Maybe my time here is drawing to an end. Since I have been accused of being a zealot, and now classless, perhaps it is time for me to move on....I'll let you all decide....However if my point of view is so different that it is time to move on everyone here needs to ask themselves a deep question. Am I open enough to respect, and like, someone I disagree with. Or, am I not strong enough in my beliefs to oppose another individual, and do so with mutual respect?
I have learned over the course of my life it is those I debate with that I learn the most from. When our founding fathers met for the First Continental Congress they did not all agree. Jefferson, himself a socialist, knew that way of life was not the right direction to take.
Thomas Paine was an atheist, yet his contributions have been heralded as the catalyst of the Declaration Of Independence. Yet In God We Trust is everywhere in our historical documents.
Madison favored a very strong military, while others debated against it. Hence the second amendment.
No one knew WHAT the President should "be" like in the beginning. Is he a king? What do they call him? Congress wrangled over this for days - so long that it became a joke, and the newspapers brutally pointed out that there were more pressing concerns for the infant nation than a 5-day long debate over whether the President should be called "Your Highness" or "Mr". John Adams, who thought the nomenclature of the President was of utmost importance, and spearheaded the long debate about it became a laughingstock (notes being passed back and forth in Congress, basically saying: "Jesus, John, this is not a big deal ... Please stop!"). Adams thought the President should be referred to as, "Your Highness, The President of the United States." (Later, when it was rumored that Adams was a secret monarchist, this innocent "Your Highness" suggestion of his would come back and bite him in the ass.) Somehow, the nonsensical debate ended, much to everyone's relief, and they just settled on the plainer more republican title "Mr. President".
Not agreeing is imperative to any respectable adult relationship. But, if my point of view has so alienated most of you then, it is time to move on? You tell me......
I have learned over the course of my life it is those I debate with that I learn the most from. When our founding fathers met for the First Continental Congress they did not all agree. Jefferson, himself a socialist, knew that way of life was not the right direction to take.
Thomas Paine was an atheist, yet his contributions have been heralded as the catalyst of the Declaration Of Independence. Yet In God We Trust is everywhere in our historical documents.
Madison favored a very strong military, while others debated against it. Hence the second amendment.
No one knew WHAT the President should "be" like in the beginning. Is he a king? What do they call him? Congress wrangled over this for days - so long that it became a joke, and the newspapers brutally pointed out that there were more pressing concerns for the infant nation than a 5-day long debate over whether the President should be called "Your Highness" or "Mr". John Adams, who thought the nomenclature of the President was of utmost importance, and spearheaded the long debate about it became a laughingstock (notes being passed back and forth in Congress, basically saying: "Jesus, John, this is not a big deal ... Please stop!"). Adams thought the President should be referred to as, "Your Highness, The President of the United States." (Later, when it was rumored that Adams was a secret monarchist, this innocent "Your Highness" suggestion of his would come back and bite him in the ass.) Somehow, the nonsensical debate ended, much to everyone's relief, and they just settled on the plainer more republican title "Mr. President".
Not agreeing is imperative to any respectable adult relationship. But, if my point of view has so alienated most of you then, it is time to move on? You tell me......