My reason for not voting for a Republican this election….

As I said in my previous post, I am an independent, and just because I will not vote for a Republican this election does not make me a Liberal. My reason for not voting Republican is based on economic policy. Every Republican candidate is laying it on about the national debt and federal deficit (as if Obama created the whole thing himself despite the fact that Bush ran larger deficit in his last year than Obama has in any of his 3 so far). Now don’t get me wrong the national debt IS a serious issue and one that must be dealt with, just not RIGHT NOW and here’s why. Increased federal spending is a NECESSITY in periods of severe economic turmoil. It was necessary during the Great Depression which I will elaborate more on for the bulk of this post. And it was necessary in the early 1980’s as well.

Another point that needs to be made before advancing is that interpreting the National Debt in terms of current U.S. Dollars is very misleading and will result in a very inaccurate evaluation because you have to take into account inflation and relative value of the dollar (but its current dollars that are bigger numbers and add to sensationalism so if you’re going to get all your info from what is supposed to be NEWS media that’s what you’re gonna hear about). Yes I know the Federal Deficit is more (in $) than it ever has been, but the AVERAGE PRICE of a new CAR in 2011 (in $) was more than the AVERAGE PRICE (in $) of a new HOUSE only as far back as 1970.  Heres a link to average cost of houses by year provided by what I consider to be a reliable source and it only goes back ’63. Pretty confident vehicle prices are in the multiples of what housing prices were before the Great Depression but that’s just an educated guess, could be wrong, feel free to track that down. It is far more accurate to evaluate our current Federal Deficit as a % of GDP (any economists reading this feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption). For those who do not know, GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product which is “the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States” (definition taken for U.S. chamber of commerce). This is essentially what your nation is worth if you want to look at it that way. So again, looking at debt as % of GDP;

But back to the Great Depression and Government Deficit spending. The Great Depression was and continues to be the worst economic period in U.S. history, do not be fooled otherwise by claims that this is the worst economic time ever. Really it is laughable to compare this recession to the GREAT Depression where the unemployment rate was SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than double what it is now. But I reassert my claim that increased Federal Spending to point of running a deficit is necessary and it was this spending under FDR that truly pulled the U.S. out of it. Now many have made the argument that WWII pulled us out of the Depression and not FDR welfare programs (as I’ve faced this several times). I never said it was his Welfare Programs (although his programs did at least STOP the worsening) but he did have the right idea, I just venture to say that it wasn’t enough spending. Then WWII happens and the government is forced to spend and run a deficit that otherwise would not have occurred and at a level that had never and still has never been seen in terms of debt as % of GDP (like I just discussed).

If for some reason you still don’t want to make the connection between the MASSIVE spending and us coming out of the recession then maybe you should consider what happened BEFORE FDR was president and when Herbert Hoover was in office. Herbert Hoover was the President during the PEAK of the Great Depression and that too is not just coincidence. You see Herbert Hoover sounded a lot like these candidates now who (DURING A TIME OF RECESSION) want to NOW worry about the deficit spending and National Debt and want to balance the budget and cut into the welfare programs as a means of doing so (ONCE AGAIN, ALL VALID IDEAS AND CONCERNS JUST NOT NOW!!). Upon doing this, the Depression continued to get exponentially worse while he remained in office and continued to act on this concept. Only when FDR came into office and reversed that mentality did things start to improve. Also it is worth noting that during the recession in the early 1980’s (widely considered the 2nd worst economic period) another increase in deficit spending was necessary to pull the nation out (also can been seen on the above debt % of GDP chart).




You save up during times of economic prosperity (I would say when GDP growth rates are positive would be a good criteria) so that you have money available during emergencies (the recessions being emergencies). Over the Bush Administration and the administrations before Clinton, the Government behaved like a 20 year old college student carelessly blowing what ever money it actually made and then some! So yea, just like you would expect to happen with personal finances, things go south and your in a spot that is 100x’s stickier than it should be because you didn’t prepare when you had the chance! (and that’s Obama’s fault?)  And it baffles me as to why this is such a hard concept for politicians to understand. The issue is best summed up in this quote that I have taken from the GOVERNMENT’s website on the FEDERAL DEFICIT;

“The United States government did not always run a deficit. In the 19th century the federal government typically only ran deficits during wartime or during financial crises. The government ran a deficit of 2 percent of GDP at the end of the war of 1812, and through the decade after the Panic of 1837 and culminating in the US – Mexican War of 1846-48. It ran a deficit of over 7 percent of GDP in the Civil War; and ran a deficit in the depressed 1890s.
In the 20th century the US ran a defict during World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, AND IN ALMOST ALL YEARS SINCE 1960, DURING PEACE AND WAR.
(I dont recall any 50 year wars or recessions during this period….)

