@MrTea said:
There seems to be a running current that asking questions is the equivalent of being rebellious.
This is just asking for trouble.
Why ask for trouble?
I’m not trying to cause trouble, but I’m an incurably curious person, who doesn’t always see edges where others do. But I enjoy this site, and don’t want to become unwelcome
LOL, That's a good one! Anything you wish to know about the motto on our coins and how it got there is in the PUBLIC REALM on the internet. So scratch your itch at the computer. Wait, I'll save you some time, This is one of those simple questions w/a simple answer. Why is IGWT on our coins? BECAUSE IT IS!
There are ways to have it removed. So far they have failed. You are welcome to join the 2%'ers. Apparently, just not here. That's possibly because IMO the tone of the "closed" thread became more like a statement about political and religious beliefs and the whining of a 2%'er snowflake who is truly ignorant about the history and traditions of our country which are under constant attack.
Can’t help yourself can you?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Are you saying that IGWT on on coin is proselytizing?
I think most non-believers would share that sentiment, since it could be interpreted as violating the Establishment Clause.
Apparently I’m not ready to walk away from this yet.
Until you read the ORIGINAL founding arguments in places as the Federalist Papers, throwing words around like "the Establishment Clause" to back your contention is worse than funny. The actual meaning of that clause has been bastardized more than the AU grade!
You assume a lot about what I do and don’t know. While I can’t accurately quote most of the pertinent sources, I am familiar with them, and have valid opinions based on many reputable sources. My newness is concerning coin issues, not Democracy or philosophy. And I won’t waste anybody’s time posting sleep inducing tracts of political explanation. Using the phrase “Establishment Clause”, and the fact that I know it should be capitalized, should be accepted as evidence that I probably know what I am talking about, whether or not you agree with me. That would be part of the respect I was asking respondents to show above. Instead of countering my assertion, you gave me some “ad hominem”. Separate yourself from what you already believe, and defend it with what you know and can demonstrate.
You have demonstrated what you know already. You don't get it...THIS: "...and have valid opinions based on many reputable sources. What part of "bastardized" don't you get? You need to read the original writings from the old men who actually discussed these things before several generations of our (you and I) ancestors were born.
I cannot wait to learn the "reputable sources." Law school professors? LOL. What a joke. Anyway, I've been walking a tight line and have lead this discussion off track so best wishes and good luck!
@MrTea said:
There seems to be a running current that asking questions is the equivalent of being rebellious.
This is just asking for trouble.
Why ask for trouble?
I’m not trying to cause trouble, but I’m an incurably curious person, who doesn’t always see edges where others do. But I enjoy this site, and don’t want to become unwelcome
LOL, That's a good one! Anything you wish to know about the motto on our coins and how it got there is in the PUBLIC REALM on the internet. So scratch your itch at the computer. Wait, I'll save you some time, This is one of those simple questions w/a simple answer. Why is IGWT on our coins? BECAUSE IT IS!
There are ways to have it removed. So far they have failed. You are welcome to join the 2%'ers. Apparently, just not here. That's possibly because IMO the tone of the "closed" thread became more like a statement about political and religious beliefs and the whining of a 2%'er snowflake who is truly ignorant about the history and traditions of our country which are under constant attack.
It almost seems as if you are trying to pick a fight, exactly what I had hoped no one would do, to demonstrate to moderators that members were capable of civil discourse on controversial subjects. I would ask you to revise your tone, or not contribute to this thread.
IGWT is on our currency because our government felt a need to draw a strong distinction between Democracy and Godless Communism in the 1950’s. I’m not going to discuss the pros and cons of that. The question is whether advancing religion in general, and as some have said, Christianity in particular, is still acceptable policy. Let me say that it isn’t just an issue of personal belief, since many people of faith feel that government and religion should remain separate, for the good of both. If government supports your faith over others, or faith over non belief, a time may come when those in power may choose someone else’s belief over yours. If the government stays out of it, that cannot happen. That is the main idea behind the separation of church and state.
