Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > Time travel back to the eighties

Time travel back to the eighties

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - Time travel back to the eighties

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Page:    Previous 1 2 Next Bottom Search this thread
Word :    Username :           
 

If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot.

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

Eat S-it!!!!!

------------------------------

Dazzle them with Brilliance, or Baffle them with Bull S-it!!!!!
Reply to RCPilot

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed(alone no doubt), how about playing nice shitface.

Reply to reconviperone1

I wouldn't have a hard time convincing anyone in 1985 that today, in 2007, the year of our Lord, you'd still be a virgin.

------------------------------ +35 Wingding approval points +10 Scouse approval +22 Mammary Manipulation
+5 Comedy +15 Belated Holy Points +5 Messianic Approval + 5 penile innovation
+13 Baked Ham creativity +65 Obscure Quote

Reply to KingLoftusXII

You'd have a hard time convincing anyone anywhere Amiga made computers. Commodore made the Amiga, prick.

Reply to Tom_Smart

The voyage on the time it's à beautifull dream, personnaly, i imagine this regulliary, i dream of my with Goethe, one "poete" deutsch, i see egally that on my epoque, the schook for it, in its time, not électricity, not penycilin, not veicle on essence, not all :ouch:

Reply to Toad666

Wow, all the personal attacks, don't know what brought that about but f**k all of you, I was just making a light hearted thread, but i have to deal with a bunch of angry bitches like you, dont, like it, don't post to it, so again i say,**** YOU!, have a great day bitches.

Reply to reconviperone1

Wow, all the personal attacks, don't know what brought that about but f**k all of you, I was just making a light hearted thread, but i have to deal with a bunch of angry bitches like you, dont, like it, don't post to it, so again i say,**** YOU!, have a great day bitches.

Reply to reconviperone1

Harden the fock up /Bomber

Reply to audiovoodoo

Wow....evidently someone did NOT read the stickies....

Now, that you have come....and hopefully gone....here it is....

FCUK OFF AND DIE!!!!!

------------------------------ I suffer from A.D.O.S.
Attention Deficit..... OOOOOOH!!! SHINY!!!

+5 Victim
Reply to Groveling_Wyrm

Sorry assclown, I'll pass on that, how about your do it for me, and take the rest of the pathetic little shits with you. This is really amusing that a simple thread has let the true loser's rear their ugly empty head's. My next post is gonna be angry poster's ,why bother?, I'm really sorry that my post bothered you all, just kidding, **** all of you!,LOL.

Reply to reconviperone1

Please dismount your mother and leave the forum, chodesmoker.

Reply to WingDing

No problem, what is your mom doing, i gotta second to blow one in her face, hell, you can even dig up your grandma, I got some ooze for granny too, bring her back to life. I think i'll stick around. bbfn dingbat.

Reply to reconviperone1

reconviperone1 wrote :

No problem, what is your mom doing, i gotta second to blow one in her face, hell, you can even dig up your grandma, I got some ooze for granny too, bring her back to life. I think i'll stick around. bbfn dingbat.



Well said! Especially that bbfn dingbat part ... that makes you my BFF Fuckwit ... now, go fuck this --> :bounce:


Message edited by Jake_Barnes on 08-05-2007 at 02:14:25 AM
------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

After someone mentioned the stickies, he still didn't read them.

Prolly 'cause he's an expert on being sticky from always being the center of those circle jerks...

------------------------------ No more promise no more sorrow,
No longer will I follow.
Can anybody hear me?
I just want to be me.
Reply to JustPlainJef

reconviperone1 wrote :

If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot.



If I could time travle back to 1985, I'd tell your mom that $5 was too much for such a woeful shag. Was like stirring a bucket of porridge at the battle of Bannockburn.

------------------------------ 'Out of the abyss I come the avenger
shapeless and faceless - Yet I have a name,
I shall tighten my grip on your now flawed creation,
endeavour to show you the meaning of pain.'
Reply to RobD

If I could travel back to 1985 I'd take the opportunity of telling the abortion clinic to sluice out their drains properly to prevent tossers like this being allowed to survive.

Reply to WingDing

WingDing wrote :

telling the abortion clinic to sluice out their drains properly



Ohh...Your just a walking thesaurus...
Too bad you didn't show up in time to give him the real low down on what happened to dear old Grannys cadaver... :??:

Reply to AilingBlackLab

reconviperone1 wrote :

If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot.




Wow, lots of typical answers. Well, I'll play along with ya, if it will make ya feel better.