On a side note, during a discussion with a clear Republican he stated that we needed to return to a “Conservative Fiscal Policy” or a “fiscal conservative” I can’t remember which but I was curious as to what form of conservative he was referring to. Conservative as in running a tight budget and not spending alot of money? Or did he mean a fiscal republican? because these are not the same thing considering that the ONLY 2 presidents to actually manage a deficit over the last SEVERAL DECADES were both Democrats (Kennedy and Bush).

During the same discussion he also stated that he was against Obama because things have only gotten worse since he’s been an office. A statement that I assure you is 100% false in every aspect. Unemployment has been a slow but gradual decline since OCT 2009 and as of it turns out the United States GDP actually grew this last quarter (4th quarter of 2011). Here’s the links to the unemployment chart (can’t figure out how to get the actual chart in here) and about the last quarter GDP.

(4th quarter 2011 GDP)


I look to do another post tomorrow, not sure if I’ll do another political post but if I do it’ll be a more general look at politics in general as opposed liberal vs conservative.


43 comments on “My reason for not voting for a Republican this election….

  1. ^^1054 says:

    I dont have a long enough attention span to read the whole thing, and frankly have more important shit to do, but after the first paragraph, I found two major flaws in your logic, which I presume means your whole argument is flawed.

    First I will address what you said about increased government spending is a necessity in times of turmoil, but history has shown that that is not true. I would like to start by informing your that the founding fathers of this country almost made national debt unconstitutional, and fought hard to repay any debt in Merica’s first few decades. During the great depression, the new deal lowered unemployment numbers for an astounding two years, and after all the “short term” new deal programs ended, unemployment numbers rose 2-3% higher then they were before. The government also taxed the top 1% at rates of up to 75% during this time period, that seems fair? During WWII 80% of all planes and tanks for the allied forced were made in america, and 70% of all oil for the war came from America, people were actually put to work in jobs that made Americans money, not jobs that just created roads. WWII jobs were not forced to be filled by the government, but by the owners of such companies. I am not saying that war solves economic problems now days as to much of our infrastructure is already owned by the government and to much work is done overseas. On to your point that bush spent more then obama currently does. With bush, the national debt rose from 5.77 to 10.7 billion dollars. Obama started off with 10.7 and the debt has risen to 14.1. When you look at how long each candidate has been in office, and divide the amount of money the national debt has risen over their time period using simple math, you will see that it rose roughly 1.6 billion a day under bush, and is currently rising around 5 billion a day under Obama, so your stats are flawed. You can’t compare apples to oranges, or 3 years to 8.. So Obama is running the debt up an extra 1.1 trillion dollars a year. On a side note, I believe that America is Fucked beyond belief and will never be able to get out of this shit storm we have created. But we can stay above other countries. obama has single handedly been the worst thing ever for this country. And as for the raising of the national debt ceiling, Bush was for that, and democrats fought against him for it, but then supported it a mere few years later. And personally I believe that it is impossible to identify as a republican or a democrat, or independent no days, would you consider yourself a conservative, moderate, or liberal? And don’t trust the news as 98% of all news stations report news toward the left half of the spectrum, even fox.

    Is your major political science? if not what? what do you want to do out of college?

  2. skrepps says:

    ouch man i was really hoping you didn’t put the reply on here. I already got your email so I was just going to respond via email, but now I have to embarass you publicly :/

  3. ^^1054 says: Thats what the NPR says on the debt, which is a historically liberal news source…

  4. skrepps says:

    It was nice effort but unfortunately you left out several things and misinterpreted a significant part of my post. Before reiterating that yes increased spending during economic turmoil is necessary, for one yes the unemployment rate went back up in ONE YEAR from 1937-1938 and it was ACTUALLY by 4.73%…..of course after having fallin 10% from its high of 24% in 1933 so yea actually I think that would qualify as successfull policy in the minds of most realistic people. And to further take a dump on that arguement I also point out that after that ONE YEAR unemployment went from 18.91 to 17.05 (1.86% decrease) from 1938-1939, to 14.45 (2.6% decrease) from 1939-1940, and to 9.66 (4.79% decrease) from 1940-1941. And for the kicker thats before they even went into world war 2 in December of 1941. And those are all facts from the Census Bureau kid, not wikipedia. So again, how was it not successful?

    And what the hell are you talking about those jobs weren’t forced to be filled by the U.S. government? Thats exactly what happened lol. All of the millitary personel, who pays them? All of the tanks, planes, guns, and ammo, yes made by the private sector BUT WHO PUT THE ORDER IN AND PAID FOR THEM!? The companies hired workers with the money they got when the Government signed the contract for goods. Government doesn’t sign the contract and buy the goods, companies don’t make the goods, companies dont hire the workers to make the goods. I’m really dumbfounded as to how you just tried to say that Government did not create jobs and indirectly pay those employees by going to war.

    In regards to the Bush spending, you clearly misread what I said, I said that Bush spent more in his LAST YEAR than Obama did in any one year. Which I am not bashing as wrong because he did the right thing, he spent alot of money when the economy went to shit. My issue with the Bush administration is that he ran up the debt pretty significantly DURING A PERIOD OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. Maybe you should have read the whole post because the entire point was that we spend during times of economic crisis and run a surplus and save during economic growth. Obama is spending more for the same reason Bush W spent more in his last year, and the same Reagan spent more in his term BECAUSE THERE WAS ECONOMIC TURMOIL. The problem here is that if you look at what happened to Debt as % gdp after that WWII spike, it went down from 120% to 30% of GDP (because there was not times of EXTREME ECONOMIC HARDSHIP). Then Reagan spent more because he had to due to the severe recession (as i mentioned 2nd worse in our nations history) and i think he was republican right? Anyway, the problem arises after that when that recession was gone and delt with when a big DA by the name of Bush Sr. comes in and continues to run it up! Then thank god for Clinton who actually managed a surplus, but low and behold, like father like son, DA #2 comes in and does the same dang thing! So where as Roosevelt came in with debt around 30% of GDP and had a little room to work with, Obama came in with debt already at almost 90% of GDP!! But you have to spend money especially when it was as severe as it was.

    And are we really pulling the founding fathers card like they are all knowing spiritual deities? But ok, il play along. Of course theres the whole, “they also owned slaves” but I know you’ve heard that. Several, including washington, were also desperately against the formation of political parties, many were against the formation of the federal reserve, oh and how bout this little tid bit, in the treaty of tripoli they explicitly state that America was in NO WAY founded on the Cristian Relgion of beliefs. I think we need to tell a few republicans about that. Funny thing is I AGREE, debt is a bad thing (WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING IT OFF BEFORE NOW). BUT there are times when it is necessary just as there were times when the founding fathers too had to borrow money (or else they wouldnt have anything to pay off as you clearly put it). So whats your point? We agree that you don’t borrow money when you don’t need it?! Unfortunately we need it and that is not Obama’s fault.

    Try again?

  5. skrepps says:

    And heres the link to the unemployment figures

  6. skrepps says:

    And maybe its just me but when you made the point that after the “short term” parts of the new deal ended the unemployment went up, if anything it just means he was doing exactly the right thing but the “short term” parts just got cut 1 year too soon. However I guess the long term ones must have been pretty solid because there sure as hell is no denying those results.

  7. ^^1054 says:

    Fact of the mater on your first point is, that Roosevelt had 4 of his policies shut down because they were deemed unconstitutional, thats a shitty of a President in my mind. So first paragraph i don’t really care what you said. Second paragraph, US orders to private companies that hired employees. Companies and employees get paid, not just employees, thats what i am saying… Now days just employees make money..

    Not even going to try to argue with you on the second paragraph, because there is no point.. You called out my two American heros Reagan and Bush, and if you did research you would see that there are millions of people that believe that it was Reagan/Bush’s fault and millions that believe that it was Clinton and companies fault.. But im sure your right, the college undergraduate has to have solved the worlds pressing issues our lawmakers and historians cant.

    As for your last paragraph, that is just down right disrespectful to the founding fathers who risked their lives to establish this country. They borrowed money for war, to defend our country… One nation under GOD, they were all strong Christians, and yes i know God was not mentioned in the constitution….

    My overall point would have to be that Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history. Disregarding all facts, he is the least qualified President ever, and won solely based on race, and has not done a damn thing since being put into office.

    • skrepps says:

      I’m going to assume that since you digress from my main point about fiscal policy and the actual components they consist of to talking about matters completely unrelated that you acknowledge that I am right in that increased spending during economic turmoil is a must, and a must that has been recognized by BOTH parties. And again you have misread, I CLEARLY SAID that Reagan did the right thing and spent money when he needed to to get out of the nations second worst depression ever. I said both of the Bush’s were DA’s, NOT REAGAN.

      And what the hell does the policies ruled unconstitutional have to do with the fact that other policies he passed were very effective (and more importantly that I was right) and he ultimately lead our country through the hardest time since the civil war. Funny how your opinion of him differs greatly from the countless historians that consider him one of the greatest of all time (since you want to talk about historians and economists) which by the way is where I get alot of the facts I use to debunk your ludacris arguements. Everything I have given to you is recorded fact and statistics from both historians and economists.

