I agree that they're not set in stone.

However, a civil-war era Democrat was generally in support of war and succession from the union. It was a different political party under the same name.

Scorpio said, "A democrat in favor of war is not a democrat." While I agree with you that this is flawed logic, he was talking about today's Democrats. You then said that it was Democrats who succeeded from the union during the civil war. While that's true, those Democrats have nothing to do with current Democrats. Yes, political ideologies shift and move, but you can't make the argument that today's Democrats are in favor of war because the one's 150 years ago were.

("Atheism isn't a religion".) who even said this sorry to say but your an idiot this is the exact definition of religion-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" still think its not a religion ? ya that's what i thought.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------



when i say purposely forgotten i mean that people would like to believe they are not their and as a result those who believe in atheism are often frowned apon by society. people are scared that maybe everything they believe and in most cases their family believed ( religion is often passed from generation to generation) is wrong. i mean think about it if everything you were ever taught to believe was proved wrong wouldnt you be afraid ?

Dude, I don't feel defeated by you. I still stand by what I say. You're a teenager talking shit over the internet. Trust me, I'm not threatened. I just find you irritating because you think you know every damn thing. YOU DON'T!!!!

Never claimed to know everything. But I sure as Hell know more than you.

I agree that they're not set in stone.

However, a civil-war era Democrat was generally in support of war and succession from the union. It was a different political party under the same name.

Scorpio said, "A democrat in favor of war is not a democrat." While I agree with you that this is flawed logic, he was talking about today's Democrats. You then said that it was Democrats who succeeded from the union during the civil war. While that's true, those Democrats have nothing to do with current Democrats. Yes, political ideologies shift and move, but you can't make the argument that today's Democrats are in favor of war because the one's 150 years ago were.

I understand what you're saying and I agree. But I think you were missing the point of me pointing that out. My point was that the term democrat is not mutually exclusive with anti-war and ideologies changed from a very different general view than now, so it demonstrates that point. I'm in no way saying that the Democrats of yesterday are the same as today; I'm saying that the party changed by branching thinkers and the Democratic Party, as such, has no confirmed stance on war.