The piece of technology that I would find most unbelievable would be the device that brainwashed the population of the US into believing that Barbara Boxer, Pat Schroederr, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would make good politicians.

------------------------------ http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/turpit/SIG2A.jpg
Reply to turpit

Brainwash? If I were back in 1985 and someone told me there'd be a brain amongst the American population in the foreseeable future I laugh.

Reply to Tom_Smart

There is a brain amongst the American population. It lies, cold and forgotten in a dark corner somewhere, crying its little optic centres out and shivering, lost and abandoned since the early 1500s...

------------------------------ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - I WISH PEOPLE WOULD APPLY THIS!
Reply to mugz

If I could go back to 1985 I'd try to convince your dad to wear a condom so I wouldn't have wasted those 20 seconds reading your post.

------------------------------ +46.53 Pedantry/+75 Wingding Approval/+27 Vindictive bastard/+7 innovative violence/+11 Scouse trophies/Bastages WD:9 RC:4 AV:1 [specials; cluster:2,leather elbow patched:1,pre-approved:3,first class (upgrade):1,multi-thread:1,double-barrel:1]
Reply to llama_man

Good luck finding that basta*d's dad.

Reply to Tom_Smart

I ain't playing along...I've got an ex-wife back there and I'd just as soon not see her again.

------------------------------ These forumz screwed up my sig...
+42 not give a shyte points...
Reply to _WW_

mugz wrote :

There is a brain amongst the American population. It lies, cold and forgotten in a dark corner somewhere, crying its little optic centres out and shivering, lost and abandoned since the early 1500s...



I think it was a little later that the brain was abandoned.

Round about the time they abandoned the secular principles the nation was founded on and turned themselves instead into "one nation under God" (translation: "we are dumb and need what to be told to do" or "absolve us of any responsibilty for our own decisions and actions" ).


No offence, Jebus.

------------------------------ +46.53 Pedantry/+75 Wingding Approval/+27 Vindictive bastard/+7 innovative violence/+11 Scouse trophies/Bastages WD:9 RC:4 AV:1 [specials; cluster:2,leather elbow patched:1,pre-approved:3,first class (upgrade):1,multi-thread:1,double-barrel:1]
Reply to llama_man

llama_man wrote :

I think it was a little later that the brain was abandoned.

Round about the time they abandoned the secular principles the nation was founded on and turned themselves instead into "one nation under God" (translation: "we are dumb and need what to be told to do" or "absolve us of any responsibilty for our own decisions and actions" ).


No offence, Jebus.



Let's compare, shall we:

U.S Constitution:

Quote :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Bill of Rights: Amendment I

UK: The Coronation Oath ... taken by your Elizabeth II in 1953:

Quote :

Archbishop. Will you to the your utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in
the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you
maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in
England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do
or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.


The Coronation Oath (UK)

I think you're a wee bit confused here laddy :whistle:

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

 

Archbishop. Will you to the your utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and

And in 1953, exactly what power, prerogative powers aside, was it she had?

Reply to Tom_Smart

"One nation under God." That statement alone is offensive to Me.

I like your translation though - alone among the human race, the Americans actually admit it.

I'm still not taking any responsibility for their actions. I'm not going to get cross a second time...

------------------------------ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - I WISH PEOPLE WOULD APPLY THIS!
Reply to mugz

Tom_Smart wrote :

And in 1953, exactly what power, prerogative powers aside, was it she had?



Let's try this (feel free to edit wiki, if you can improve upon the article):

Quote :

... Constitutional role

It has long been established in the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom that political power is ultimately exercised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of which the Sovereign is a non-partisan component, along with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Thus, as the modern British monarchy is a constitutional one, the Sovereign's role is in practice limited to non-partisan functions (such as being the fount of honour). This role has been recognised since the 19th century; Walter Bagehot identified the monarchy as the "dignified part" rather than the "efficient part" of government in The English Constitution (1867). In practice, political power is exercised today through Parliament and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The sovereign also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the established Church of England, although in practice the spiritual leadership of the Church is the responsibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Whenever necessary, the Sovereign is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister; the appointment is formalised at a ceremony known as Kissing Hands. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, the Sovereign must appoint the individual most likely to maintain the support of the House of Commons: usually, the leader of the party which has a majority in that House. If no party has a majority (an unusual occurrence given the United Kingdom's First Past the Post electoral system), two or more groups may form a coalition, whose agreed leader is then appointed Prime Minister. In a "hung parliament," in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch obtains an increased degree of latitude in his or her choice of Prime Minister.[specify] Still, however, the individual most likely to command the support of the Commons, usually the leader of the largest party, must be appointed. Thus, for example, Harold Wilson was appointed Prime Minister soon after the February 1974 general election, even though his Labour Party did not have a majority. It has also been suggested that in the same situation, if a minority government tried to dissolve Parliament to call an election early to strengthen its position, the monarch could refuse, and instead allow opposition parties to form a coalition government. However, Harold Wilson's minority government elected in February 1974 successfully called an early election in October 1974 which gave it a majority.

