The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

How far we've come.....down the toilet. This first web page is a spoof that was created in 2001.....

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/mission.asp

This second web page is sadly, an actual Department of Justice web page created in 2007.....

http://www.firstfreedom.gov/

Alright!!

I don't believe the nation is in need of a Daprtment of Faith, but I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/

ATV wrote:I don't believe the nation is in need of a Daprtment of Faith, but I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/

I wonder if Barack says to his old lady, "I think I need an 'injection' of fidelity", when he goes away on travel and business trips. How pleasant and comforting that must be.

Huh?

I'm not sure that I understand the offense here? Freedom of religion is a basic american tenet. This isn't protecting the rights of Christians only.

Do you, ATV, have a problem with ensuring that religious freedom is protected? Your hostility towards this concept certainly makes it appear so. I, personally, am agnostic, but recognize that my "religious" choice is also worthy of protaction.

I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

Interesting... I haven't been aware that "morality" has long been a priority of the left. Generally, the view from that side is "no harm, no foul".

A moral liberal... oxymoronic?

Somewhere in that morass inside your head, a point must be lurking.

Perhaps you might like to find it, and introduce us to it.

Countertrey wrote:Do you, ATV, have a problem with ensuring that religious freedom is protected? Your hostility towards this concept certainly makes it appear so. I, personally, am agnostic, but recognize that my "religious" choice is also worthy of protaction.

I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

Interesting... I haven't been aware that "morality" has long been a priority of the left. Generally, the view from that side is "no harm, no foul".

A moral liberal... oxymoronic?

I have two questions for you.

- Isn't the best way to ensure religious freedom to keep the government out of it?

- Have you ever seen a government agency or program that whatever it's intent led to less government involvement in something rather then more?

Countertrey wrote:Do you, ATV, have a problem with ensuring that religious freedom is protected? Your hostility towards this concept certainly makes it appear so. I, personally, am agnostic, but recognize that my "religious" choice is also worthy of protaction.

I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

Interesting... I haven't been aware that "morality" has long been a priority of the left. Generally, the view from that side is "no harm, no foul".

A moral liberal... oxymoronic?

Frankly, I'm a liberal because of the fundamental immorality of today's so called "conservatives," who have added to the old conservative policy of supporting slavery and repression of minorities such things as torture, aggressive war, attacks on basic human rights, the trashing of the environment, religious bigotry, contempt for the poor, corruption of regulatory agencies, the outing of American CIA agents, the breaking of treaties, war crimes, spying on Americans, lying, greed, the attempt to create a privileged class, the corruption of the justice department, the used of morons as figureheads, and the use of the law of the jungle as an economic policy, etc.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Frankly, I'm a liberal because of the fundamental immorality of today's so called "conservatives," who have added to the old conservative policy of supporting slavery and repression of minorities such things as torture, aggressive war, attacks on basic human rights, the trashing of the environment, religious bigotry, contempt for the poor, corruption of regulatory agencies, the outing of American CIA agents, the breaking of treaties, war crimes, spying on Americans, lying, greed, the attempt to create a privileged class, the corruption of the justice department, the used of morons as figureheads, and the use of the law of the jungle as an economic policy, etc.

Nice reading a post with a sense of proportion. I want to criticize Republicans for the pathetic government trusting bible thumping useless losers they are. I beg for an end of the demogogery of them by the Left so I can do that in good conscience. Please, I hate them, let me be on your side!

And it's MORE powerful to criticize them for what they really do then to exaggerate it beyond all sense of proportion, not LESS.

Countertrey wrote:Do you, ATV, have a problem with ensuring that religious freedom is protected? Your hostility towards this concept certainly makes it appear so. I, personally, am agnostic, but recognize that my "religious" choice is also worthy of protaction.

I do believe we need "an injection of morality into our political debate"....

Interesting... I haven't been aware that "morality" has long been a priority of the left. Generally, the view from that side is "no harm, no foul".

A moral liberal... oxymoronic?

Can we also have a department of Atheism or a Department of Magic? How about a Department of Snake Handling?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Can we also have a department of Atheism or a Department of Magic? How about a Department of Snake Handling?

I really am with you here, Crazyhorse, we need fewer departments, not more.

So, CH... I'll sign you up for the "Don't protect the first amendment" side.

You are clearly opposed to protecting religious expression, it appears.

I wasn't aware our freedom of religion was in jeopardy. Maybe they should have a Department of Freedom of Privacy, or Department of Freedom of the Press. Now those are in jeopardy.

Of course this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with sucking up to fundaMENTALists.

Countertrey wrote:So, CH... I'll sign you up for the "Don't protect the first amendment" side.

You are clearly opposed to protecting religious expression, it appears.

I'm trying to figure out your logic here, Trey. Are you:

- Saying we have no first amendment rights for anything that we haven't created a government agency specifically to protect our rights

- Yanking his chain

?