You find that I was a "producer" incredulous, and when told that such is true, you have no desire to investigate same? you're evaluation of "value" is quite shallow.

Well, the memory is the 2nd thing to go. Just sayin'.

But, why would that matter? Have I taken anything from you?

Scott and I have had a discussion on my participation on the site. How does our accommodation affect you or your evaluation of my participation of me on the site?

It is curious to me that those who have no financial value stake in this site place value on those of us who were identified as "producers" or "moochers." Without knowing that I (or others) had previously been "producers" or not, or whether we had been providing other compensation, you seem to have placed a different "value" on our contribution vs. others who had a golden dollar sign next to their handle.
For this specific site, isn't Scott the one who decides value? And should he decide that a contributor provide same, who are you to judge differently?

When I joined back up after a hiatus, I looked to see if my intellectual contributions were sufficient to garner me "producer of the month" status. I don't really care whether or not I was able to achieve same. I relish the interaction, but am disappointed that those who claim to be rational thinkers are unable to examine thought in a rational manner.

Why do you find that questionable? If you look back at my history, you'll find I've been here for quite a while. Whether that shows that I've paid or not, I cannot say. But just ask OA, he'll confirm.

What victim card?

Truth be told, I was on this site as a "producer" prior to your ever finding it (OA and I had many interesting discussions).

I don't take away from anything that you've added - with the point total that you have, it is clear that you have been a prodigious contributor. But the fact that you seemed to discount my value merely because of a current payment status, is disappointing.

No, please go ahead. It really doesn't bother me.
I've never sought to deny Scott or the providers of this forum some due compensation. And since it looks like there may be an end in sight with the premier of the 3rd film, I thought it was time to re-initiate compensation.

Because the 10 commandments would espouse a specific religious ideology. The founders were not looking to implement a theocracy - as I've acknowledged, and appropriately so. However, the fact that they didn't implement a theocracy isn't proof that they didn't apply a Judeo/Christian ethos as a fundamental underpinning of their creation of the United States.

From the Declaration of Independence:

- ...equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
- We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...

From the US Constitution: This is a document on how the gov't is to be created and the responsibilities of the various branches. It also says nothing about murder or theft being illegal, so what's your point? The property rights aspect is rather mild, with a statement that the congress can implement (not that it had to!) essentially a copyright/trademark/patent office - they shall have the power, not they shall establish. Big difference.

Bill of Rights: Same comments as the Constitution.

There is no meeting of minds here.

You believe in a non-existant phantasm: "natural rights".

See, you should leave belief to the believers.

I do NOT owe my life and my property to God.
I and my property ARE God's property.

If you create a thing, is it your property?

And let's just give you one example:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property"


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Note that in the 2nd Amendment, it is accepted that the rights of "the People" refers to individual rights.

And what do we say about the "looters and moochers"? They use the power of government to take other people's property. Right there in the Constitution, which deals with government/people interaction, not people/people interaction, it says the government shall not covet an individual's goods.

That's okay. You have to sometimes state and restate a proposition before some people can begin to understand it.

Oh wait... Jefferson pandered to his constituents... but Adams wasn't pandering to the Musselmen? You really need to talk to your wife once in awhile.

You first.

"ohn Adams:"The United States Is Not A Christian Nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate and passed into Law by Jon Adams. "

Said right after Jefferson set the precedent of SCREWING our allies. In this case, with lethal results.

There should have been no treaty of Tripoli.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT US FROM RELIGIONS.

the 1st Amendment is carefully worded, and is very clear to anyone who knows history and English, to prevent the GOVERNMENT from IMPOSING a STATE CHURCH on the people, as happened when the British legislature (parliament) created the Anglican Church to serve Henry VIII's SECULAR PURPOSES.

This is not the same thing as us being a Christian nation, which refers to our culture, not our state religion.

The Founding Fathers can say that the United States is a winged unicorn... doesn't make it so.

There is a difference between the nature of the nation and what the Founding Fathers were attempting to promote.

In my heart, I try to be 6'7" tall. That's my intent. "As my body is not in any sense founded in the genetic predisposition for any given height, there is nothing in my genetic makeup keeping me from being 6'7" tall".

I can say that all day long. I can believe that all day long as I try to stretch myself out on a rack.
But,the fact of the matter is, there IS a genetic predisposition to diminutive stature in my family (by today's standards). My father was 5'10"... my mother 4'11". All her sisters and her mother were shorties.

All the men who signed the DoI were raised in Christian households, lived in Christian-dominated societies where the cultural mores and accepted truths were steeped in Christian traditions.
If your premises and presumptions are based in a certain cultural philosophy, no matter what LEGAL structures you erect, the society will still be founded upon that cultural philosophy.

For the willfully stupid out there. America was not inevitable. It was not the result of a group of guys in a tavern saying, "y'know, we should plan out the perfect society with scientific insight from bodies of study that don't even exist yet"

It was the result of Italians prospering and conquering outlying cultures, including, fortunately, those of the British isles.

It was the result of the Son of God sacrificing Himself for our sins, in a message so powerful and meaningful to the people of that era that it pushed aside the functional pagan religions of the era, and introduced the idea of the individual as having his own divine spark and value.

It was the result of Richard Lionheart constantly getting his ass captured and needing to be rescued trying to free the Holy Land.

It was the result of King John, as a result of the above, developing an appetite for taxation.

It was the result of Henry VIII wanting yet another wife.

It was the result of Martin Luther's objection to the corruptions of the Catholic Church.

It was the result of the Inquisition's creation in an attempt to battle the expansion of Islam.

In short, it was the culmination of the cultural history of white anglo-saxon males, which was for most of the preceding millennium steeped in Christian beliefs and premises.

Anyone who thinks that we are not a "Christian nation' must logically conclude that Obama's upbringing in Islam-dominated Indonesia had no effect on his cultural outlook... and therefore must turn a blind eye to the why of the disaster our foreign and domestic policies are.