The Sovereign appoints and dismisses Cabinet and other ministers on the Prime Minister's advice. Thus, in practice, the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, exercises control over the composition of the Cabinet. The monarch may, in theory, unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, but convention and precedent bar such an action. The last monarch to unilaterally remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834. In practice, a Prime Minister's term comes to an end only with death or resignation. (In some circumstances, the Prime Minister is required to resign; see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.)

The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, as well as regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions. Walter Bagehot, the nineteenth century constitutional writer, summarises this concept, "the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

Any member of the Cabinet who wishes to be absent from the United Kingdom for any reason, except for official visits to European Union or NATO member countries, must seek both the Prime Minister's and the Queen's approval to leave the country, and must at the same time inform "Her Majesty ... of the arrangements made for the administration of the Minister's Department during his or her absence"[6].

The monarch has a similar relationship with devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Sovereign appoints the First Minister of Scotland, but on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister of Wales, on the other hand, is directly elected by the National Assembly for Wales. In Scottish matters, the Sovereign acts on the advice of the Scottish Executive. However, as devolution is more limited in Wales, the Sovereign acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of the United Kingdom in Welsh matters. The Sovereign can struck any Northern Ireland law, though voted by the Assembly, if deemed unconstitutional, an assesment done by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The Sovereign also plays the role of Head of State in the United Kingdom. Oaths of allegiance are made to the Queen, not to Parliament or to the nation. Moreover, God Save the Queen (or, if the Sovereign is male, God Save the King) is used as the British national anthem. The monarch's visage appears on postage stamps, on coins, and on banknotes issued by the Bank of England. Banknotes issued by other British banks, such as the Bank of Scotland and the Ulster Bank, do not depict the Sovereign.

Royal Prerogative

Main article: Royal Prerogative

The executive authority of the government is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign; the powers that belong to the Crown are collectively known as the Royal Prerogative. The Royal Prerogative includes many powers (such as the powers to dissolve Parliament, regulate the civil service, issue passports, make treaties or send ambassadors) as well as certain duties (such as the duties to defend the realm and to maintain the Queen's peace). As the British monarchy is a constitutional one, however, the monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, exercising the Royal Prerogative on the advice of ministers. The Prime Minister and ministers are, in turn, accountable to the democratically elected House of Commons, and through it, to the people. Parliamentary approval is not required for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; moreover, the Consent of the Crown must be obtained before either House may even debate a bill affecting the Sovereign's prerogatives or interests. Although the Royal Prerogative is extensive, it is not unlimited. For example, the monarch does not have the prerogative to impose and collect new taxes; such an action requires the authorisation of an Act of Parliament.

According to a parliamentary report, "The Crown cannot invent new prerogative powers."[7] On the contrary, many of the Crown prerogatives have been permanently transferred to Parliament in the past, and more may be in the future.

The Sovereign is one of the three components of Parliament; the others are the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon, prorogue, and dissolve Parliament. Each parliamentary session begins with the monarch's summons. The new parliamentary session is marked by the State Opening of Parliament, during which the Sovereign reads the Speech from the Throne in the Chamber of the House of Lords, outlining the Government's legislative agenda. Prorogation usually occurs about one year after a session begins, and formally concludes the session. Dissolution ends a parliamentary term (which lasts a maximum of five years), and is followed by general elections for all seats in the House of Commons. These powers, however, are always exercised on the Prime Minister's advice. The timing of a dissolution is affected by a variety of factors; the Prime Minister normally chooses the most politically opportune moment for his or her party. The Sovereign may theoretically refuse a dissolution, but the circumstances under which such an action would be warranted are unclear.[8] (See Lascelles Principles.) No parliamentary term may last more than five years; at the end of this period, a dissolution is automatic under the Parliament Act 1911.