Insider2 says:
“You need to read the original writings from the old men who actually discussed these things before several generations of our (you and I) ancestors were born.”
Our founding fathers were not one monolithic group. There were wide differences between them on all aspects of governance. Almost every modern political idea was mirrored in their beliefs, including some based on our distance from Europe, our low population density, our agrarian society, and the proximity of a vast unexplored wilderness to our west. I’ve read the original sources, and there are even different interpretations of some of their meaning and intent. It’s not like they were a simple instruction manual for Democracy. Our form of government has to be flexible enough to deal with changing times, and to change itself if times require it, hence the Amendments to the Constitution.
@mustangmanbob said:
mrtea, Try no posting for 24 hours.
Think about what was said. Ponder, and make 1 post after 24, instead of just running up post counts.
I could care less about post counts. This would be a discussion, as long as moderators find the content acceptable. I’m discussing. And if you are watching, you will see that many people are posting, many things said, and many things worth responding to. Say something on topic, if you wish to participate.
@ifthevamzarockin said:
Just keep tightening that noose around your neck.
Why this unnecessary undercurrent of veiled threats? I believe I have been civil, and accurate in what I say, and clearly some members find it interesting and have good contributions. But there seems to be a subset of members who would like this to exceed the tolerance of the moderator(s). How about those who fit that category not sabotage this thread for those of us who enjoy talking about ideas? I criticize no one. I disagree with some. I listen to what anyone has to say, and I respond respectfully. I ask the same of everyone else.
I retracted my earlier statement because this is indeed an attempt to sway people's opinions. I could say a lot about this subject and my views as a God fearing person who believes in the preservation of the society I grew up in but that BIG FAT BAN HAMMER WOULD SMACK ME OVER THE HEAD!
@ifthevamzarockin said:
Just keep tightening that noose around your neck.
Why this unnecessary undercurrent of veiled threats? I believe I have been civil, and accurate in what I say, and clearly some members find it interesting and have good contributions. But there seems to be a subset of members who would like this to exceed the tolerance of the moderator(s). How about those who fit that category not sabotage this thread for those of us who enjoy talking about ideas? I criticize no one. I disagree with some. I listen to what anyone has to say, and I respond respectfully. I ask the same of everyone else.
...sounds like you got all your bases covered...last step will be for you to start your own forum. Good Luck moving forward
@ifthevamzarockin said:
Just keep tightening that noose around your neck.
Why this unnecessary undercurrent of veiled threats? I believe I have been civil, and accurate in what I say, and clearly some members find it interesting and have good contributions. But there seems to be a subset of members who would like this to exceed the tolerance of the moderator(s). How about those who fit that category not sabotage this thread for those of us who enjoy talking about ideas? I criticize no one. I disagree with some. I listen to what anyone has to say, and I respond respectfully. I ask the same of everyone else.
You still seem to think this is YOUR playground not our host.
For the record, if people are willing to look, I think our new friend has been articulate and polite.
Maybe (likely) an alt, and maybe this all gets poofed or ends badly, but the fact is we’re probably not capable of a civil discussion about this. Too bad. It is a legitimate numismatic question.
You still seem to think it is your job to tell me what the hosts want. This thread has been a basic appeal to them to allow a little leeway, and to let the members demonstrate that it wouldn’t be a bad idea. So far, they have allowed this. Why would you oppose that?
It almost seems as if you are trying to pick a fight, exactly what I had hoped no one would do, to demonstrate to moderators that members were capable of civil discourse on controversial subjects. I would ask you to revise your tone, or not contribute to this thread.
IGWT is on our currency because our government felt a need to draw a strong distinction between Democracy and Godless Communism in the 1950’s. I’m not going to discuss the pros and cons of that. The question is whether advancing religion in general, and as some have said, Christianity in particular, is still acceptable policy. Let me say that it isn’t just an issue of personal belief, since many people of faith feel that government and religion should remain separate, for the good of both. If government supports your faith over others, or faith over non belief, a time may come when those in power may choose someone else’s belief over yours. If the government stays out of it, that cannot happen. That is the main idea behind the separation of church and state.
