes, I heard this a few weeks ago and posted it here at that time. I looked around for public statements by Thompson but couldn't find any.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Fred Thompson will say nothing about poker (if he and AD are really friends) or he will be against us. His possible run for the presidency depends on his appeal to the far-right moralists (who cant stand McCain-old wounds, or Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

I would like to be proved wrong, good luck in doing so.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

The biggest obstacle I is see with the GOP contenders in 2008 is two fold.

The new ‘catch phrase’ among the GOP top tier (Romney, Thompson, et al) is Federalism. However, they also want to be in bed with the Far Right (FoF, Dobson, et al) and the two are mutually exclusive positions.

The right conservatives want to legislate morality; a true Federalist wants limited federal government preferring states / individual rights.

They cannot have their cake and eat it too, though they seem to think so. This mantra of federalism is simply the Bush catch phrase ‘Compassionate Conservative’ repackaged and we see where that got us.

obg

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

IMO, this entire movement goes deeper than gambling. More and more it is looking like a back-door way for the government to regulate internet commerce.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

I agree completely that regulating internet commerce is at the heart of the government's efforts. However, no government can regulate the internet due to its changing and anonymous nature. Soon, there will be other currencies which will erode more government power.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree and I wish that online gambling was the only symptom of this problem rather than a small symptom.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am only going to paraphrase for now, I am on the wrong computer and no files.

As to the 'founding' fathers, I generally look to Jefferson on most matters.

On religion, it was he who coined the phrase, WALL of Separation.

It was Jefferson, after being elected, wrote to the Methodist Church and informed them that he
appreciated the support, BUT, they were expect no and would receive no special favors or
treatment from him or his administration.

It was Jefferson, upon becoming I believe when VP? he RESIGNED from his church and
afterwards went to a non-denominational church.

THIS my friend was the mood then, remember, the U.S. had just left England AND a country
WITH an official religion and they were in NO mood to risk the same again.

Notice the Declaration and Constitution, the word God is never used, preferring creator in a generic form, showing no preference to anyone or any group.

Heck, creator could mean anything.

Religion was a matter for EACH state to deal with as it saw fit, individually, not collectively.

obg

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Skallagrim was talking about the America of today, not the one of 200 years ago, complete with slavery, insane per capta liquor consumption, and scarlet letters for adulteresses. Today, the idea of the federal government forcing morality on people by banning Internet poker through banks spying on financial transactions and ISPs spying on citizens' web browsing habits is anti-American, at leat IMHO.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

"Things ain't like they were in the old days. They never were." Will Rogers

People in this country have always had a fond, but irrational view of the past. They also have a strong desire to return to a past that never was what they remembered it being. Things were the same then as they are today, and always will be. The hope is by returning to the past, we can control the chaos of today, as if it were controlled back then.

I grew up in the Sixties. Some remember it fondly. Not I. It was pretty horrible. Much of the worst parts of the present started back then.

We are always looking for simple solutions where none exists. We want leaders who lead, yet are afraid of anyone with new ideas, as if the old ones have been tested and we're going in the right direction. It's a weird psychosis.

The biggest problem in this country is fear, and it dominates everything. Fear of foreigners, of losing what little you have, fear of government, fear of people who don't believe as the person holding that fear believes. Fear has been the foundation of those who've been holding the Republican Party hostage for the past 30 years, and as such, the whole country hostage. Until a leader comes along who can break that hold of fear and pushes the people to rise above it and have hope, we're going to continue along the path we've been on, and go nowhere.

As to the original question, it doesn't matter what Fred Thompson believes or doesn't. He won't be there. He was a light-weight Senator who accomplished nothing. If he gets into the race, he'll be quickly found out and that will be that. One actor per 200 hundred years, please.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Today, the idea of the federal government forcing morality on people by banning Internet poker through banks spying on financial transactions and ISPs spying on citizens' web browsing habits is anti-American, at leat IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you on that.

I just think it's easy to try and look at the current politics of the country and forget 200 years of history and what this country was founded on, which was strong Christian morals. I only have a minute, so I can't properly respond to OldBookGuy, but while he does bring up some decent points, I slightly disagree with some other points.

All I'm saying is this, our founding fathers were for the most part very devout Christians who held strong Christian beliefs and morals. Our country, our rights, and our founding papers all show this strong Christian influence. I just don't think we can ignore all of this and say that legislating morality is anything new or something that any one party just dreamed up. I also believe our founding fathers would most likely be a part of FOF before the ACLU.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

On religion, it was he who coined the phrase, WALL of Separation.

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was assuring them that government would not interfere with their free practice of religion.

I think it is safe to say that while all of the founders came from the Christian tradition, their feelings on what "morals" should be incorporated into law varied as much then as they do now, running the gamut from basic libertarian libertines like Franklin to fundamentalist followers of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards.

I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

Not too long ago I heard an interview on Hannity and Colmes with Alphonse D'Amato where he stated that he had already endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Now the interview had nothing to do with poker or gambling of any sort, but I can't help but wonder what Thompson's views are in this area?