All laws are enacted in the monarch's name. The words "BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's [King's] most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows," known as the enacting formula, form a part of each Act of Parliament. Before a bill can become law, the Royal Assent (the monarch's approval) is required. The Sovereign may, in theory, either grant the Royal Assent (make the bill law) or withhold the Royal Assent (veto the bill). In practice, however, the Royal Assent is always granted; the last monarch to withhold Assent was Anne, who rejected a Scots militia bill in 1708.

The Royal Prerogative with respect to domestic affairs is extensive. The Crown is responsible for the appointment and dismissal of ministers, Privy Counsellors, members of various executive agencies, and other officials. Effectively, however, the appointees are chosen by the Prime Minister, or, for less important offices, by other ministers. In addition, the monarch is the head or commander in chief of the Armed Forces (the British Army, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force). It is the Sovereign's prerogative to declare war, make peace, and direct the actions of the military, although the Prime Minister holds de facto decision-making power over the British armed forces. Many of the Sovereign's prerogative powers are exercised through the Privy Council.

The Royal Prerogative, in addition, extends to foreign affairs. The Sovereign may negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements; no parliamentary approval is required. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The Sovereign also accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states. In addition, all British passports are issued in the monarch's name.

Furthermore, the Sovereign is deemed the fount of justice, and is responsible for rendering justice for all subjects. The Sovereign does not personally rule in judicial cases; instead, judicial functions are performed in his or her name. For instance, prosecutions are brought on the monarch's behalf, and courts derive their authority from the Crown. The common law holds that the Sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted in his or her own courts for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government); however, lawsuits against the monarch personally are not cognizable. The Sovereign also exercises the "prerogative of mercy," and may pardon offences against the Crown. Pardons may be awarded before, during, or after a trial.

Similarly, the monarch is also the fount of honour, or the source of all honours and dignities in the United Kingdom. Thus, the Crown creates all peerages, appoints members of the orders of chivalry, grants knighthoods, and awards other honours. In practice, peerages and most other honours are granted on the advice of the Prime Minister. Some honours, however, are within the personal gift of the Sovereign, and are not granted on ministerial advice. Thus, the monarch alone appoints members of the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Royal Victorian Order, and the Order of Merit.

Finally, the Sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the officially established church in England. As such, the monarch has the power to appoint archbishops and bishops. The Prime Minister, however, chooses the appointee, though he or she must select from a list of nominees prepared by the Crown Nominations Commission.[b] The Crown's role in the Church of England is titular; the most senior clergyman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is seen as the spiritual leader of the Church and of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The monarch is only an ordinary member, and not the head or leader, of the Church of Scotland; however, he or she does hold the power to appoint the Lord High Commissioner to the Church's General Assembly. The Sovereign plays no formal role in the Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland, neither of which is an established church.

The Great Seal of the Realm is the device used to authenticate important official documents, including letters patent, proclamations, and writs of election. The Great Seal of the Realm is in the custody of the Lord Chancellor. For matters relating exclusively to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Great Seal of Scotland or the Great Seal of Northern Ireland is used, as the case may be.

The monarch also has the power to claim any sturgeons, porpoises, whales, or dolphins that are either washed ashore, or captured within 3 miles of the British coast. This power comes from a statute from King Edward II in 1324. Today, if you purchase a sturgeon, you still request the honour as an act of loyalty to the crown.[9]...


British Monarchy


I swear I think that "Kissing Hands Ceremony" must just be precious :lol:

Note the [b]bold quotes ... I found those interesting, especially for the benefit of those people who don't seem to know the difference between a non-mandatory, ceremonial pledge and the US Constitution ;)

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

mugz wrote :

"One nation under God." That statement alone is offensive to Me....



That "pledge" is a a ceremonial thing with no legally binding consequences (to the best of my knowledge) - I don't say it, but that's a personal preference ... I'm not offended by those that do. The only thing that counts is that 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, cited above.

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

  • A, you quoted Wiki.
  • B, you quoted Wikl.
  • c, both of the above.
 

There are three reasons not to listen to a word you have to say.

Quote :

 

prerogative powers aside

I believe addressed those, yet you mention them anyway.

 

Did I mention you quoted Wiki?

 

***points and laughs***

 

Come on Jake, you're better than a Wiki quote. We both know our Monarch is purely ceremonial. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, government is voted
into power by the people, to act in the interests of the people. The Queens role in appointing a Prime Minister happens after they have won a majority of seats in the House of Commons and is still ceremonial.

 

If you really want to ridicule out system I'd have a pop at the age of some of the members of our house of Lords. You won't get an argument from me or any rational thinking person here. But before you do, I advise you do something about this old twat.