You are now doing exactly the kind of thing that is not allowed and what got the other thread nuked.
All of this would make for a lively, informative, and entertaining debate, but the topics of religion and politics are clearly off limits on this forum. You should be able to see how easily the conversation deteriorates into something that is not allowed. You can't expect the conversation to remain limited to your terms, assuming that your terms are even compatible with forum rules.
I expect that this thread will eventually get closed or even deleted. The only question is whether or not any time-outs are issued as well.
@MrTea said:
You still seem to think it is your job to tell me what the hosts want. This thread has been a basic appeal to them to allow a little leeway, and to let the members demonstrate that it wouldn’t be a bad idea. So far, they have allowed this. Why would you oppose that?
Believe it or not I think more are trying to help you than derail your thread. We are not trying to be a Mod for this forum.
There is a time and place for everything.....this is not the time or place.
I trust in God. I want God in my corner. I want God on my coins and to tell ya the truth it’s never bothered me or anyone I know. Why would it bug anyone so much?
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
I have tried to be polite and respectful. There is a group of members who clearly don’t think this should be discussed or allowed. I’m disappointed that, instead of simply going elsewhere or contributing to the subject, those persons have simply sniped at me or others responding appropriately. You are fulfilling your own expectations of the failure of adults to be able to conduct themselves as adults. Many of you have your businesses or your hobbies strongly tied to this website, and I would understand that you wouldn’t want a newbie to come in and rock the boat. But what motivates you to attack me, when you could either ignore this thread, or contribute to it? I wouldn’t be surprised if this were closed, but it would be caused by you, not by me.
annnnd this is why we can't have nice things. Thank you to everyone who pointed out the very obvious reason the previous thread was closed.
Per the posted rules and guidelines:
This is a community, as such, slightly off topic threads are expected, however, topics such as politics or other "taboo" subjects are not permitted. Should the thread be deemed inflammatory, negative or violate any rules it will be deleted or closed at the moderator's discretion, without warning.
Religion is one such taboo topic that does not belong on this inclusive forum.
Now, if you all don't mind, I would like to go back to working on an exciting announcement for next week
Comments
Can’t help yourself can you?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You have demonstrated what you know already. You don't get it...THIS: "...and have valid opinions based on many reputable sources. What part of "bastardized" don't you get? You need to read the original writings from the old men who actually discussed these things before several generations of our (you and I) ancestors were born.
I cannot wait to learn the "reputable sources." Law school professors? LOL. What a joke. Anyway, I've been walking a tight line and have lead this discussion off track so best wishes and good luck!
LOL, you won: "establishment clause"
It almost seems as if you are trying to pick a fight, exactly what I had hoped no one would do, to demonstrate to moderators that members were capable of civil discourse on controversial subjects. I would ask you to revise your tone, or not contribute to this thread.
IGWT is on our currency because our government felt a need to draw a strong distinction between Democracy and Godless Communism in the 1950’s. I’m not going to discuss the pros and cons of that. The question is whether advancing religion in general, and as some have said, Christianity in particular, is still acceptable policy. Let me say that it isn’t just an issue of personal belief, since many people of faith feel that government and religion should remain separate, for the good of both. If government supports your faith over others, or faith over non belief, a time may come when those in power may choose someone else’s belief over yours. If the government stays out of it, that cannot happen. That is the main idea behind the separation of church and state.
mrtea, Try no posting for 24 hours.
Think about what was said. Ponder, and make 1 post after 24, instead of just running up post counts.
Insider2 says:
“You need to read the original writings from the old men who actually discussed these things before several generations of our (you and I) ancestors were born.”