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul > Fred Thompson

Best Wishes

Emperor

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the exact type of near-sighted thinking I'm talking about. These types of comments show how poorly our public schools are really doing in teaching the real history of US.

Oh and Kurn, I agree 100%

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

The Founding Fathers weren't mostly Christian. They were male elites in a society where going to church was THE social/political center of life. You bit your tongue and used sound bytes, and spoke in code. A lot were out and out criminals. They drank, gambled, womanized, and scoffed at authority, political and religious. In private the scoffed at the religious order of the day. Hell, George Washington had no problem using lottery money to fund the Continental Army. He was one of the biggestdistillers of rum for use in triangle trade. He started a damn civil war
to go after unlicensed and unregulated distillers whom he saw
as business rivals.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible that eliminated all references to Jesus as god and expressed deep admiration for Hindu philosphy in his writings. Ben Franklin, John Adams and George Washington were well known "deists" - they accepted a god, but hardly were devout christians. These are just a few examples. The founding fathers knew full well the history of Europe and its (then) seemingly endless religious wars and set about specifically to insure the same did not happen here.

You sir, are the one with absolutely NO knowledge of American History.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religious fundamentalists are not a problem in the US. Hell, they're a PITA everywhere in the world. But let's be realistic about history. Ask yourself this: Could they get the constitution amended to criminalize internet gambling (or any other of their hot button issues)?

Careful, now, that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses *plus* ratification by 38 States. The answer is, they can't. If they could, they would've done it with abortion 20 years ago.

Yet 89 years ago they had the power to make liquor illegal. They are not even remotely close to that kind of influence today.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Interesting thread fellas

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Kurn, that was not directed at you. It was directed at LuckyTxGuy and all who buy the revisionist history currently being spouted by FOF and its minions.

The post says reply to you only because you posted last before mine.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many wives or Mormon. Hmmm. Sounds like the same problem to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Thanks BigAl, I needed a laugh!

obg

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Every Christian should think of that. When you have to go out into the world, you have to struggle with those issues on what you encounter. I was lucky in college to have a very awesome class on natural politics and The Bible as a political document was part of it. Its like trying to figure out Shakespeare's politics, its hard. It does come down to what you say, you are called as an individual to give up the world, die to self, and take the cross and follow Christ. If you are really harsh and strict, any of us who have jobs and keep money and ignore duress in the world are sinning. A good place to look as well is Dostoyevsky. Brothers Karamazov, open it, start at "The Brothers make friends" and read thru "The Grand Inquisitor".
No matter what denomination or faith you espouse, Jesus refused repeatedly secular authority, and any interpretation towards politics has to honour that. If you want to look at the Old Testament, look at Isaih. Chapter and verse are elude me at the moment, but Aquinas references the part where when an evil leader is presiding over a nation, people should look at their own sins, and that God chooses who will rule over them, and not YOU. If God wants Bill CLinton president, Bill CLinton will be Pres. Not whoever FoF endorses. If God wants a policy he will move the leader to that policy, look at Pharoah in Egypt(Pharoah only hardened his heart after the first plague, then God hardened it).
Nothing makes me angrier as a Christian than hearing these little fake ass, holier than thou, home schooled, brainwashed young fucktards say Gambling is a sin. A perfectly nice girl who works at Starbucks said that and I lit into her and I hope I made her cry for saying something that stupid. Its regrettable no one seems to want an education to look at The Bible and what God says, they rely on mass produced commercialized brainwashing. Catholics have it a bit better I think, as they have always been strict in theology with high educational standards, but Protestants have always been prey to charismatic leaders who
spout drivel for donations and now votes. I had to bite my tongue at a funeral recently when some guy was BRAGGING he had a degree from Southeastern Seminary.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religious fundamentalists are not a problem in the US. Hell, they're a PITA everywhere in the world. But let's be realistic about history. Ask yourself this: Could they get the constitution amended to criminalize internet gambling (or any other of their hot button issues)?

Careful, now, that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses *plus* ratification by 38 States. The answer is, they can't. If they could, they would've done it with abortion 20 years ago.

Yet 89 years ago they had the power to make liquor illegal. They are not even remotely close to that kind of influence today.