Reply to Tom_Smart

That was a weak stab at humour, there.

On a serious note, I've always wondered about the whole 'one nation under God' when taken in conjunction with the separation of Church & State thingy.

------------------------------ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - I WISH PEOPLE WOULD APPLY THIS!
Reply to mugz

There was a thread about it being taken out of the pledge a while back. Mpjesse was outraged that the pledge should be toyed with in that manner. Until I pointed out to him it had only been in it since the 50's and has been changed about loads of times since it's inception.

Reply to Tom_Smart

Tom_Smart wrote :

  • A, you quoted Wiki.
  • B, you quoted Wikl.
  • c, both of the above.



There are three reasons not to listen to a word you have to say.
I believe addressed those, yet you mention them anyway.

Did I mention you quoted Wiki?



You were invited to "correct" that article. Oh, and that "Coronation Oath" damn sure wasn't a wiki ... but then you're the ones who have to live with the old hen, not us. And yeah, Robt. Byrd is fair game for ridicule ... but then again - he's a democrat.

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd is a democrat? Guess you just can't trust those democrats after all.

Reply to Tom_Smart

Tom_Smart wrote :

Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd is a democrat? Guess you just can't trust those democrats after all.


Yep - and former klansman (Sen., So Carolina) Strom Thurmond was a democrat most of his life until dementia took hold and he switched to the Republican party and died.

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Are you suggesting a link between joining the Republicans and dying?

Reply to Tom_Smart

Are you still beating your wife :lol:

------------------------------
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - HST

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Rules change to suit those changing them.

Discuss.

------------------------------ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - I WISH PEOPLE WOULD APPLY THIS!
Reply to mugz

No and I know you're not beating yours. Well not to the buffet anyway, that's just impossible.

Reply to Tom_Smart

Jake, you've missed the point entirely.

The place of religion in the UK (unwritten) constitution goes back a long way historically, especially since the "divine right of kings" gave the ruling monarch carte blance to do as (s)he liked. Whilst that idea eventually died out (a civil war along the way), religion is still (regrettably) ingrained in our systems of state, despite most of our citizens not being religious. Thankfully, the religious bodies largely stay out of our polticial system, since they know that if they attempted to wield their power, they'd be turfed out on their ear pronto.

America, on the other hand, had a chance to start from scratch, and did a pretty good job of advocating seperation of church and state (following the example led by France).

For example the Treaty of Tripoli (drafted by Washington, ratified by Adams);
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

Or maybe Jefferson;
"Christianity is the most perveted system that ever shone on man"

All good stuff.

Now, fast forward to our day and age, and read this humdinger from former President (and father of current President) Bush Snr;

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


I'd also talk at length about Intelligent Design, but I think it would just be too embarassing for you.

Accept it - your country has been taken over by religious zealots. Enjoy.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by llama_man on 08-06-2007 at 06:56:46 PM
------------------------------ +46.53 Pedantry/+75 Wingding Approval/+27 Vindictive bastard/+7 innovative violence/+11 Scouse trophies/Bastages WD:9 RC:4 AV:1 [specials; cluster:2,leather elbow patched:1,pre-approved:3,first class (upgrade):1,multi-thread:1,double-barrel:1]
Reply to llama_man

mugz wrote :

That was a weak stab at humour, there.

 

On a serious note, I've always wondered about the whole 'one nation under God' when taken in conjunction with the separation of Church & State thingy.

 


Wasn't that the whole McCarthy Commie Scare BS thing?

It was just another time proven way to start introducing "morals" and "family values" back into the government. (Ultimately Ironic, I know, but still).

The real reason was to try to get more public approval and turn this in to a classic "with us or against us" situation using such vague guidelines as Religion (which usually does not need any rational explanation for some of its rulings/laws/doctrines. Just "Because God said so" ). One of the most time tested and proven methods of mass population control and dominance has been through the usage of religion. The only other has been war or mutual enemy.

After WWII, with Russia being SO friendly to us, and their denouncement of any religion (since religion is a tough one to control if you are not the ones that lead it in the first pace), hating both them, and their lack of christianity went hand in hand.


Now we have a president whose entire platform was run on similar grounds. The use of religion and family values as monikers for a program that really does not fit either. Constant fear mongering about the global enemy of Terrorism in combination with "gut feelings", "patriotism" and other vague pronouncements have slowly taken away bits of our revolutionary freedoms.

The danger is, if it continues, that freedom will be hard to regain and that power very tough to get the leaders, whoever they may be, to relinquish.




As a side note. The POA is optional. But ask any kid what kind of treatment they get if they either do not say it in the morning or leave out the "Under God" portion. People can be so understanding about another persons beliefs. :p

------------------------------ Mmmmmmmm...Beer.......
Reply to Ninjahedge

mugz wrote :

That was a weak stab at humour, there.

On a serious note, I've always wondered about the whole 'one nation under God' when taken in conjunction with the separation of Church & State thingy.



Well remember where it came from...the US was just striking out on its own, but still had heavy British and Christain (in on form or another) influences. Dont get me wrong, Im not bashing the UK, not by a whelks chance in a supernova, just reflecting on possible origins.

There is a lot of stuff WRT religious freedom that needs to be corrected within the US. "In God We Trust", "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god" spoken with a hand on the bible, etc.
Eventually we'll get it sorted out, but at this point a lot of that stuff is more simple tradition (albeit contradiictory)than objects of substance.

------------------------------ http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/turpit/SIG2A.jpg
Reply to turpit

Turpit - couldn't disagree more. Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them) and are abandoning it to adopt a nation of Christian fundementalism.

------------------------------ +46.53 Pedantry/+75 Wingding Approval/+27 Vindictive bastard/+7 innovative violence/+11 Scouse trophies/Bastages WD:9 RC:4 AV:1 [specials; cluster:2,leather elbow patched:1,pre-approved:3,first class (upgrade):1,multi-thread:1,double-barrel:1]
Reply to llama_man

Oh god, I just found myself agreeing with a Ninjahedge post. I feel dirty.

* goes away to scourge self with sandpaper *

------------------------------ +46.53 Pedantry/+75 Wingding Approval/+27 Vindictive bastard/+7 innovative violence/+11 Scouse trophies/Bastages WD:9 RC:4 AV:1 [specials; cluster:2,leather elbow patched:1,pre-approved:3,first class (upgrade):1,multi-thread:1,double-barrel:1]
Reply to llama_man

mugz wrote :

There is a brain amongst the American population...lost and abandoned since the early 1500s...



I think you may want to check that date and edit the rip on us. In the 1500's we were many, many generations away
from "finding" a new world, wiping out the native population, then spending the next couple of hundred years showing
the world...um...somethi...er...nevermind.


------------------------------ +35 Wingding approval points +10 Scouse approval +22 Mammary Manipulation
+5 Comedy +15 Belated Holy Points +5 Messianic Approval + 5 penile innovation
+13 Baked Ham creativity +65 Obscure Quote

Reply to KingLoftusXII

llama_man wrote :

Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them)



Amusing. A handful of right-wing, French hating people I know had no idea they helped us greatly in our battle for independence. Didn't sway them at all.


*starts to agree with Mugz*

------------------------------ +35 Wingding approval points +10 Scouse approval +22 Mammary Manipulation
+5 Comedy +15 Belated Holy Points +5 Messianic Approval + 5 penile innovation
+13 Baked Ham creativity +65 Obscure Quote

Reply to KingLoftusXII

llama_man wrote :

Turpit - couldn't disagree more. Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them) and are abandoning it to adopt a nation of Christian fundementalism.




Im afraid I must disagree with you. While the popular version of history (written much latter by those with star spangled banners in their eyes who wanted history to fit their views, not fit their views to history) is 'secular', the reality is the US was founded by a bunch of fat, rich, white farmers who were, IAW British law, tax evaders and religious heretics. They were anything but secular, unless your interpretation of secular is that they they didnt want to worship that which the british government tried to force them to worship. That they didnt want to be ruled by the church was just one of many excuses they used, first to immigrate, then to revolt. As it turned out, ironically, like GB at the time, they really did want to be ruled by the church and twisted their new govenment to reflect and enforce the rules of religion, but most importantly, the religion that they chose, not the one chosen for them by the British Monarchy.

Which is why, to this day, the supreme court is clogged with case regarding violation of religious freedom by US federal law.

------------------------------ http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/turpit/SIG2A.jpg
Reply to turpit
------------------------------ +35 Wingding approval points +10 Scouse approval +22 Mammary Manipulation
+5 Comedy +15 Belated Holy Points +5 Messianic Approval + 5 penile innovation
+13 Baked Ham creativity +65 Obscure Quote

Reply to KingLoftusXII



Yes. Did you want something?

------------------------------ http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/turpit/SIG2A.jpg
Reply to turpit
Previous
1 2
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > Time travel back to the eighties
Go to:

There are 512 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them