      Employees are the only ones getting paid? lol you are loosing credibility by the sentence. If the economy is improving, which it has if you bother doing research, then it means employers are benifiting as well. If what you mean is that employees and every day individuals are getting more assistance than business owners, you can likely say that, but to say they are getting nothing? Come on now. Just because they are expected to contribute a little more on their tax burden doesn’t mean they aren’t getting anything. Regardless I promise you business owners and employees alike are better off than they would have been if Obama administration provided no assistance. Which I find funny by the way that you bash Obama for spending all that money for assisstance but then complain because business owners are getting enough it? Is that the real issue, business owners and the other wealthy aren’t getting enough help? I mean I can go on all day about the moral dilema about wanting the lower and middle income citizens to carry more of the tax burden, and I can also go on all day about who benefits most from government. I guarentee you that all of those couple hundred dollar a week unemployment checks and tax breaks don’t add up to a fraction of what the top 5% of income bracket would loose if our government ceased to exist today. Think about it. No law enforcement, no legal system to enforce property rights of any kind. The list goes on. Truth is the wealthy need government more than the poor and middle class. So you should pay more for it.

      AND WHOOOOAAAA did you just say that they were ALL CHRISTIANS? Son you really could benfit from some research, the MAJORITY of them, including the majority of the most influential ones, where DEISTS and by no means christian. To say that they were all christian is flat out wrong and laughably so. Maybe I didnt make myself clear about the treaty of tripoli, maybe I if use quotes it would help because it really is verbatim what it says “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” and this is 1796, Many of the founding fathers were still alive and kickin…..

      And so since you have abandoned the topic of debate about fiscal policy during times of economic turmoil and times of economic growth I will take it that you concede that arguement. So dare I ask what makes president Obama the worst president in history? Hes been in office for 3 years and is gradually pulling us out of what could have very easily been the next great depression.

    • skrepps says:

      And please enlighten me as to what parts of my arguement you believe to be speculation.

  8. ^^1054 says:

    I only felt like reading the last paragraph, bc you seem to care a lot about this shit, which is one thing I lack. Obama has hundreds of ties to George Soros, the most corrupt man in the world. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party. First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space. First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office. First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it (u have to agree with that, since he was nominated before being elected…). First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense (his wife has 32 staff members, Barbra like7). First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer (bush went to his own house for vacation). First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin (hahahaha).

    He also doesn’t support protecting Israel, one of our allies in that region, and in the bible, it states that once the holy land is gone, God will bring down his wrath.

    I could keep going but im bored. It is funny you consider yourself a independent, I think you should reconsider..

    • skrepps says:

      And you do realize that the salute incident was a one time thing? He’s done it every other event. And he doesn’t refuse to wear the pin either. Sometimes he does sometimes he doesn’t. And I believe he has shown his birth certificate. The connections I know nothing of but im going to assume it blown out of proportion like every other claim you just made. And bow to Americas enemies? Really dude I’ve seen it was a sign of respect for a foreign political leader not fricken Sadam Hussein. What the hell did you want him to do? Flip him the bird? And with self righteous attitude we wonder why the rest of the world hates America. And you do realize that we are behind most other developed industrialized countries in a nationalizing health care?

      • skrepps says:

        and in regards to the vacations and other insignificant BS that are likely just more sensationalized numbers that you got from fox news, the fact is that he is pulling us out of one of the hardest times with a slightly less than friendly congress and have been no attacks on American soil. Those alone should exclude him as the worst ever. Be honest, do you watch it?

    • skrepps says:

      And are you really suggesting we let the bible dictate foreign policy? And YEAH im independent, the fact that I support a democratic president because of the good that he has done despite some ignorant misinformed conservatives thinking otherwise is suppose to classify me as democrat? Nay, I say that makes you close minded my friend.

  9. ^^1054 says:

    Stop using big words, it confuses my small conservative head. Obama had 3 years experience in jr congress, enough said. And you didnt talk about george soros and the race card. What do you think about those two?

    • skrepps says:

      I think I like to do research or no about topics before I debate them. In this case I do not.

    • skrepps says:

      From what I can gather about george soros through a quick search is some babble about voter fraud that appears to have been unfounded and him being extremely liberal. Sounds like it fits with your other fox news hyped stories to me.

  10. ^^1054 says:

    If you are a believe in Christianity, ya I would…. as every other president has supported them.

  11. ^^1054 says:

    i have not quoted fox once u idiot. Nor have i read any or heard anything for has said in months. I can show you proven links between soros and his non-profits and obama and the amount of cash and influence the man who broke the bank of england has over obama. He is one of the most powerful men in this world, I think google can muster up a little more then that.. The man is easily the scariest man in the world, thought u would know about him..

    • skrepps says:

      He’s an extreme liberal who backs and supports other liberals over conservatives and yes is very popular. I dont necessarily agree with some of his views but I don’t see a reason as to why I would be concerned about him affiliating with Obama? He’s a liberal and obama is a democratic pres
      ident what do you expect? Only republicans find a way to demonize a man who donates BILLIONS of dollars to charities. Please fill me in to what it is I’m not finding. Anything I find by clicking a link after googling him is just as easily debunked by googling the issue. I never said you quoted them, its just the only news media I know of that reluctant to let go of issues that have long since been resolved and were more often then not blown out of proportion to start with.

    • skrepps says:

      And why is it again that we aren’t able to debate the functional aspects of managing a country as opposed to affiliation, birth place, and other non skill or knowledge based issues of our president? Cause to me that’s really what matters and what I consider when I vote but I’m going to assume that makes me a liberal too?

    • skrepps says:

      And really? He funds his campaign and its automatically assumed obama is in his pocket? The guy could just share similar beliefs. I mean he has clearly prooven that he’s generous in donating billions to charity so why would you not expect him to be generous in his political contribution. Or was he expectong something in return in giving to charity as well. Both parties are bad about assuming worst case scenario of the other party.

    • skrepps says:

      I think its time we face the fact that you hate obama because he’s liberal and your a raging conservative. Anything you read or find on him, you are going to view it through that bias. Anything you read about him is bad because your only seeking the bad. Its human nature to make things conform to your perspective even when they blatantly do not.

  12. ^^1054 says:

    I quoted the NPR for just about everything…………. Soros broke the bank of England. read all that.. and this I would personally consider the man to be the devil, he doesnt donate to charities, its non-profits that support liberal agendas and have hundreds of people in common with obamas personal staff. And then Humor me and watch this, fyi soros filed multiple law suits over slander after this show and lost all cases.

    • skrepps says:

      I do hope you realize the flaw in the credibility in your sources. I mean on the first site the number 1 reason the give for him being dangerous is because he gives billions to the left wing? Not exactly a doomsday threat there buddy and shows a small bias in priorities lol. Im not even going to entertain this site beyond that line. Lol and the second site gives a link to the first in the first line. I think you need to widen your search base to sources that don’t proclaim to be the conservative voice. All of my sources are government, academic, or verified over a variety of news sources as a last resort (not different sources that provide links to each other) here’s a clue if you cant find the same thing on a site not clearly labeled conservative, then its probably not true.

    • skrepps says:

      And really!? A glenn neck video? You truly do not get the concept of reliable sources. And please provide a link to info on this law suit bc I cant find anything about suing glenn beck. I only see where he sued a canadian news person who had a right wing agenda (was starting up his own self proclaimed right wing news media) for slander in which case he was quite successful. Interesting that even wikipedia doesn’t mention any scandles. And yes actually he did give billions to legit charity. That’s fact. He is a very succesful philanthropist.

  13. ^^1054 says:

    Right, well then read geogre soros’ books to learn about his bullshit. basically I have come to the conclusion that you are simply a close minded, atheist, liberal fuck. Thanks for wasting my time, we will see what happens in the years to come! good luck with your pathetic attempt to become successful at politics, there are millions out there far brighter…

    • skrepps says:

      Really? I render you pointless in the realm of economic policy so you resort to character bashing liberals based on right wing media, innacurately label me both a liberal and an athiest (and then bash my knowledge of politics)? Not christian does not equate to athiest, or maybe it does to the FAR right wing nutcase. I have rendered virtually every arguement and point you have made invalid if not flat out false (even after you drifted far from the topic of MY post and continued to reach for some kind of topic in which you could hope our opinions differed and you could proove me wrong). Im sorry that my complete lack knowledge and political wisdom robbed of that opportunity to the point that you resort to rude behavior and profanity. Good luck on your test :).

  14. ^^1054 says:

    HAHAHAHA I still feel im right, and there are millions who share my opinions, which is great because it is AMERICA, land of the FREE. you have shown support for every democratic candidate in history, and don’t agree with basic christian believes so my opinion stands. I don’t remember ever saying you had no knowledge, actually many times i said u had valid points, or that I recognized what you said as a widely accepted opinion. You have not rendered much of what I said false… And again, you will not make it in big boy politics. thanks preciate it. your car is gay :/

    Thanks be to GOD we live in the land of the FREE

    • skrepps says:

      There were only 3 democratic presidents in u.s. history? Fdr, clinton, obama? I also said reagan had it right. Oh and I dont think jimmy carter was very good and he was dem. Only thing I said about kennedy was he ran a surplus but I actually think one of his policies indirectly laid ground work for the current economic crisis. I believe this shows a slight left biased which I claimed from the start. And trust me, no one thinks my car is as gay as I do :/ your sister will tell u that.

