Sinclair Lewis got it right...

[cleanhippie]

"When Fascism Comes To America It Will Be Wrapped In The Flag And Carrying A Cross." -- Sinclair Lewis


I guess he was right...

-----------------------------------
The Cross Spangled Banner Combines the World’s Two Most Powerful Symbols to Reawaken the Virtue America has Forgotten






http://www.crossspangledbanner.com/

[valerief]

1. Looks like that bird is gonna shit on it, too. You know, if you twist those damn crosses

at bit, they'd look like the X'd out eyes of dead cartoon characters. Now that's fitting.

[nineteen50]

2. proceeded by police force with tear gas and rubber bullets and night sticks.

[trotsky]

3. How much you wanna bet that sucker is made in China? n/t

[RevStPatrick]

4. I think I might buy one of those...

...just so I can burn it!

[cleanhippie]

5. Well, that would be your right to do so.

[MarkCharles]

7. Buying one of those just to burn it would be like buying pot to burn:

you never know what kind of disgusting people you would be supporting with your dollars.

[MarkCharles]

6. I thought it was a JOKE, until I clicked on the link and found out that...

they take Master Card and VISA!!!

[rrneck]

8. Disaster capitalism at its finest. nt

[Lint Head]

9. Think I'll order one of these so I can burn it in front of any speech or show where

Tony Perkins, Hank Jr, Pat Robertson, Ted Nugent, Chuck Norris or any other right wing theocratic fascist may be in attendance. Or, just do it and inform the media to record it or put it on You Tube.

[humblebum]

10. Yes, and to make sure that doesn't happen we need to impose

state atheism. And we all know how well that works. SARCASM

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Now THAT is a primo example

of a non-sequitur.

[darkstar3]

14. No, we just need to stick to the secularism America was founded upon.

Doesn't it just burn you up to know our government is godless?

[humblebum]

15. Prove it. I can find where it is proclaimed a free government,

but not a secular one.

[darkstar3]

17. Then you haven't read the constitution.

Thanks for that proof.

[humblebum]

19. Ya mean the part where it says

"respecting the establishment of religion, nor allowing the public exercise thereof?" Oh yeah, that part. I forgot about it. My bad.

[cleanhippie]

16. I think you struck a nerve!

[MarkCharles]

18. I bet it just burns some up, to be reminded that:

1) The USA was founded as a godless government

2) Atheists are hardly EVER mass murderers, nor active Communists, nor Nazi's.

[LARED]

26. The government is not Godless, it is religion-less. nt

[laconicsax]

29. Where's the god in our government?

:shrug:

[LARED]

34. The Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from

establishing a religion. No where does it forbid God from the government. Most framers of the constitution would not even conceive of a government void of God.

You may ask how is God manifested in the government? I think it is quite simple and direct. The government is far more than laws. Far more than a secular institution. The government is made up of people. Many of these same people for the most part believe in God. They have different interpretations of God and different ways to express their beliefs.
We the people are the practicing part of the government. The belief in God for good or bad influences how the people running the government behave.

There is prayer to God in congress, as well as many committees, and meetings, and official government functions, and many other ways.

[laconicsax]

42. IOW, there's no god in our government, but you're hopeful.

[LARED]

43. So when Congress and the Senate open in prayer

where are the prayers directed?

[laconicsax]

44. You mean when they violate the 1st amendment?

The opening prayer violates the 1st amendment as the courts have consistently interpreted it for decades.

(In case you're confused, look up Lemon v Kurtzman)

[LARED]

45. IOW, you're hopeful the government will exclude God in the future

Also I don't see how opening a session of congress ith prayer violates the "Lemon Test".

[laconicsax]

47. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

An action or law only has to fail one of the three 'prongs' to fail the Lemon test, and opening each day with a prayer clearly fails two, and arguably three.

I can't think of a secular (or even legitimate) legislative purpose it fulfills, and it certainly promotes religion over irreligion (and also a couple religions over others depending on the wording of the prayer). The argument could also be made that it creates excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

If you disagree:

-Name the secular legislative function the opening prayer fulfills.
-Explain how it doesn't favor religion over irreligion or one religion over another.

Enlighten me on this topic, will you?

[LARED]

48. Let me help you out

The Lemon Test is descibed as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Opening in prayer is NOT legislation. The Lemon Test is not even applicable to your argument.

[laconicsax]

52. That isn't even a decent try.

The Lemon test isn't applicable to legislation only. If you had even the slightest bit of understanding on this topic, you'd know that it is applied more broadly to ALL government actions--not just legislation. What a half-assed try--'It may represent a governmental establishment of religion, but since it isn't official legislation, it doesn't count.' :rofl:

Hell, read the rest of the Wikipedia article you cited. It references Santa Fe ISD v Doe, in which the Lemon test was applied to pre-game prayer. The decision is definitely pertinent to the topic at hand. If you can't see how, you're as much of a theocrat as Scalia.

[LARED]

54. Santa Fe ISD v Doe was not based on Lemon but

another "establishment" case.

But it really doesn't matter because for the present Congress opens in prayer to God whether you like it or not. As well as many other government sanstioned affiars.

It make me wonder why some are so consumed about this issue. Does your life get better when God or prayer is forbidden in government?

[laconicsax]

56. You're arguing with your own source.

You cited Wiki, now you're saying that it isn't reliable. Which is it?

What's funny about this is despite every challenge you make, you have yet to show that the Court has held official prayer to be Constitutional.

The opening prayer violates Lemon, it meets the standards in Doe AND the primary case Doe was based on.

...and you can't understand why anyone would stand up for separation of church and state. Classic.

[LARED]

59. So then explain how Congress and the Senate plus other

government sanctioned events have prayer?

[laconicsax]

61. The same way they passed DOMA:

In violation of the Constitution.

[darkstar3]

64. He obviously doesn't believe that standing law CAN violate the Constitution,

which just shows that he doesn't understand the judicial process.

[LARED]

68. That is one of the nice things about this board

everyone in entitled to an opinion. You view that prayer is in violation is just your opinion.

[laconicsax]

69. Figures you wouldn't view DOMA as unconstitutional.

Go in peace.

[LARED]

71. Funny I did not know you were a mind reader

I said not a word about DOMA.

[laconicsax]

75. Then you didn't read the comment you were replying to. n/t

[darkstar3]

58. "whether you like it or not". Yup, spoken like the privileged majority caring nothing for minorities

[LARED]

60. I am just stating facts.

The reality is Congress opening in prayer or the imprinting of the national motto on currency in no way prevents atheists from participating in whatever activities they like. To try and equate an Atheist's position as a minority needing protection from the privilege is absurd

[laconicsax]

62. Spoken like a true theocrat. n/t

[LARED]

66. Is that all you got? Name calling? nt

[laconicsax]

70. Well, seeing as how you're impervious to facts. n/t

[LARED]

72. It's kind of sad that you call me a Theocrat

you and I have a different opinion, yet I manage to not frame you in in a disparaging light.

I have said absolutely nothing to indicate I am a theocrat, yet you are quite comfortable disparaging me.

[laconicsax]

76. You are promoting a religiously-led government position ie a theocracy.

Reall, for someone who professes to not be a theocrat, you sure do argue in favor of theocracy a lot.

[LARED]

79. I am promoting no such thing. nt

[laconicsax]

85. What a compelling rebuttal. n/t

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

94. Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll have to assume that it's the truth. n/t

[LARED]

98. You have no evidence so assuming is all you have. nt

[laconicsax]

99. I have your theocratic posts on this and another thread as evidence.

Did you forget that what you post stays here forever?

[LARED]

102. You have nothing of the sort.. nt

[laconicsax]

106. Do you think that your posts aren't visible to anyone with an Internet connection?

:shrug:

[darkstar3]

63. Absurd? Really?

Atheists are a minority - fact.
We live in a democracy with protections for minority rights - fact.
There is, without question, no mention of any god in the Constitution, but there is a strict limitation on the involvement of religion in government - fact.

The only thing absurd here is your obvious attempt to stir the pot.

[LARED]

67. Yes, completely absurd.

Atheists are not a protected minority. Fact.

To equate atheists with protected minorities is disgraceful.

[rrneck]

83. Each and every citizen is a protected minority.

Protected by the bill of rights designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

The first right listed is the establishment clause in the first amendment.

[LARED]

87. The Bill of Rights largely protects our rights from government. intrusion

And there are laws designed ot protect certain minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Last time I checked Atheists were not a protected group.

Let me add if Atheists were in need of protection, I would be advocating their protection. So far the most serious tyranny I've been pointed to is the national motto perhaps makes Atheist feel excluded.

[rrneck]

90. Familiarize ypurself with

the separation clause in the first amendment.

[LARED]

91. You mean the establishment clause? nt

[rrneck]

93. Yes, thank you.

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

Does the national motto "In God we trust" violate the establishment clause or not?

The fact that you are already familiar with it but are perfectly willing to along yourself with some of the most dangerous political elements in this country doesn't speak well for your priorities.

[LARED]

97. Does the national motto 'In God we trust' violate the establishment clause or not?

No, it does not in my view. A motto printed on currency that says "In God We Trust" is not establishing a religion by Congress. It expresses a widely held sentiment by a majority of American.

[laconicsax]

100. Spoken like a true theocrat.

And you say I have nothing but assumptions.

[LARED]

101. You do know the definition of theocrat? Yes?

Is it possible you are so blinded by hate you think not believing the national motto violates the establish clause makse one a theocrat?

[rrneck]

103. "Congress shall make no law... "

http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=lHTETojfF4OkM7U1&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust&te=psy&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNF7-1DfsX9xeADMDxkUHsOxjch5TAOn July 11, 1954, just one month after the phrase"under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of< 10> Allegiance,< 10> the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law Allegiance, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 84-140, which required the motto on all coins currency. The law was approved by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period< 6> from 1957 to 1966.< 6> In 1956 the phrase was legally from 1957 to 1966 In 1956 the phrase was legally adopted as the United States' national motto by a law passed by the 84th United States< 11> Congress.( Public Law 84-851)",< 11> and the United Congress.( Public Law 84-851)", and the United States Code at 36 U.S.C.   § 302, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

[LARED]

104. Again. the establishment clause

prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. I guess our basis disagreement is I do not see how the salute or the national motto is establishing a religion. Atheist seem to believe these establish a state religion.

There is a clear distinction between the concept of God and the concept of religion. I guess Atheists like to muddle them together

[rrneck]

105. Actually

religion is best at muddling them together. They're so muddled almost nobody thinks of God other than the way religion has defined him, her, it or whatever.

Atheists have their knickers in a twist because people like you decry the tactics their fellow religionists use while at the same time reaping the benefits from them.

All you had to do is say, "Yeah, that motto shouldn't be there." But you just can't do it can you? You burn post after post making excuses for something that not only is expressly forbidden by the constitution, offers a convenient political football and endorsement to those who would turn this country into a fascist theocracy.

C'mon, admit it. "In God we trust" as our national motto is an endorsement of religion enacted by law and is therefore unconstitutional, or admit you support that endorsement and the theocratic position it promotes.

[LARED]

109. There are more than two options here.

I don't believe it is unconstitutional, nor do I think it promotes a theocratic position.

I do agree both side muddle the issue. Demagogues are like like.

The fear some atheist have of the US becoming a Christian "fascist theocracy" is pretty silly in my view. Of course there is a very small minority of folks advocating that position. There are also very small minorities of folks advocating the US become all sort of things that will never happen.

[rrneck]

111. LOL!

You'd better check that first amendment again.


http://i.word.com/idictionary/respecting
Main Entry: re·spect·ing Function: preposition Date: circa 1611 in view of 1 : in view of : with respect to 2 : with respect to : with respect to

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
he establishment clause has generally been nterpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the"separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or"accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

This may come as a shock to you, but atheists are human beings who believe in any number of things other than God. It wouldn't occur to most theocrats that could be possible but it's true. It seems you can't separate the concept of belief from the concept of a deity. That's your problem. The fact that you can't accommodate the beliefs of others, even over such a trivial matter as a little noticed "national motto" stamped on our money, is a pretty good indication of where your priorities lie and what you're willing to allow in the interest of how you feel about your faith. Arguing about silly shit like this is a pretty good way to spot a theocrat, even in ourselves.

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of atheists are liberals. Its no secret that the Republican party has spent the last four decades pandering to people's religious sensibilities. They've done that because they know it works. By conflating the very real and legitimate impulse toward faith with the exercise of power they can convince people that the most vile injustices are moral acts. That, I hope to you, is obvious. But there is a corollary effect. It divides their political enemies by dividing their loyalties.

We've got a lot of shit to straighten out in this country and we need a focused political coalition to do it. Democrats don't need to hear other Democrats supporting an illegal position wholly owned by Republicans.

Liberal Christians decry the relationship of politics and religion on the right while cutting off their share of the government pie by privatizing social services. Liberal Christians enjoy the national celebration if their holy days. And they enjoy the word "God" stamped on our money. You can't have it both ways. If you don't believe me just look at the Tea party. The Republicans have created a monster they may not be able to control, and that monster is overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian.

The desire to have something so near and dear to us as our faith supported by force of law is so imperceptibly insidious that the framers included the word "respecting" in the first amendment. That means "don't even start to go there" in today's nomenclature. Your floundering apologetics indicate you are clearly well on your way.

[rrneck]

95. Found a quibble and ran away huh?

:rofl:

[rrneck]

84. "Tough shit" is not much of a defense. nt

[rrneck]

46. I'll make you a deal.

I don't have to do anything you tell me to do. I can ignore you. In fact, it will be illegal for you to tell me to do anything. On the other hand, you have to listen very carefully to everything I tell you and take into consideration my opinion every time you make a decision.

How about it. Got a deal?

[LARED]

49. Sorry I can't make any sense out of your post

What does your question have to do with my post?

[rrneck]

51. The idea that

"There is nothing to forbid God from government", no matter how well intentioned, creates a pernicious one way street. Needless to say God himself won't show up, but it gives his trusted representatives wide open access to the levers of power.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with elected officials having faith, but to Foster the idea that God, and by extension his representatives here on earth, would enjoy unfettered access creates a dangerously inequitable relationship between government and select members of the electorate.

[LARED]

55. I think you misunderstand my view.

There is a difference between religion in government and God in government. The founders were well aware that establishing a religion was a "pernicious one way street", (I agree) hence the 1st Amendment. The founders would also likely scratch their heads in wonder at the absurdity of government devoid of God or God's influence via people.

The government is made up of people. Most believe in God and in many ways their behavior and thought processes are shaped in some way by their faith. No law can change this, (unless in order to work for the government you have to take and pass the militant atheist test)

[rrneck]

57. Absoultely.

Nobody can deny their faith, and the vast majority of people practice some sort of faith. But then, you get organizations like Patrick Henry college and Liberty University whose mission is to install a particular type of believer in office to further the agenda of a particular religion.

It of course doesn't help that just about every elected official feels compelled to mention god in some way or another to get votes. And that's not to mention all the holidays and wotnot that support religion in one way or another. That's how it works. Most religions, and I'm looking at you Southern Baptists and Pentecostals, build into the practice of the faith the inclusion of it in everything the practitioners do and everything they touch. That's how religion manages to get into all kinds of places it isn't supposed to be. They have convinced people they cannot approach the divine without the practice of a particular faith and it spreads like an infection throughout a culture until it runs into a conflicting ideology, then the bloodletting starts.

[LARED]

65. I don't have a problem with

any organization working to install someone that holds their beliefs. That include religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell organizations like the ones you cite (I am in no way affiliated with either) are not trying to install a religion they are simply working to install people that closely align with the values they espouse.

That's how democracy works.

[rrneck]

73. How do you feel about the citizens united ruling? . nt

[cleanhippie]

32. You can tell yourself that if you want to, but it doesn't make it true.

Self-delusion seem to be a quality you appreciate.

[LARED]

35. Well I certainly appreciated it when

I see it in atheists.

Seriously, you guys want to define "knowledge" to suit the nice little word you erected to prove that science is the only way to attain or acquire knowledge.

You think the because the first amendment excludes congress from establishing a religion, God is voided from the government. You can't seem to grasp a simple concept that God and Religion are different. People that believe in God run and define what how the government functions.

Some atheist pretend they are excluded from living life as they want because a coin has the exclusionary motto "In God We Trust" and they don't feel part of we. And you imply I'm delusional.

[cleanhippie]

37. So which god is it that "we" all trust in?

There are some 5000+ different gods that humans have believed in, so which one is it that "we" trust in?
Go on, tell me. Should be easy for you, since god is different from religion, so go on and tell me which one it is.


I, and the 15%+ of Americans in this country DO NOT trust in ANY god at all, so "In God We Trust" does not include a large part of the population at all, now does it? In fact, saying that "we" trust in some god when "we" don't at all EXCLUDES 15%+ of the population. If you don't think that 15%+ of the population is being excluded from that national motto, then you are, indeed, delusional.


So go on, which god do "we" trust in, LARED?

[LARED]

38. I am assuming your number of 15% includes agnostics,

as atheist represent well under 5% of the population. I'm not sure agnostics would appreciate being lumped in with your militant opposition to the national motto. I know when in the minority making exaggerated claims helps one feel better.

I'm not clear on why me divining what God the motto refers to is important. As far as I can tell each person is free to interpret God as they like. Only a very small percentage of people (namely militant atheists) seem to be highly offended by those four words.

As far as being excluded goes, I will ask once more. In way way are your excluded from doing or participating in anything because of the national motto?

[cleanhippie]

39. So you cannot name which god it is, can you?

Instead you want to quibble about numbers, and its irrelevant, as if even if its only 5%, that STILL 15 MILLION American who DO NOT trust in any god.

"We" do NOT trust in god, LARED, YOU do, and if the national motto, which represents ALL of us does not include ALL of us, then it EXCLUDES some of us. And as long as its not YOU who are being excluded, you could give two shits about those who are. You have made that quite clear.


Thank you for showing your true colors, LARED.
:puke:

[LARED]

41. Speaking of true colors

If you could provide a single instance of how you are excluded from doing anything because of the motto, I might give a crap. Until you do that in a convincing way I simply don't care about your imagined exclusion.

You are simply a whiner, trying very hard to make a victim out of yourself.

[cleanhippie]

50. Does being dishonest make jesus proud?

I just DID show you how non-believers are excluded. Sorry if you don't feel convinced, thats your problem, not mine.

And you STILL will not, because you cannot, name just which god it is that "we" all trust in.


Dishonesty....that sure is SOME value.

[LARED]

53. No you have steadfastly avoided my question

I understand you feel excluded but you can't or won't provide any clue as to how you're actually excluded from any activity because of the national motto.

[cleanhippie]

74. Jesus H Christ, man, are you really this dense?

I explicitly stated why non-believers are excluded. Either you cannot read or are willfully ignoring what I posted.

[laconicsax]

77. He's argued why he would be excluded of he were a non-believer too.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

[LARED]

89. You did not answer my question

I asked you how you are excluded from participating in any activity you want to be involved with because of the national motto.

You told me you feel excluded. I am not asking you how you feel, I am asking you how you are excluded.

I realize you don't want to answer honestly, so I understand your desire to misrepresent my question.

[rrneck]

118. From what activity

would you be excluded if it were removed?

[rrneck]

80. Parsing the issue wont help. nt

[rrneck]

81. +1 Plain language is refreshing. nt

[rrneck]

82. We are prevented

from feeling as if we are equal participants in the running of our country.

We are made to feel like second class citizens.

[LARED]

88. IOW's your feelings are hurt.

Not sure how anyone can help you there. Are you actually making the argument you would feel better if the national motto was outlawed? Life would improve for you? Seriously?

If you feel like a second lass citizen, then I would recommend you not let trival things dictate how you feel. It's a sign of emotional immaturity.

[rrneck]

92. If it's so trivial why are you defending it?

It doesn't belong there. Period. Your arrogance in the face of that obvious fact and your willingness to provide cover for all the right wing nuts who would happily turn this country into a theocracy is exactly what pisses atheists off. You are perfectly willing to toss any respect for the constitution and those who disagree with you under the bus in favor of your faith - a faith shared by some of the most disgusting and dangerous lunatics in this country.

Your attitude is why we have a first amendment.

Is the national motto and the opening prayer in Congress a violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment or not? Yes or no?

Edit for accuracy kindly provided by another poster.

[LARED]

96. I am not defending a thing

I have previously stated I don't care what is printed on our currency. I am curious to find out why atheists have their knickers in a twist over four simple words that in no way affects how they live their lives

Also I am in no way tossing the constitution under the bus in favor of my faith. The constitution is the only thing that protects the exercise of my faith and your beliefs.

[laconicsax]

107. If you don't care one way or another, then why do you argue against changing it?

:shrug:

[LARED]

110. I am not defending or arguing against changing it, I am

trying to understand why atheists are so afaud of it.

[laconicsax]

112. Everyone should be afraid of theocracy. n/t

Well...except for theocrats, I suppose.

[LARED]

113. Why would I fear something that will never happen? nt

[laconicsax]

114. Are you really that blind?

An entire political party stands for theocracy while another seeks to appease theocrats, there's an official office of faith based initiatives, there's a de facto religious test for office, religious "morality" is the basis for numerous laws that restrict people's rights, there's an official day of prayer, a state credits God in law, Congress starts with prayer, the national motto is "In God We Trust," etc, etc.

And you think that theocracy is impossible.

Wake up, LARED. Open your eyes to what's actually happening.

[LARED]

115. The only possible explanation is you have a definition of

Theocracy that's your own private interpretation.

[laconicsax]

116. Of course. It's just me.

:eyes:

[LARED]

117. We finally agree on something nt

[cleanhippie]

119. No, you don't. Really you don't.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Who on this forum wants to impose state atheism?

Many people here want the state to STAY COMPLETELY OUT of people's beliefs and nonbeliefs. That is a different matter.

The state should not be in the business of imposing atheism, or Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or Emperor Worship.

Can you really not distinguish between wanting the state NOT to impose Christianity, and wanting it to impose atheism?

[NMMNG]

31. No, he can't

He thinks people who don't want religion imposed on them are as bad as the KKK and the Nazis. He's deep in some dystopian delusion where his Bibles are being burned and he's being forced at gunpoint by ORGANIZED ATHEISTS to renounce his faith. :crazy:

[MineralMan]

12. Now, that's some strange stuff there.

Worrisome.

[NMMNG]

20. That will probably sell well in Texas and the Bible Belt

:puke:

[rug]

21. That quote's also been attrubuted to Huey Long.

Got a source?

[NMMNG]

22. The quote may have come from Mickey Mouse

It's no less accurate.

[MarkCharles]

23. You could provide YOUR source, first, and challenge someone else, but

absent of doing that, you could also say that you were the first to say it.

What difficulty do you have with finding source material, since you obviously have a computer?

[cleanhippie]

24. Perhaps, but I think you get the point...

To not get it would be admitting ignorance of epic proportions.

[rug]

25. Oh, I do get it but the sloppiness of a misattributed quote could upset your friend.

[MarkCharles]

27. misattributions are simple mistakes, which you have yet to prove ever happened

try again! My sources are the same as the OP's sources, as accurate as we can find.

Try using "the Google" and find your allegation backed up by at least one or two credible links, please
I don't do homework for children who make silly claims, I asked my children to do the same, when they actually had to go to the library before Google was born.

I would drive you to your local library, but we can save lots of gas if you just used "the Google" to prove your statement, but you cannot, for some unknown reason, do that!

[rug]

28. Then you'll have no problem googling this phrase.

It was actually a professor Halford E. Luccock of Yale Divinity School who gave origin to the quote in a New York Times article published 12 September, 1938

PS you're getting sloppy with your exclamation points, David.

[Jim__]

33. I don't believe either Huey Long or Sinclair Lewis said it.

This webpage has some pretty good research on it. It has the piece from the Times, but that piece doesn't contain the quote.

Too bad. It was such a handy phrase for people to use to feign literacy.

[beam me up scottie]

36. I see a tombstone for every state in the union.

:shrug:

[Moe Shinola]

40. You are correct., Sir!

Fascism came here exactly that way and is now well entrenched.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. same idea as my sig line. By Huey P. Long.

[deacon_sephiroth]

108. I just threw up a little in my mouth n/t