Ron Paul 2008!

[Reba]

what does this mean? do you mean to believe that the majority of the republicans oppose him because he doesn't represent the republicans? do you mean that because a great number of republicans oppose him, that he might be wrong?

It has nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong." It has to do with winning the candidacy of his party. If the majority don't vote for him, then he doesn't become their candidate. It's that simple.

it's not the republicans that determine the electability. it's the delegates. we have tons of ron paul delegates ready to go to the caucuses. it's the delegates that determine his nominations.

The delegates at the Republican convention are Republicans. If the majority vote for someone other than Paul, then he's not elected. Most delegates prefer to select a candidate who has a chance of beating the Democrat candidate. They want to win.

you are already deciding the future for yourself. with your statement, you have sealed the moment. you have ultimately decided that he will not be chosen as a republican candidate. your statements reeks of negativity.

Just because I don't support your boy doesn't mean I'm "negative". I could be very positive for someone else.

Just to set the record straight--I'm not a registered Republican; I'm an independent voter.

you are wrong because he has said time and time again that he is not going to run as libertarian.

Third party doesn't always mean Libertarian party. Joe Lieberman ran independent of the Democrat party. Jesse Ventura won the governorship as an independent.

i'd absolutely love to hear about ron paul's points that you do not support. let's get it out here in the open and correct some misconceptions.

OK, later.

if you're not going to vote for ron paul, at least vote for kuncinich on the democratic side.

Huh?

Besides, you don't know for whom I'm voting.

 

[Reba]

If Ron Paul doesn't get chosen as Republican presidential candidate, what will he do?

 

[Eve]

i'm not sure how evolution has anything to do with anti-semitism. ad hominem much?

he doesn't believe in evolution (anyone who doesn't is clearly uneducated).

Well, let’s see…Jews as a general practice of faith (just as with most any other form of organized religion) believe in Divine Intervention as opposed to evolution…therefore, your statement showed great prejudice. I believe I have sufficiently answered your argument, as opposed to attacking your (lack of) character, so I see no “ad hominem” here (except possibly on YOUR part).

I do not value the substance contained in mere blogs. Couldn’t you substantiate your statements with actual news articles? No, I guess not.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. - Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity…”

"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example"

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles.... and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.

The Christian religion-its general principles-must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation , to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

The great pillars of all government and of social life... are virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

...this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.... There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 53 were practitioners of one Christian faith or another. "In God We Trust" But I guess you will now be saying that our forefathers were merely “uneducated”.

And to quote you, “oh, so pitiful...”

 

[Eve]

p.s. I don't happen to believe in evolution either, are you going to take away my degree?

 

[Reba]

[*]ron paul is against the iraq war resolution.
[*]ron paul is against the use of any military attack against iran.

Disagree.

[*]ron paul is against being part of the UN.
[*]ron paul is against being part of the NATO.
[*]ron paul is against being part of the WTO.
[*]ron paul is against being part of any NAFTA deal.

Agree, with some reservations.

[*]ron paul is against any funding of foreign countries including israel.

Disagree.

[*]ron paul is against the federal reserve.

Please clarify. Do you mean he wants it dissolved, or he just doesn't agree with the way it is currently run?

[*]ron paul is against inflation.

What do you mean he is "against" inflation? Is there something he would actually do to prevent it?

[*]ron paul is against big government.

That's good but it's such a broad statement; what would he actually do to downsize the federal government?

[*]ron paul is against the IRS.

If we keep the current form of income taxation, then we need to keep the IRS to manage it. I'm against the current form of income taxation. If we switched to the Fair Tax system ( Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org ), then the IRS could go bye-bye.

[*]ron paul is against the federal reserve.

Repeat.

[*]ron paul is against raising taxes.

Referring to federal taxes? OK.

[*]ron paul is against unbalanced budgeting.

More details please; how would he accomplish that.

[*]ron paul is against the patriot act.

Disagree.

[*]ron paul is against regulating the internet.

Agree.

[*]ron paul is against increasing power of the executive branch.

Each of the three branches need to stay within Constitution's provisions.

[*]ron paul is against the existence of many government departments.

Depends on which ones but in general, I agree.

 

[Yiffzer]

The delegates at the Republican convention are Republicans. If the majority vote for someone other than Paul, then he's not elected. Most delegates prefer to select a candidate who has a chance of beating the Democrat candidate. They want to win.

that's why we have a bunch of delegates ready to go to each convention. we already knew about this. we know that if there are no delegates, there is no chance of winning. there's a lot of people signing up to be delegates for ron paul. expect to see them spam the republican conventions everywhere. ;D

Just to set the record straight--I'm not a registered Republican; I'm an independent voter.

gotcha, and i support that. maybe i should be an independent voter. then again, i don't know if my state allows independents to vote in the primary elections.

Third party doesn't always mean Libertarian party. Joe Lieberman ran independent of the Democrat party. Jesse Ventura won the governorship as an independent.

it doesn't matter. ;D he's not going to run for any third party. he's not going to run as an independent either. he's been asked that hundreds of times in interviews and he's given the same answer.

OK, later.

can't wait. ;D

Huh?

Besides, you don't know for whom I'm voting.

then share who you're considering. mike huckabee? ;D it wouldn't be all that surprising, really.

 

[Reba]

i don't see why huckabee is anything special other than the fact he's a christian extremist.

he doesn't believe in evolution (anyone who doesn't is clearly uneducated).

I don't "believe in" evolution either.

he is for the iraq war (just when we wanted peace!).

Are you saying that Huckabee never wants peace?

he pardoned his son's crimes (how is that any fair?).
he pardoned a rapist and let him free (...).

If he committed illegal or unethical acts, then that is unacceptable. He should be held accountable for his actions, and we should get the full stories.

he is not knowledgeable about iran and its events surrounding it (he doesn't know what NIE is).

He should keep better informed, eh?

he keeps insisting that america was founded by christians and he's "taking it back for christ" (very ignorant of him - america is not founded on christian values).

Although not all the Founding Fathers were born again Christians, they were strongly educated and influenced by Christian biblical principles.

Here's the full context:

From the January 28 edition of Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: I want to ask you a couple things that you said earlier in your political career. "Huckabee ... explained why he left pastoring for politics. 'I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.' " And then this: "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Would you, as president, consider America a Christian nation and try to lead it as -- into a situation as being a more Christian nation?

HUCKABEE: I think it's dangerous to say that we are a nation that ought to be pushed into a Christian faith by its leaders. However, I make no apology for my faith. My faith explains me. It means that I believe that we're all frail, it means that we're all fragile, that all of us have faults, none of us are perfect, that all of us need redemption. We are a nation of faith. It doesn't necessarily have to be mine. But we are a nation that believes that faith is an important part of describing who we are, and our generosity, and our sense of optimism and hope. That does describe me.

RUSSERT: But when you say --

HUCKABEE: I'm appalled, Tim, when someone says, "Tell me about your faith," and they say, "Oh, my faith doesn't influence my public policy." Because when someone says that, it's as if they're saying, "My faith isn't significant, it's not authentic, it's not so consequential that it affects me." Well, truthfully, my faith does affect me. But it doesn't make me think I'm better than someone, it makes me know that I'm not as good as I really need to be.

RUSSERT: But when you say "take this nation back for Christ," what does that say to Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists? What --

HUCKABEE: Well, I think I -- I'd probably phrase it a little differently today. But I don't want to make people think that I'm going to replace the Capitol dome with a steeple or change the legislative sessions for prayer meetings. What it does mean is that people of faith do need to exercise their sense of responsibility toward education, toward health, toward the environment. All of those issues, for me, are driven by my sense that this is a wonderful world that God made. We're responsible for taking care of it. We're responsible for being responsible managers and stewards of it. I think that's what faith ought to do in our lives if we're in public service.

Personally, I don't believe any President should force any American to join or follow a certain religion. But I also believe that no President should put up barriers to evangelism or the practice of religion as long as those practices don't cause harm to others. That includes Christians.

I believe that "taking back America for Christ" means having a good personal Christian testimony, and making my political choices based on biblical principles and prayer. It certainly doesn't mean forced conversions or religious favoritism. If Christians are repentant, faithful, and obedient to Christ, He will bless our nation.

II Chronicles 7: 14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

he wants to tax people despite his website saying he opposes it (yeah, contradiction!)
he contradicts himself all the time (talk but no walk).

That certainly is not attractive in anyone.

 

[Reba]

... i don't know if my state allows independents to vote in the primary elections.

I'm a resident of South Carolina. We're allowed to vote in any primary, regardless of party affiliation. The only restriction is that if you vote in one, you can't vote in another. That's fair.