[/ QUOTE ]

My issue with the Religicans runs much deeper than the UIGEA. While they may not have enough power to make online gaming illegal, they are in positions where they are setting policy, including foreign policy. Not all neo-cons are secular.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Every Christian should think of that. When you have to go out into the world, you have to struggle with those issues on what you encounter. I was lucky in college to have a very awesome class on natural politics and The Bible as a political document was part of it. Its like trying to figure out Shakespeare's politics, its hard. It does come down to what you say, you are called as an individual to give up the world, die to self, and take the cross and follow Christ. If you are really harsh and strict, any of us who have jobs and keep money and ignore duress in the world are sinning. A good place to look as well is Dostoyevsky. Brothers Karamazov, open it, start at "The Brothers make friends" and read thru "The Grand Inquisitor".
No matter what denomination or faith you espouse, Jesus refused repeatedly secular authority, and any interpretation towards politics has to honour that. If you want to look at the Old Testament, look at Isaih. Chapter and verse are elude me at the moment, but Aquinas references the part where when an evil leader is presiding over a nation, people should look at their own sins, and that God chooses who will rule over them, and not YOU. If God wants Bill CLinton president, Bill CLinton will be Pres. Not whoever FoF endorses. If God wants a policy he will move the leader to that policy, look at Pharoah in Egypt(Pharoah only hardened his heart after the first plague, then God hardened it).
Nothing makes me angrier as a Christian than hearing these little fake ass, holier than thou, home schooled, brainwashed young fucktards say Gambling is a sin. A perfectly nice girl who works at Starbucks said that and I lit into her and I hope I made her cry for saying something that stupid. Its regrettable no one seems to want an education to look at The Bible and what God says, they rely on mass produced commercialized brainwashing. Catholics have it a bit better I think, as they have always been strict in theology with high educational standards, but Protestants have always been prey to charismatic leaders who
spout drivel for donations and now votes. I had to bite my tongue at a funeral recently when some guy was BRAGGING he had a degree from Southeastern Seminary.

[/ QUOTE ]


There are some good points in here. As a Christian, I frequently struggle with what laws should and should not be enacted in this country. Over the past few years I have realized that just because I believe something is right does not mean it should be a law. I think homosexuality is wrong, but that does not mean that I am screaming for it to be outlawed. Why? Because I cannot easily demonstrate that it is directly harmful to a secular society. This same reasoning applies to great deal of other topics.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Relax, bro. FoF came after us and our livelihood, not the reverse. We have every right to call them on it.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Saw this on a bumper sticker and thought it wasn't the first time I've seen truth right in front of me:

"I'm not a Liberal. I'm well educated."

Great thread, guys, and I actually learned quite a bit from it. Good job.

Txguy, sorry you feel the way you do. Unfortunately, your reaction is pretty typical. The negativity would be appalling to your Teacher. (That's what he was called, you know? Teacher? Rabbi.) There can be no discussion because since we don't believe as you believe, we must be wrong. That's kinda sad.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what bs they spoonfeed babies in school now but this country, and every ideal in its founding is pure and simple the product of The Enlightenment. Maybe some of those guys were Christians, you can argue most all of them either way, Im conflicted that its NOT a Christian founding, but after a long self education, Im happy because established Christianity has [censored] every country its come in contact with. You think maybe its God's way of telling us not to sully His Word by trying to rule with it?

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Thank you legislurker. And to luckyTxguy, just because I can demonstrate from historical record that your version of history is incorrect, doesnt mean I think you're a bad guy. A nice weekend to you too.

The great success of the US as an "immigrant nation" is due precisely to our traditiional of religous tolerance and church/state separation. You modern "christians" ( I put that in quotations because somewhere else I would try and demonstrate that FOF's version of christianity is opposite of what the Gospels really teach), need to remember that there used to be a lot of christian on christian violence and wars. Do you really think that if you were succesfull in enshrining one version of christianity as law the religious wars would never happen again? And what if the enshrined version is not your particular version?

Individual decisions based on a morality derived from faith are a great thing.

Trying to turn that faith into a system of laws enforced by the state is the first step to fascism/despotism and has always (historically) led to a society's ultimate failure or eclipse by other more free (hence more adapatable) societies.

Decisions of state, as I read the Bible, are precisely in the domain of the "ungodly." They are thus best based on a reasoned approach as to what works for the greatest good and still protects the rights of individuals to be individuals. Only by agreeing to this can members of different faiths also manage to live peacefully and productively side by side. This, at it its best, is what America is all about and why I love this country (even though I think it has gotten pretty screwed up lately - mostly by certain persons' misguided faith - and by that I am not referring to LuckyTxGuy).

Skallagrim

PS to xchamp: Your conclusions are precisely the kind of conclusions our more religious founding fathers would make and did make (although homosexuality would have been even too hot of topic for them at that time). I like the way you think, and remember that the same constitution that protects the basic civil rights of gays also protects your church from having to accept gays or give them equal church rights. This would not be so in a "Christian Country" where the majority of "christians" accepted gays equally and so told all christians to act that same way.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

One of the true patriots said, "if the Constitution protects a scumbag like me, you don't have to worry."

I can watch porn, play poker, drink a beer and smoke a cigar. I choose to do only one of those four things. As long as all four remain legal, I can make a choice. Make any of them illegal, which do I choose? Who would choose for me?

Americans have a choice. That's what makes it what it is.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

The post says reply to you only because you posted last before mine.

Ah, the "quick reply" glitch. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many wives or Mormon. Hmmm. Sounds like the same problem to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[/ QUOTE ]

New campaign slogan: "Rudy Giuliani - One Wife at a Time."

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.