  15. Anonymous says:

    OMG!!!!!! Damn Stephen, he has no come back lol

  16. ^^1054 says:

    Sorry its taken a while… but here are some facts from one of the heads of the history department at wku, from my meeting with him. 22 of the founding fathers had seminary degrees, the most quoted text by all of the foundering writings is the bible (33%, next closest is Locke at 11%), until the 50’s in many states stores and businesses by law had to be closed on sundays, and lastly, whenever the supreme court makes a decision, what document are they starring at up on the wall? The ten commandments. I believe he also said that separation of church and state was not defined until the 50’s as well. Here is a quote from him as well “If you do not believe that the United States was based on Christian values then you are just plain stupid”.

    • skrepps says:

      Shame this misinformation actually comes from a professor, but I guess that is why he doesn’t teach at a more reputable university. And maybe out of some fault of my own but I assumed you were talking about the 7 primary founding fathers, you know, Georgia Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison. Of these 7, only John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are “Christian”. And before I get into proof of the other 5, well no shit the bible was the most cited text! They were politicians pandering to a society just as politicians due today. And it doesn’t mean anything! Hell Thomas Jefferson wrote his own bible because he believed in the MORAL teachings of Jesus, nothing more. In fact he even made sure to take out all of the miracles and claims of divinity and write solely about the moral teachings. But that does not make him Christian. Now here are some quotes from the other 5 founding fathers.

      Benjamin Franklin
      1″.Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

      2.”I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.”

      3.”Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

      4. “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

      James Madison
      1.”What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

      2. “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

      3.”Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

      4. “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”

      John Adams
      1.”As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”

      2. “The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”

      3. “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

      4. “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

      5. “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?”

      6. “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

      Thomas Jefferson
      1. (and this one is my favorite)
      “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.”
      “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.”

      2. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

      3. “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”

      4. “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

      5. “We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication .”

      6. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”

      George Washington
      1.”Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

      2. This one is by Jefferson about Washington.

      “Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.”

      And in regards to separation of church and state what specifically do you mean by defined? Because it was definitely discussed in that exact wording WAAAAAYYY before the 50’s.

      1. By Thomas Jefferson “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

      2. By James Madison “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

      There are many more on that topic but I believe two more than make the point that SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE was a familiar topic of the time.

      The thing about being closed on Sunday, your own sentence makes it irrelevant. “In many states” therefore it was not a national law and not relevant to the founding of the Nation.

      Some researcher has determined supposedly that at least 52 of the 55 delegates at the federal convention were Christian. Interesting since the above quote clearly debunks 5 off the bat. Here is my explanation though. I don’t believe anyone today would classify Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs as Christian. He believed;
      “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
      1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
      2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
      3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.”

      I imagine based on his and several other quotes from the founding fathers that their beliefs were very similar. Now would believing in the MORAL teachings of Jesus and not divine teachings of the bible qualify as christian? I would imagine that those making such high christian percentage claims of the founding fathers are probably using that standard. I don’t consider that Christian however for that is what I believe and I do not call myself christian.

      And despite what other people who were not present try to go back and determine about their beliefs, I believe their own words speak the most. And lastly in regards to “If you do not believe that the United States was based on Christian values then you are just plain stupid”, I again quote the treaty of tripoli “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. Sounds like your professor just inadvertently called several of the founding fathers “dumb”, including the 23 senators present that unanimously approved the treaty… unless of course the key word there is “values” as opposed to the christian religion itself as read in the treaty. If that’s so what “values” does he speak of and are they really “christian values”? What I mean is “do not kill” and “do not steal” and not “christian values” just because they are in the ten commandments. I do believe those to have been common laws that were around before and would continue to be around without. Christianity can not lay claim to the basic morals, they are the result of human conscience, not religion……Feel free to share my ENTIRE response with your professor.

    • skrepps says:

      And shame on your professor for seminary degree figure, if he had properly done his own research he would know the very loose definition of “seminary degree” that was used in that report. Any degree from any university that was originally a seminary school, was considered a seminary degree, such as harvard and yale etc. Prime example of this flaw is that john adams is considered to have had a seminary degree from harvard. But based on his quotes i provided do you consider that christian. Oh and interestingly enough he was VP of American bible society. Emphasising my point that they were believers in the MORAL TEACHINGS of christ, not christianity. Again, shame on your professor.

  17. ^^1054 says:

    Interesting how the undergrad at age 21 thinks they know more than the 70 year old man, who has spent his life studying history and political theory. It was actually 27 out of 56 had seminary degrees, not 22.. I am talking in terms of all 56, not just 7… Also Washington attended church every Sunday and was very active.

    John Jay was the president of the American Bible society, and he was a member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions

    The words separation of church and state don’t appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since. It is also used by evolutionists to try to keep a theistic explanation of origins out of the public schools. Many young people today are not aware of the fact that this concept is an ACLU invention, and that it is the extreme opposite of what our founding fathers actually intended. In other words, there is virtually no constitutional support whatsoever for it.

    Benjamin Franklin is widely regarded to be among the least religious of the founding fathers. However, his speech given to Congress on June 28, 1787 asking that Congress have a prayer every morning before conducting business was overtly religious in nature.

    The October 11, 1782 congressional proclamation that declared Thanksgiving Day a day the nation was to give thanks to God for a variety of blessings.

    The Library of Congress web site has a page titled Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89. Among the documents listed are the first English language Bible (Aitken’s Bible) that Congress officially sanctioned for use by American citizens on September 12, 1782.

    “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
    –The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

    John Adams
    “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
    –Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

    “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
    –Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
    –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

    “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
    –The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

    “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
    –History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

    “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

    That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

    As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

    But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”
    –Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

    “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
    –America’s Providential History, p. 93.

    “The gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!”
    –The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, pp. 165-166.


    “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
    –Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.

    henry (my favorites)
    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
    –The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

    “The Bible … is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
    –Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402

    John Jay
    “In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible.”
    –American Statesman Series, p. 360.

    I could go on, I have hundreds more….

    Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined in order for this nation to continue properly.
    There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

    Most Americans today are Christian
    Most Americans through history have been Christian
    American culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity
    America is part of “Christendom,” the cultural and political region where Christianity dominates

    55% of Americans think that the Constitution actually establishes America as a Christian Nation while 65% believe that America’s founders intended America to be a Christian Nation. (but that doesnt matter…..)

  18. ^^1054 says:

    If you believe in the moral teachings of Christ, then that is technically at least partially believing in Christianity. Also the bible has two testaments, the new testament solely focussing on Jesus, his teachings and the resurrection, so in my above quotes that include a founding father speaking good of the bible keep that in mind. The bible is the word of the trinity, God, Jesus, and the spirit, believing in the bible would in some way mean believing in Christianity.On a serious note, I believe that this topic has been debated for 200 years or so, so I don’t believe two young individuals will be able to find the answers to the issue.

  19. skrepps says:

    Ok see here is my thing, you have teachings in the bible that are universally moral, like not killing, not stealing, being kind to others, etc, and then you have the teachings that are arbitrary and specific to Christianity (and a couple of others) like not being homosexual, that salvation comes through Jesus, that Jesus was the son of god, that Christianity is the ONLY right religion, keeping the sabbath day holy, and many others that do not pertain to general morality. Those general morals are the parts of Christianity that you can say the U.S. was founded on, but again I (and many others) say it was not founded on Christian Values because those “general morals” are not specific to or the result of Christianity.

    *Side note- I haven’t researched this but I am curious as to how many quotes you can find from founding fathers in favor of a Trinity, but I do know for a fact that while Thomas Jefferson believed in the Teachings of Jesus (As I have said virtually all of them did) he was very much against the concept of a Trinity.

    What I gather from the quotes I provided is that their issues were not with the biblical teachings, but with the institutions of Christianity. They talk about how corrupt it has become and all of the acts of hatred and crime that come from Christianity and organized religion in general. I believe many were sponsors of Christianity and bible in regards to its effectiveness in teaching morality, but would not have opposed a religion with similar moral teachings. I DEFINITELY do not think that the founding fathers would have EVER used the christian religion as a reason to limit the rights and freedoms of others (gays and other religions) and instead would have been strongly against such (because they are not the “general moral” teachings in the bible).

    If I can basically sum up what I am trying to say in one sentence, I believe they were for the teachings of the bible and Christianity, but against the concept of organized religion as means of dividing people (which is all it is!).

    And also you say that this is an issue that has been debated for over 200 years and that we will not solve it, but yet “If you do not believe that the United States was based on Christian values then you are just plain stupid”………really?

    And again with the separation of church and state, HE DID NOT INVENT IT OR THE MERE WORDS! I gave you quotes from Jefferson and Madison that both explicitly say “Separation of Church and State” and as a matter of fact Leo took those words and its concept directly from the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson! James Madison (who drafted the first amendment himself) viewed it as a “Great barrier” between church and state…….how do you want to say the American was founded on the Christian religion when there is no “legal document” explicitly stating it (and in fact there is one stating the COMPLETE opposite) and then turn around and argue against separation of church and state on the grounds that there is no legal document for it…….that my friend is hypocrisy.
    BUT FINE! you give me your interpretation of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Because I do not see how you can say that separation of church and state is not an accurate summary……

  20. ^^1054 says:

    I don’t have much time here, but If you believe in the bible, many founding fathers quoted saying how much they loved the bible (“The Bible … is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
    –Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402), then they loved both the new testament and old testament, the new testament solely talks about the life of Jesus Christ. The belief Jesus is what separates Christianity from other religions. You will not change my opinion on this matter, and the majority of the country agrees with what I think. Again this is a battle that can not be won, or else there would be a textbook definite answer everyone agrees with. I will try to expand on some of my opinions on your points later. On a serious note, you seem mad…

    • skrepps says:

      How can you assume it was the whole bible? See how many quotes you can find in reference to the old testament. They are overwhelmingly from the new. Find quotes that address biblical aspects other than the “general morals” that I keep addressing. That is the point I am trying to make to you. And actually I felt that my last reply was the most mild of any of mine. CAPS are for EMPHASIS, not louder tone. On the contrary I am glad to see you finally research a topic before debating it.

      My underlining point in all of this is that christian or not, the founding fathers never used the bible as a standard for their political actions. It was kept separate. Do you think the founding fathers would have prohibited gay marriage? Or do you think they would support electing officials because they are christian? Or not elect officials because they are not Christians? I think the founding fathers would be disturbed with the level of which society lets the Christian INSTITUTION dictate their lives and political opinions. If a clearly superior and openly atheist candidate ran against very devout but incapable christian, I have no doubt the christian would win…..and that is a sad state of society. You think those are the kind of ideals the founding fathers had?
      Also any frustration I have is with how you insist that “separation of church and state” is a concept of the 20th century when it is most definitely NOT. Admit that your statement that the phrase was INVENTED in the 1900’s is flat out wrong. The exact phrase appears in the writings of several founding fathers VERBATIM!!

  21. ^^1054 says:

    “Theocracy” literally means “ruled by God.” It has nothing to do with priests. America was supposed to be a nation “under God.” If America is under God, then God is over America. That’s the literal meaning of “theocracy.”

    I have shown you FACTS that our founding fathers have said that support they made a Christian nation, and you have shown me FACTS showing they did not want it to be. Until you can travel back in time and ask each of them, we will never know, I’m sorry you can not accept the fact that this can not be proved and that either or us could be right. As for me I know what I believe and it is that we are a Christian Nation. Im sorry we can not see eye to eye. But you at least have to agree that many Christian values are instilled in America, after that is where we differ.

    • skrepps says:

      You fail to understand my issue with this whole……issue. Yes I am aware that of theocracy and “under god” and I do not disagree with either. But a God is not synonymous with Christianity. And there are many others out there like me that believe in a God and moral teachings of Jesus. Not because he was the son of God but because they are MORAL teachings.

      My problem with the Christianity being the foundation for our country is that it makes people think they can make laws that regulate behaviors not pertaining to “general morals” (like killing, stealing, etc) such as gay marriage or laws that limit the inadvertently or intentionally infringe on the rights of non-Christians. And that is not right.

      Then there is also the fact that a large number of Christians discriminate on an individual level, being hostile to not Christians and Gays. They are completely unable to look beyond the division of religious beliefs. Of all the acts of kindness that Christian Organizations perform, how many of them are not to fellow Christians or are attached with implications for conversion? VERY little IF any. Reflect on yourself for a minute and think of what you have done for fellow Christians as opposed someone who openly non-Christian. And you think that coincides with Jesus’ teachings?

      And yes I am aware that not all Christians are the raging, prejudicial, hateful, tools that they are often made out to be. But how much effort do the rest of the Christian’s actually put into setting them straight and getting the right teachings out there? Instead the “decent Christians” want to confront us when we speak out against those that are not decent.

      And even then, 9 times out of 10, normal Christians just put up a front of tolerance (as you are now) when they are confronted with undeniable evidence of the harm that religion has caused. But behind close doors or around other Christians, they are just as judgmental and prejudicial as the worst of them (I know from experience).

      A more times than not when a Christian is faced with religious opposition, they will refer to the other individual by saying “I have come to the conclusion that you are simply a close minded, atheist, liberal fuck.”

      Yea that’s your quote buddy. You are the type of Christian that we take issue with, and the kind that will ultimately ruin the world for everyone else in it until they conform with your idiotic and completely unfounded view of Christianity. Whether or not the U.S. was founded on Christian principles through our founding fathers, it was most definitely not founded on yours, or the right wing’s perverted version of Christian principles. AND THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT.

  22. ^^1054 says:

    The Bible is synonymous with Christianity and thats a fact, that is all. Refer to the rest of my last post. And if you ever call me buddy or degrade my institution, again I swear….

    • skrepps says:

      Believing in the whole bible (not just the moral part) is synonymous. You swear what? To lash out in the same violent methods that your own bible preaches against. Atleast most christians have the capacity to pretend to be tolerant when tolerance its the topic of conversation. You can’t even manage that. Your who the christian religion should be reaching out to BUDDY. Not us. But on a bright note thanks for prooving everything in my last comment right ;).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s