Our founding fathers were not one monolithic group. There were wide differences between them on all aspects of governance. Almost every modern political idea was mirrored in their beliefs, including some based on our distance from Europe, our low population density, our agrarian society, and the proximity of a vast unexplored wilderness to our west. I’ve read the original sources, and there are even different interpretations of some of their meaning and intent. It’s not like they were a simple instruction manual for Democracy. Our form of government has to be flexible enough to deal with changing times, and to change itself if times require it, hence the Amendments to the Constitution.
I could care less about post counts. This would be a discussion, as long as moderators find the content acceptable. I’m discussing. And if you are watching, you will see that many people are posting, many things said, and many things worth responding to. Say something on topic, if you wish to participate.
Just keep tightening that noose around your neck.
Why this unnecessary undercurrent of veiled threats? I believe I have been civil, and accurate in what I say, and clearly some members find it interesting and have good contributions. But there seems to be a subset of members who would like this to exceed the tolerance of the moderator(s). How about those who fit that category not sabotage this thread for those of us who enjoy talking about ideas? I criticize no one. I disagree with some. I listen to what anyone has to say, and I respond respectfully. I ask the same of everyone else.
I retracted my earlier statement because this is indeed an attempt to sway people's opinions. I could say a lot about this subject and my views as a God fearing person who believes in the preservation of the society I grew up in but that BIG FAT BAN HAMMER WOULD SMACK ME OVER THE HEAD!
...sounds like you got all your bases covered...last step will be for you to start your own forum. Good Luck moving forward
You still seem to think this is YOUR playground not our host.
Wow. Tough crowd here today.
For the record, if people are willing to look, I think our new friend has been articulate and polite.
Maybe (likely) an alt, and maybe this all gets poofed or ends badly, but the fact is we’re probably not capable of a civil discussion about this. Too bad. It is a legitimate numismatic question.
You still seem to think it is your job to tell me what the hosts want. This thread has been a basic appeal to them to allow a little leeway, and to let the members demonstrate that it wouldn’t be a bad idea. So far, they have allowed this. Why would you oppose that?
You are now doing exactly the kind of thing that is not allowed and what got the other thread nuked.
All of this would make for a lively, informative, and entertaining debate, but the topics of religion and politics are clearly off limits on this forum. You should be able to see how easily the conversation deteriorates into something that is not allowed. You can't expect the conversation to remain limited to your terms, assuming that your terms are even compatible with forum rules.
I expect that this thread will eventually get closed or even deleted. The only question is whether or not any time-outs are issued as well.
Believe it or not I think more are trying to help you than derail your thread. We are not trying to be a Mod for this forum.
There is a time and place for everything.....this is not the time or place.
I trust in God. I want God in my corner. I want God on my coins and to tell ya the truth it’s never bothered me or anyone I know. Why would it bug anyone so much?
I have tried to be polite and respectful. There is a group of members who clearly don’t think this should be discussed or allowed. I’m disappointed that, instead of simply going elsewhere or contributing to the subject, those persons have simply sniped at me or others responding appropriately. You are fulfilling your own expectations of the failure of adults to be able to conduct themselves as adults. Many of you have your businesses or your hobbies strongly tied to this website, and I would understand that you wouldn’t want a newbie to come in and rock the boat. But what motivates you to attack me, when you could either ignore this thread, or contribute to it? I wouldn’t be surprised if this were closed, but it would be caused by you, not by me.
annnnd this is why we can't have nice things. Thank you to everyone who pointed out the very obvious reason the previous thread was closed.
Per the posted rules and guidelines:
This is a community, as such, slightly off topic threads are expected, however, topics such as politics or other "taboo" subjects are not permitted. Should the thread be deemed inflammatory, negative or violate any rules it will be deleted or closed at the moderator's discretion, without warning.
Religion is one such taboo topic that does not belong on this inclusive forum.
Now, if you all don't mind, I would like to go back to working on an exciting announcement for next week
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing