Who would our Founders endorse for president today?

[Universe Prince]

Gee, this was good, UP. All this talk about DIVERSITY and PLURALISM without mentioning those terms. Bteer get on the PC bandwagon. Or, is this simply yet another PC attack?

No. This isn't an attack of any sort or an attempt at political correctness. Sorry to have confused you.

[The_Professor]

My bad then, as they say.

[Plane]

These are two diffrent things else ,the Declaration of Independence makes no sense.

[...]

I think you are struggleing hard to confuse the definition fo "Nation " and "Government " because their sepration destroys your arguement , if they are really the same thing ,then I have been misunderstanding the whole concept for a long time.

I did not say they were the same thing, and I'm not trying to make them synonyms. I do think they are related to each other, particularly in this odd political experiment called the United States of America. But please, I would like for you to explain how one keeps a nation entirely separate from its government. Particularly a nation with a democratic republican government such as we have.

As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .

[Universe Prince]

As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .

One, that isn't quite what the Declaration of Independence says. Two, that does not explain how a nation, in particular a democratic republic, is entirely separate from its government. You'll have to work harder to make your case effectively.

[Plane]

As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .

One, that isn't quite what the Declaration of Independence says. Two, that does not explain how a nation, in particular a democratic republic, is entirely separate from its government. You'll have to work harder to make your case effectively.

If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it  then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .

Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.

[Universe Prince]

If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it  then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .

Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.

Yes, and?

I should, I suppose, take a moment to say that a key factor you're still missing is that if the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.

[Plane]

If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it  then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .

Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.

Yes, and?

I should, I suppose, take a moment to say that a key factor you're still missing is that if the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.

You will have to point out what the flaw is .

If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.

I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.

I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.

[Universe Prince]

You will have to point out what the flaw is .

Um, okay. If the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.

If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.

I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.

I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me to a ridiculous degree. I must not be communicating clearly. I am not now nor have I ever said or tried to say or implied that a nation and its government are coterminous in any way. I have, however, suggested that they are more than slightly or coincidently related.

Your comparisons of government to an apple or a product are not valid. A government is not something that is made and then it goes away, never again to be part of what made it. No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable. However, this nation and this nation's government, whose members are from and elected by the nation, are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. Therefore, your attempt separate them as if there was little more than a tenuous connection between them is incorrect.

[Plane]

You will have to point out what the flaw is .

Um, okay. If the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.

If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.

I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.

I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me to a ridiculous degree. I must not be communicating clearly. I am not now nor have I ever said or tried to say or implied that a nation and its government are coterminous in any way. I have, however, suggested that they are more than slightly or coincidently related.

Your comparisons of government to an apple or a product are not valid. A government is not something that is made and then it goes away, never again to be part of what made it. No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable. However, this nation and this nation's government, whose members are from and elected by the nation, are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. Therefore, your attempt separate them as if there was little more than a tenuous connection between them is incorrect.

No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.

Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.

The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .

The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.

[Universe Prince]

No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.

]

Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.

The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .

The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.

Um, no. You are working very hard to ignore what I have said, or you don't care. Either way, you're not refuting what I said, merely repeating your original argument. And this conversation is therefore obviously at a dead end. Thanks, it's been... fun. Yeah.

[Plane]

No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.

]

Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.

The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .

The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.

Um, no. You are working very hard to ignore what I have said, or you don't care. Either way, you're not refuting what I said, merely repeating your original argument. And this conversation is therefore obviously at a dead end. Thanks, it's been... fun. Yeah.

Oh well, I don't win anything just bedcause you don't "get it".


What I don't get is your asmission that the government and th nation are not the same  entity  ,but still insisting that they must both be secular because one of them is.

[Plane]

"..are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. "

Is this what you considered key?

One could easily point out that the Christian church is an integral and functioning part of our nation , but I doubt that you would have such difficulty in making a distinction at its borders.

But the Nation is the people thereof , what describs the People describes the Nation.

[Lanya]

What describes the nation does not describe the people. 

[Plane]

What describes the nation does not describe the people. 

How so?

[Lanya]

Because although we are a nation comprised of a larger percentage of whites than any other race, we don't call ourselves a White Nation.  Same with Protestant Nation.