Maybe I'll vote in the Democrat primary so I can vote against Hillary, heh, heh.

it doesn't matter. ;D he's not going to run for any third party. he's not going to run as an independent either. he's been asked that hundreds of times in interviews and he's given the same answer.

So if he doesn't get the Republican nod, what will he do? Will he support the Republican candidate? Will he try to get on the VP ticket? Will he give his campaign funds to . . . ?

then share who you're considering. mike huckabee? ;D it wouldn't be all that surprising, really.

Not necessarily. But I do like his Chuck Norris commercials. :P

 

[Eve]

Maybe I'll vote in the Democrat primary so I can vote against Hillary, heh, heh.

This is what I had done in the past (when I lived in Texas and was able). My parents still follow this practice. We figure we can deal with whatever Republican candidate is chosen, but there are some Democratic nominees we would rather not have to.

As for this year, since I am a registered Republican, I haven't quite decided between Thompson and Huckabee. I have noticed a LOT of support for Ron Paul here in Idaho, and I can appreciate the grassroots effort I see going on, but I'm still not convinced based on his positions.

 

[Yiffzer]

I don't "believe in" evolution either.

unfortunately people assume evolution is some sort of anti-god approach.

Are you saying that Huckabee never wants peace?

while i didn't mean to imply that, his choice of staying in iraq is poor.

If he committed illegal or unethical acts, then that is unacceptable. He should be held accountable for his actions, and we should get the full stories.

just don't expect the msm to report it. always go underground. then again he has public records out there. spend a couple of hours to check the facts.

Although not all the Founding Fathers were born again Christians, they were strongly educated and influenced by Christian biblical principles.

prove it.

Personally, I don't believe any President should force any American to join or follow a certain religion. But I also believe that no President should put up barriers to evangelism or the practice of religion as long as those practices don't cause harm to others. That includes Christians.

I believe that "taking back America for Christ" means having a good personal Christian testimony, and making my political choices based on biblical principles and prayer. It certainly doesn't mean forced conversions or religious favoritism. If Christians are repentant, faithful, and obedient to Christ, He will bless our nation.

the problem is that huckabee actually believes that god is on his side. as if that can be anymore blasphemous. i can not vote for a guy who thinks god is on his side. it's the same crap president bush pulls when he says he's going to iraq because god told him to. i can not rely on a guy who claims god tells him to do something.

Huckabee: God Wants Me to Be President

everything else being good though. it's nice to have a guy who's extremely pious in their faith but as far as his records go, he isn't showing much of that.[/quote]

 

[Yiffzer]

So if he doesn't get the Republican nod, what will he do? Will he support the Republican candidate? Will he try to get on the VP ticket? Will he give his campaign funds to . . . ?

i don't know at this point.

 

[Yiffzer]

This is what I had done in the past (when I lived in Texas and was able). My parents still follow this practice. We figure we can deal with whatever Republican candidate is chosen, but there are some Democratic nominees we would rather not have to.

As for this year, since I am a registered Republican, I haven't quite decided between Thompson and Huckabee. I have noticed a LOT of support for Ron Paul here in Idaho, and I can appreciate the grassroots effort I see going on, but I'm still not convinced based on his positions.

i'd like to see what points you're not convinced of.

 

[Eve]

prove it.

see my previous post with quotes

i'd like to see what points you're not convinced of.

Basically the same issues Reba has already addressed.

 

[Foxrac]

Ron Paul is just full of BS, I won't vote him, though.

Reba isn't republican or democrat, even not official party but she seems conservative, not all republicans are conservative as well.

 

[Yiffzer]

see my previous post with quotes

Basically the same issues Reba has already addressed.

ah, i never saw that post somehow. thank you for posting a reply.

 

[Yiffzer]

Ron Paul is just full of BS, I won't vote him, though.

full of bullshit? at least explain why. don't just say, "you're bullshitting" without a reason. that's bad practice.

 

[Kaitin]

that's a typical argument against ron paul. ron paul doesn't necessarily agree with their beliefs but they all agree on a common ground and that's liberty, personal freedom, and rights. just because a white supremacist group supports ron paul doesn't necessarily make ron paul a bad person.

No problem to me if any group supports Ron Paul, but I have a problem if Ron Paul accepts money from someone he knows is a white supremecist (no problem if he doesn't know).

i could be the greatest person alive and hitler endorsed me. would that say much about my character? hardly. he takes donations from everyone of different beliefs which is perfectly okay. to argue otherwise would be stupid.

It says much about your character if you know the person is white supremecist and you accept the money IMO. Hitler endorsing you is Hitler's decision but your decision is accepting the money you know from Hitler. Accepting the money is Ron Paul's decision. Not just "different beliefs" but really hating beliefs about non-whites. Ok if someone disagrees about education or many other topics but not white supremecy for me.

 

[Yiffzer]

No problem to me if any group supports Ron Paul, but I have a problem if Ron Paul accepts money from someone he knows is a white supremecist (no problem if he doesn't know).

It says much about your character if you know the person is white supremecist and you accept the money IMO. Hitler endorsing you is Hitler's decision but your decision is accepting the money you know from Hitler. Accepting the money is Ron Paul's decision. Not just "different beliefs" but really hating beliefs abotut non-whies. Ok if someone disagrees about education or many other topics but not white supremecy for me.

you fail big time.

first off, ron paul doesn't even look at who donates him money. he's more busy preaching the message of truth of which we all need to hear. he receives millions of dollars and his staff members take care of the money. ron paul has no idea who or where the money comes from.

second off, he doesn't care to return the money because it's been spent. what you don't get through your fallacious head is that it's $500 more for ron paul and $500 less for the "white supremacist". and you don't understand that the person donated $500 for the cause of his message. and hell, pretty much everyone agrees with his message of liberty, freedom, and rights.

third off, do you even know why that guy donated money to him? read the reason straight from the guy:

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told the Palm Beach Post. Black also indicated he supports Paul's opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens and his strong desire to end the U.S. war in Iraq. "We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice."

hell, i agree with that racist. i agree that tight borders and an opposition to a police state are necessary. i also oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and the war in iraq. what, am i racist too just for agreeing with him? believe it or not, but the constitution agrees with that racist too. what, you're going to cry foul now?

and you're targeting ron paul without realizing there are other candidates that are truly, and i do mean truly, evil. those are the candidates that accept money from special-interest groups and corporations. you're whining about a mere $500 dollars while those evil groups bent on global monopoly are shelling out millions of dollars to those candidates?

i still stand by my statement. if hitler donated money to me for MY cause, for MY message, i would not refuse the money. don't be thickheaded is all i ask of you.

for extra clarification - straight from ron paul on this topic:

CAVUTO: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

PAUL: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes?

You know, I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he is promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, Congressman, when you find out that it's this Don Black who made the donation, and who ran a site called "Stormfront, White Pride Worldwide," now that you know it, now that you're familiar after the fact, you still would not return it?

PAUL: Well, if I spent his money and I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donate it back to him, that does not make any sense to me. Why should I give him money to promote his cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

CAVUTO: So, what do you think, Congressman, of the candidates who do this? Either they say, ah, we got money from a group now we're aware was - - was kind of sticky; we don't want to give it — Hillary Clinton has had to do this, a number of other candidates have had to do this. Do you think that just is a bad practice?

PAUL: I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness, so that they — when you quiz them, and then they can say, oh, Neil, yes, I did exactly what you are suggesting I should do, and brag about how pure they are.

You know. I think that is a bit of pandering. There's no way that I'm not going to institute a policy of looking at 100 — 200,000 of these donations and find out. What about the people who get donations, want to get special interests from the military industrial complex? They put in — they raise, bundle their money, and send millions of dollars in there. And they want to rob the taxpayers. That is the real evil.

I mean, it is the evil that buys influence in government. And this is, to me, the corruption that should be corrected, not to pick out one of my donors out of 100,000 donors and say, oh, Ron Paul is not doing the right thing because he has not sent the money back.

I mean, I think you are missing the whole boat — the whole boat, because it is the immorality of government, it's the special interests in government, it's fighting illegal wars...

CAVUTO: All right.

PAUL: ... and financing, and taxing the people, destroying the people through inflation, and undermining this prosperity of the country.

CAVUTO: OK.

PAUL: Now, there is a moral problem that we should be dealing with. And that should be the responsibility of the government. That is what I stand for.

And, if people send me money and I spend it for that purpose, I feel good about it.

CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.

And, to be fair, your campaign has raised well over $10 million in just a little more a week. Kind of hard to keep track of contributions as little as $500. Thank you very much.

PAUL: People — people believe in our message.

CAVUTO: All right. Thank you. Very good seeing you.

 

[Yiffzer]

It has nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong." It has to do with winning the candidacy of his party. If the majority don't vote for him, then he doesn't become their candidate. It's that simple.

that's why there are major grassroots efforts to making this come to reality.

The delegates at the Republican convention are Republicans. If the majority vote for someone other than Paul, then he's not elected. Most delegates prefer to select a candidate who has a chance of beating the Democrat candidate. They want to win.

i... believe we all know that the delegates at a republican convention are... republicans. ron paul has the experience, intellect, and trustworthiness to beat out any candidate. many people who barely know him already like him. that can't be said much for any other candidate. either way, i'm hoping he will get the ticket.

Just because I don't support your boy doesn't mean I'm "negative". I could be very positive for someone else.

and who might that be?

Just to set the record straight--I'm not a registered Republican; I'm an independent voter.

actually a good idea. i signed up as a republican just for the sake of ron paul. perhaps if my state allows, i'd switch over to being independent. but i'd like to be a delegate for ron paul myself.

Third party doesn't always mean Libertarian party. Joe Lieberman ran independent of the Democrat party. Jesse Ventura won the governorship as an independent.

it doesn't matter. he's not going to run independent either.

Besides, you don't know for whom I'm voting.

i'd love to know.

 

[Yiffzer]

Well, let’s see…Jews as a general practice of faith (just as with most any other form of organized religion) believe in Divine Intervention as opposed to evolution…therefore, your statement showed great prejudice. I believe I have sufficiently answered your argument, as opposed to attacking your (lack of) character, so I see no “ad hominem” here (except possibly on YOUR part).

you seem to be desperate enough to link my disdain for those who are uneducated in science with anti-semitism. i'm a jew myself so it's quite amusing to receive this from you.

you have not answered "sufficiently" because you fail to understand science. how can you argue against what you do not know or understand? you represent the character of anti-intellect.

i'll just say this for your sake. evolution is not anti-god and is in no contradiction (or relation) with religion. the religious are paranoid enough to believe it to be. no scientists insist that the evolution theory disproves religion because those are two entirely different things.

I do not value the substance contained in mere blogs. Couldn’t you substantiate your statements with actual news articles? No, I guess not.

basically you are insisting that news articles are more credible than underground/grassroots bloggers that report things the msm wouldn't. in case you didn't know, the msm is corporate-owned. they decide what to put on the news, not you. bloggers often put on the news that is of actual substance. the msm news we see today feature so much bullshit that it's almost pointless to watch or read. ever wonder why ron paul, kuncinich, or gravel is almost never mentioned on msm? those corporate giants are taking in the money from the highest bidders to block out air time from those three strong and qualified candidates. if you don't believe it to be true, then you're nothing more than a posterboy/girl of ignorance.

Of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 53 were practitioners of one Christian faith or another. "In God We Trust" But I guess you will now be saying that our forefathers were merely “uneducated”.

And to quote you, “oh, so pitiful...”

you've not even listed your source for all these quotes. i would like to admit that there may have been a sense of christian influence but i would argue that the morality most of these congressmen back in the day came from the british common law. but in response to your "quotes", i'll ask you some things:

if america is founded on christian principles or even as a christian nation, then why did the u.s. constitution not include any mention of christianity or being under god?

why does the constitution not make even one mention of god?

how about the declaration of independence? why is there not one mention of christianity or its messenger, jesus?

why did they support the concept of separation of church and state if it was a christian nation (which is indeed the first country in the world to establish that medium)?

why does the first amendment say, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise," when it was a "christian nation"?

why did thomas jefferson first come up with the thought of separation of church and state when he "supposedly" wrote a letter proclaiming christianity was important? this is a deep contradiction.

why did president adams sign a u.s. treaty stating, "as the government of the united states is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion..."? is this not a direct contradiction with the alleged quote?

just an fyi, the "in god we trust" motto originated since 1957 by congress. there were some unofficial coins with that motto in the very late 1800's but those were very few.

i'd suggest you to look up the "lemon test" which is a test that determined whether a law or act is constitutional. you'll understand that we are very much not so a "christian nation". sure we have free christian-practicing people but surely america was not founded with jesus in mind. there is more reason to doubt your "quotes" as i have a gut feeling that some of them may have been exaggerated or modified or just completely created out of thin air.

yes, pitiful indeed.