I was out eating lunch in Seattle's Wallingford neighborhood (88% for Obama/Biden in 2008). I overheard a middle-aged man and woman laughing with approval about Sarah Palin toilet paper.
"I'd use that!", he smiled. "Then again, I wouldn't. Some things are sacred".
I turned to the man and said cheerfully "And I thought the tea-party people were supposed to be the nasty ones".
He replied: "Yeah, their uninformity keeps following them around."
Exactly, I thought to myself. Just like that idiot Sarah Palin with her uninformity and inability to use words properly!
"There's even one I know", he continued, "who just learned what tea-bagger meant. He didn't even know until now what it really meant".
"That's another funny one," I said drily.
It's both funny and sad that so many tea-baggers are as nasty as they are even though they lack the informity of the highly evolved Wallingford liberals.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 02, 2011 02:45 PM | Email ThisFirst, it "really means" multiple things. Words are funny that way.
Second, why *should* anyone understand some crass meaning he has for the word? It's sad that certain people believe it is in any way wrong to not be fully informitized about lewdness.
That is one area we treat as a big city slum, our family is not allowed to go there
I suppose you're writing this from some bunker in Idaho, sustaining yourself on freeze dried turkey tetrazzini and the smell of cordite, waking each dawn safe in the notion that you've constructed your earthly abode with your two calloused Galtian hands and not one whit from some parasitic Kenyan islamocommunistifascist government. Do you retire to that special place each evening to relieve your aching loins with the assistance of sticky, crumpled pictures of Pammy Geller and Sarah Palin, knowing that the shame and sin of your Onanism is a small price to pay for the quivering, the tumescence, the visions of Caribu Barbi?
Or is that where pudge blogs from?
*******
in tact
Watch out! Pudge may ban you for poor spelling! (Though I think teahaddists are graded on a curve around here ;))
Liberals aren't dissing gay conservatives with our taunts about "teabaggers", we're dissing clueless conservatives about adopting the name "teabagger" in the first place, without having the faintest notion of its meaning in popular parlance.
*****
If a conservative referred to gays as a bunch of teabaggers
Conservatives usually use much more offensive terms.
liberals openly slur conservatives who are gay with a level of bigotry equivalent to that of the Jim Crow South
Quite the hyperventilating there, Matt - got something you want to get off your chest?
Really though, what are you talking about? When was the last time a liberal lynched a gay conservative? As if one could even find a gay conservative - most of the gay conservatives are closeted - they become liberals when they come out.(or get arrested for buying crank from their gay prostitute masseurs and then kicked out of their evangelical megachurch corporations)
I didn't imply that you isolate that slur to just gay conservatives.
we're dissing clueless conservatives about adopting the name "teabagger"
Conservatives didn't adopt that slur.
Conservatives usually use much more offensive terms.
That's a lie.
When was the last time a liberal lynched a gay conservative?
I said you slur conservatives, not that you lynch them.
Posted by: Matt M. on February 2, 2011 07:16 PMYes, but that's more commonly known as illiteracy (see ebonics).
Posted by: Rick D. on February 2, 2011 07:47 PMReally, Matt? I would love it if you could show me the 'gay-conservative only' water fountains, or the shoddy, run-down 'gay-conservative only' schoolhouses. Or a single bus with a 'gay-conservative only' back section.
What a pack of drama queens - conservatives raise victimhood to high art. I suppose that's essential to being susceptible to the dog-whistles - whom to fear, whom to hate, whom to blame.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 2, 2011 07:59 PM@16 "I thought they were supposed to be the elite, cultured, educated, tolerant, socially adept group of folks, as opposed to those brutish conservatives."
I'm working class.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 2, 2011 08:06 PMAt least I, unlike Stefan, have manners enough to mind my own business.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 2, 2011 08:11 PMAnd as we all know, life imitates "art". Life for liberals today consists of a constant state of malaise. They uncannily can find misery in every conceivable action that comes along in life. See Pessimist or word search Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 2, 2011 08:21 PMThe level of bigotry at which
liberals openly slur conservatives who are gay
is equivalent to
the level of bigotry at which
blacks were openly slurred in the Jim Crow South.
Posted by: Matt M. on February 2, 2011 08:24 PMYes, but that's more commonly known as illiteracy (see ebonics).
But in this case the usage of "Caribu Barbi" was a dig at Palin quaint misspellings.
Kinki's "correcting" the spelling of Caribu but missing Barbi showed both ignorance and illiteracy at the same time.
Priceless.
Posted by: Got Mojo? on February 2, 2011 08:32 PMAsk a Lib what they think about gun control in light of Mubarak's crackdown on the protesters.
Posted by: John Bailo on February 2, 2011 09:15 PMThen there simply must be an 88% chance that every person encountered in every corner of Wallingford, including the writer of this very post, voted for Obama/Biden. This foolish assumption is called the "ecological fallacy", and I'm sure longtime regulars here recall it well:
"The Court finds that the statistical methods used in the
reports of Professors Gill and Katz depend on an assumption
that determines the outcome they obtain. In particular, they
depend on the assumption, without any collateral indication
of validity, that illegal voters in a precinct vote for a
candidate with a probability equal to the overall distribution
of votes in the precinct among candidates. . . .
"The Court finds that the method of proportionate
deduction and the assumption relied upon by Professors Gill
and Katz are a scientifically unaccepted use of the method of
ecological inference. In particular, Professors Gill and Katz
committed what is referred to as the ecological fallacy in
making inferences about a particular individual's voting
behavior using only information about the average behavior
of groups; in this case, voters assigned to a particular
precinct."
Maybe the folks whom the author so rudely interrupted were contemptuous of Sarah Palin because of her illegitimate grandchild? After all, there once was a time in America when conservatives frowned upon such things.
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2011 09:44 PMAnd it takes their brown shirts to a new low when leftists are willing to flaunt their party credentials on their toilet paper.
@14. Michael wasn't lucky enough to have a parent who taught him that swearing was for those incapable of conveying their point with eloquence.
I bet the guy is a mouse in public. It's only when he gets in to his www cocoon in his mom's basement that he swells with profane bravado and unleashes his four letter arrows upon the vast right wing hordes from his keyboard.
Michael you showed us all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 2, 2011 09:54 PMUnlike Stephan, I was lucky enough to have parents who taught me to mind my own business. ;->
I wasn't aware that saying the word fuck was a form of bravado. It was only included to watch you folks squeal. "OMG, he said fuck!" Too fucking funny.
Posted by: Michael on February 2, 2011 10:40 PMAnd thus, just begging for you to interject yourself into their conversation. How classy of you. (For right-wing values of "classy".)
Again, is there an 88% chance you voted for Obama/Biden? If not, why did you include that implicit claim? Are you still so hopelessly unable to understand what Judge Bridges so carefully described to you, all of those many years ago?
The ecological fallacy. Know it, love it, live it. Just never comprehend it.
It takes a lot of class to make jokes using toilet paper while other people are serving themselves food.
Again, maybe they were traditional-marriage conservatives, annoyed that out-of-wedlock births are now considered normal by self-described conservatives. If my values had been spit and trampled upon in such a manner, I might publicly mock those who had done so.
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2011 11:23 PMTo you working class Beavis types I am sure it is funny. And you laugh at Sarah Palin toilet paper.
Us professional types expect some wit.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 3, 2011 06:09 AMYou mean Bobbe Bridges? Leave it to tensor to point to a chronic inebriate, whose past time activities includes driving while intoxicated, hitting parked cars and attempting to flee the scene/accident with a .227 BAC (3 times the legal limit), as a model citizen capable of dispensing advice. The disconnect with reality is astounding in this state.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 3, 2011 06:22 AM@27: Dude, you win. The "I know you are but what am I" defense. No way anyone can recover from that.
@everyone: OH NOEZ he used a bad word. Seriously, you should consider NOT hyperventilating when someone drops an f-bomb or uses the term "teabagger." Righteous indignation doesn't make people want to listen to you; it makes them think you are overly sensitive. The very first reference to "teabagging" I saw when the Tea Party got started was from a participant at a rally. Unless you want to confine yourself to the "religious right" you should stop worrying so much about what people say, and more about what it means. Can the faux sensitivity.
Then there's Seattle....
Posted by: Saltherring on February 3, 2011 06:55 AM"intelligent, thoughtful, civilized people" do not wash their children's mouth out with soap.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 07:11 AMYes, and in doing so, you're pointing out how damned stupid you are: you are presuming there's is ANYTHING wrong with not knowing the crass meaning that juveniles ascribe to the word.
Conservatives usually use much more offensive terms.
Name one.
As if one could even find a gay conservative
Of course. I know of many. But then, unlike YOU and most other hardcore liberals, I am tolerant and have a wide range of acquaintances.
tensor: you are lying by implying Stefan ever had a waitress fired.
Also, a conservative who was against illegitimacy to the extent that they would guffaw about toilet paper with the grandmother's likeness likely doesn't exist anywhere, let alone in Seattle; even less so, such a conservative who so opposes illegitimacy that they would so ridicule the grandmother and ALSO ridicule Tea Party participants who don't have a familiarity with the crass terminology of "alternative" sexual acts.
You're inventing a profile that makes so little sense that it clearly doesn't exist anywhere, and you protest WAY too much.
Posted by: pudge on February 3, 2011 07:15 AMSecond, it's actual civil libertarians -- which are neither right, nor left -- who have been primarily fighting for equal rights for everyone, including people who have sex with other people of the same sex. It's the left libertarians who have fought AGAINST equal rights, really, throughout this episode in our history, by explicitly trying to get marriage extended only to gay couples, and not to other couples legally banned from marriage, such as siblings.
Clearly, the left is not in favor of equal rights, but special rights for their favored groups, saying that government should still dictate who can marry; while true civil libertarians say that government should not define who may get married at all, and let each couple decide for themselves (as long as they are competent to make such a decision, of course).
I know socially liberal liberal libertarians who voted against the "everything but marriage" law because for that reason: government was picking and choosing certain relationships to bless, and instead of expanding special privileges to more relationships, should be either removing them from, or expanding them to, all relationships. That's true libertarianism, true civil rights.
Third, Stefan didn't get anyone fired. You're lying. She was fired because of her own actions. That's like saying the FBI got Tim McVeigh killed because they investigated and captured him, leading to his execution. (Just like a leftist, refusing to let people take responsibility for their own deeds.)
Fourth, as a supposed libertarian, you must surely recognize that while it is your right to tell someone to "mind their own business," it is -- just as much -- their right to listen to, and comment on, whatever you are saying or doing in public. Indeed, by telling him to mind his own business, you are, in fact, getting into HIS business (which was commenting on your business).
You may realize this, but it doesn't seem like you do.
If more parents did care enough to wash their filthy-mouthed kids' mouths out with soap and turn their disrespectful children over their knee when needed, I'm betting we wouldn't need as many prisons as we now do. Only a liberal would show indifference to (or laugh at) a mouthy, disobedient child.
Posted by: Sal on February 3, 2011 08:51 AMThat's pretty far fetched Sal.
Actually, I suspect you'll find just the opposite if you really take a close look at the matter.
A disportionate number of those inmates were abused as children; i.e. had parents who firmly believed in corporal punishment and administered it lavishly.
That's where those kids learned that physical violence is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with interpersonal conflicts.
So, how'd your kids turn out Sal?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 09:03 AMHow can you have individual rights and self-determination without freedom of association and rights to use property as the individual or associated group sees fit?
This sounds more like an ideology that hasn't grown up. Maybe when you move out of your parent's basement you will understand.
Sincerely,
Libertarian Right
Posted by: ducttape2 on February 3, 2011 09:09 AMProgressive Rally Organized by Common Cause.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 3, 2011 11:13 AMThis would probably be a possible death knell for the liberal progressives as they would either convert to Islam or get beheaded where and when the caliphate is set up. That would be a shame...
Posted by: KDS on February 3, 2011 11:41 AMNow I certainly realize and can attest to the fact that Seattleites (aka liberals) are by and large unfriendly but in the rest of the world when you publicly have a conversation OVER someone as your liberals did on either side of Stefan it is acceptable to engage them. Further, Michael we even talk to strangers in the grocery store, in movie lines, at Nordy's, even Whole Foods! - Oh the horror: being FRIENDLY.
You see, the fallacy in your little ASSuption is that they somehow knew what Stefan was thinking when he said "That's another funny one,", you ASSume they knew he didn't agree with their crass conversation in an inappropriate and PUBLIC venue.
The Ghost Of Thanksgiving Yet To Come
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 3, 2011 12:06 PMOnly to a turd in a punchbowl like yourself, wally.
Posted by: bastiat fan on February 3, 2011 01:21 PMIt says so much about someone that they would call a term that at the time was only popular in gay porn "popular parlance". In some very deviant circles it was a popular term, but no where else.
Posted by: Paige on February 3, 2011 01:32 PMMaybe.
i.e. had parents who firmly believed in corporal punishment and administered it lavishly.
To teach their kids not to use coarse language? I don't think so. Kids whose parents forbade coarse language turn out disproportionately well. See: church.
Posted by: Matt M. on February 3, 2011 02:45 PMI believe we were discussing Sharky's kids and their behavior. My children aren't running wild anywhere. They're actually quite well behaved, despite never having had their mouths washed out with soap. I take it your issue were not so fortunate.
I'll stand by my comment that hitting a child, or forcing them to take poisonous substances into their mouth is more about resolving your anger than teaching them an age appropriate lesson. I realize it is an authoritarian fantasy that violence and humiliation is an effective means of behavior control. That has not proven to be the case out in the real world.
Now I'm not sure how we got from that discussion all the way to your feelings about abortion, but given the non sequitur of your initial comments, I shouldn't be surprised. I would be curious just how you think the "butchers and their apologists" will answer. You sound so confident.
Like Sal, you display wishful thinking based on your worldview rather than reality. There is simply no evidence church attendance improves social behavior in any way. I would even go so far as to say it is detrimental to positive interpersonal skills and behavior.
Exhibit A would be the Catholic Clergy who simply cannot seem to keep their hands off the genetilia of the small children they encounter, over whom they hold a position of trust and authority.
Wow. Surely that couldn't be wishful thinking based on your worldview rather than reality.
Thank you for associating your name to that analysis.
Posted by: Matt M. on February 3, 2011 03:32 PMI offered some evidence supporting my conclusion. Have you any to rebut it?
Sal:
As so often is the case with this forum, your side offers little beyond name calling to bolster your arguments.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 03:49 PMThe Catholic Church was completely absent from China until the nineteenth century. Yet they somehow managed to produce a very advanced civilization.
The ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Carthagenians, Persians, and Nubians all managed to produce very highly developed civilizations without any assistance or even knowledge of the Catholic Church.
Another Bible Thumper
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 05:05 PMIt was our ability to get away from the church that led to the enlightenment and real progress in society.
Hitler joined forces with the state churches in Germany and the Vatican to come to power. He was no atheist.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 05:38 PMPlaying the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".
Yep and it's usually a perfect indicator that the Hitler/Nazi name caller is devoid of fact and further argument. Will they ever break their addiction from from this anti-thinking crutch?
Man this whole internet thing that immediately exposes your fatal flaws must really frost your little liberal fannies, eh?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 3, 2011 07:05 PMit was Matt who mentioned Hitler.
"Repeal Judeo-Christianity and you get Hitler. Remember, Germany was "advanced."
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 3, 2011 07:30 PMGee - I just remember that the liberal-progressives were shellacked in the elections last November - they lost 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. True, the losses were not that bad here, but the firewall is breaking down and 2012 probably won't be so good for the left in the statist republic of Washington.
Posted by: KDS on February 3, 2011 09:41 PMOn the contrary, that's an obvious lie.
For example, it was religious people, acting according to explicitly religious motives, that gave us abolition of slavery, women's rights, and the civil rights movement. Even the United States itself was founded based explicitly on the religious belief that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights and THEREFORE our government exists FOR THE PURPOSE OF securing individual liberties.
While our country was not created as a Christian nation, it was created based on a very explicit religious idea: that because of how God created us, government is obligated to respect us in certain ways.
Not that I expect you to recognize these indisputable facts.
Uncle Witz and Dr. Liberal have spent a great amount of time on this thread proving Stefan's point.
But you are the liar.
Religion came down on both sides of the abolition issue, with the strongly religious South resisting till the end and quoting the Old Testament as support for the institution.
The moral beliefs that led to abolition, women's rights, or civil rights had nothing to do with religion. But rather could be found in strictly humanist philosophy.
The founding fathers had a very strong distrust of religion and were most assuredly not Christians.
I'm not a bigot Pudge. If you want to believe in Santa Cause, the Easter Bunnie or Jesus, feel free. I find them all equally plausible and somewhat useful in certain discussions with younger minds.
Identify a SINGLE thing I've said that is false. Just ONE. You didn't, and you can't.
Religion came down on both sides of the abolition issue
Yep. And I never said they didn't. Think, please, before you write. It would really help. I only pointed out the fact that religion played an essential role in the furtherance of these movements, which destroys your claim that we've advanced by getting away from religion.
The moral beliefs that led to abolition, women's rights, or civil rights had nothing to do with religion.
Wow. Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr, Benjamin Rush ... tell it to my sister-in-law's father, Ed King, a chaplain of Tougaloo College who has scars on his face from the KKK for his civil rights work half a century ago, and was one of the two delegates from the MFDP to the 1964 Democratic Convention.
There is no doubt that you can pretend that secular humanism can lead us to believe that all people have inherent rights and value. It's not true, but it's a nice fiction many people believe in, that is certainly preferable to the alternative: being a secular humanist and NOT believing that all people have inherent rights and value.
But without religion, our nation would not have any such beliefs. We would not have fundamental rights the state could not touch, because why would we? And we probably would not even have democracy, because why would we? Nothing in non-religious philosophy leads us to such things.
But that's a bit of an aside. The fact is that the popular sentiment, and most of the leaders, behind these movements were driven largely by religious motives. And therefore, it's false for you to claim that we've advanced by moving away from religion. QED.
The founding fathers had a very strong distrust of religion and were most assuredly not Christians.
Most of them actually WERE Christians. Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I know it's a popular lie from the left, but is it too much to expect you to really look into it before you say it? It's one of the most obvious lies the left tells, and it's always bizarre to me to see anyone claim it when it's so obviously false.
There's a small handful who were not Christian or religious, but by far, most of them were. Many of them also distrusted religious institutions ... as I do. So?
What is true is that some of the Founding Fathers were not trinitarians, like John Adams, but that's not unusual. Also, there were a few Deists, but Deism believes in God, just not an interventionist God, and at the end of the day its adherents still believe --as Jefferson did -- that God created us with inherent rights and value. But, even if you take away the Deists and Unitarians, that still leaves a huge majority of Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists among the "Founding Fathers."
It's hard to imagine a Declaration of Independence written by an atheist. Instead of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he likely would have written something like, "We believe, for the sake of our protecting ourselves individually, that it is reasonable that we should pretend that everyone has equal rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even though we believe such things are social constructs and don't really exist, and that if we have a good reason, we can just ignore those 'rights' moving forward, since they don't really exist anyway."
I'm not a bigot Pudge.
Of course you are. You've proven it time and again, and there's no escaping your own words.
If you want to believe in Santa Cause, the Easter Bunnie or Jesus, feel free. I find them all equally plausible and somewhat useful in certain discussions with younger minds.
This doesn't prove you aren't a bigot, because at the end of the day, you still ridicule people for their religious beliefs, which still makes you a bigot.
But you are the liar./em>
Hey Witz!
You know, I've been watching and commenting here for just a short time (but long enough to be banned by pudgey from his comment threads!).
I've noticed that when he gets heated and has no rebuttal, he calls you a liar.
I think that that's not actually a rebuttal, but a tic - I think that he has Tourette's Syndrome. Unlike the coprolalia that is often associated with the disorder (yelling FUCK FUCK FUCKING COCKSUCKER in inappropriate places, for example), pudgey yells LIES LIES LIAR LIAR FILTHY LIAR when his symptoms kick in.
It seems that having his bizarre glibertarian theology questioned is stressful, and that seems to provoke the tics common to this unfortunate neuropsychiatric disorder.
Wrong again. It was not the church that led the battle against the abuse of fundamental human rights. If anything, the church has fiercely resisted this kind of progress for their entire history. Only after the battle is won will they come around to a more enlightened views. I will be happy to tell that to anyone who will listen. And that includes your in-law with scars on his face. Those KKK's no doubt felt they were doing the "Lord's work" when they abused him.
MLK was a firebrand and an outsider, whose message of human dignity came from a recognition that it was right thing to do, and had nothing to do with his Baptist teachings. He was often at odds with his church for such things and would have been hushed up had he not been such a powerful speaker and leader. And there were a lot of atheists who marched with him. Show me an atheist who opposed him.
Your link to establish the religious beliefs of he founding fathers is total bullshit. Try finding something with a little more credibility and objectivity.
Guess that makes you the liar Pudge.
You're a POS. Leave Tourette's out of this, some of us have to deal with this little wonder of God's creation on a daily basis and we'd appreciate it if you could be a little bit sensitive about it and not use our disabilities in a way to demean other people.
Posted by: doug on February 4, 2011 09:26 AMSadly, what you say is true.
Pudge is an angry young man with some pretty obvious psycho-emotional issues. Not the least of which is arrested development of his personality. He seems to be stuck in the late grade school period as evidenced by his adolescent retorts of "you are a liar" and "prove it."
I suspect Pudge had an authoritarian father who made life somewhat difficult during that period, resulting in severe self esteem problems that he is only now trying to overcome.
If you haven't had a chance, take a look at his you-tube video. It says a lot about Pudge. He seems to feel that his fabulous good luck of being born a white guy in this country and the resulting economic bounty that has ensued is strictly a result of his virtue and hard work. In other words, he has wildly overcompensated for his earlier low self image.
Pretty sad when you see it displayed so openly.
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7
Posted by: Saltherring on February 4, 2011 11:10 AMUnkl Witz ; you are a sad case - a knee jerk Michael Moore type statist. You seem to be losing argument after argument to Pudge, who is younger and wiser than you. Pity you, the fool !!
Posted by: KDS on February 4, 2011 12:21 PMIn fact, it was. The abolitionist movement was MOSTLY a movement from the church, in the U.S. and abroad.
If anything, the church has fiercely resisted this kind of progress for their entire history.
There is no truth to that. It's true that SOME churches have resisted it, but not that "the church" did.
I will be happy to tell that to anyone who will listen. And that includes your in-law with scars on his face.
Yes, it is abundantly clear that you haven't the slightest problem parading your ignorance to one and all. We've known this about you for a long time.
Those KKK's no doubt felt they were doing the "Lord's work" when they abused him.
They probably thought so, yes, and what's sad is that you think this backs up your stated point. It does not, as no one ever said that some people didn't use religious motivations for bad acts, only that many other people have used predominantly religious motivations for GREAT acts.
MLK was a firebrand and an outsider, whose message of human dignity came from a recognition that it was right thing to do, and had nothing to do with his Baptist teachings.
WE HAVE A WINNER! This is, by far, the most obviously stupid and ignorant thing you have ever said on this web site: not a single historian, or relative or friend of MLK Jr., let alone MLK Jr. himself, would agree with this statement, and yet -- as per your M.O. -- you spout it as though it might have even some remote and distant ring of truth.
Your level of self-deception is impressive. Congratulations.
Your link to establish the religious beliefs of he founding fathers is total bullshit.
Find me a SINGLE incorrect claim on that page. Just one.