PDA

View Full Version : Pledge of Allegiance Declared Unconstitutional


Pages : [1] 2

vailpass
09-14-2005, 01:49 PM
The minority once again tries to rule the majority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream.


Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Posted: 3:36 p.m. EDT (19:36 GMT)

| What Is This? SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Pitt Gorilla
09-14-2005, 01:58 PM
The minority once again tries to rule the minority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream. This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die ,die today....


The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.


I think you meant majority. However, I'm not sure how 3 districts would be considered a majority of anything.

beavis
09-14-2005, 01:59 PM
There are a lot of people in the world that really need to make better use of their time.

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 02:11 PM
The minority once again tries to rule the minority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream. This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die ,die today..... Just to be clear, you're making a death threat against U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton? Just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:14 PM
Just to be clear, you're making a death threat against U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton? Just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Quick, someone call an EMT!!!!

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:16 PM
I think you meant majority. However, I'm not sure how 3 districts would be considered a majority of anything.

Yes, I did mean majority. Thank you. When the parents of 3 children can get three entire schools to eliminate the pledge of allegiance that, to me, is minority speaking for majority. Three parents speaking for 500 or 600 students?
Bullchit.

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 02:21 PM
Quick, someone call an EMT!!!!Thought you might find this article interesting, in light of your header posting:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1124874310824

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:31 PM
Thought you might find this article interesting, in light of your header posting:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1124874310824

That prestigious Journalism degree from MU didn't help you to understand the definition of death threat did it gimp? At no time and in no fashion did I issue a death threat. My objections are not towards the people but their actions.

Now get that ball gag back in your mouth before your master wakes up and uses you like the cock-cushion you are.

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 02:39 PM
That prestigious Journalism degree from MU didn't help you to understand the definition of death threat did it gimp? At no time and in no fashion did I issue a death threat. My objections are not towards the people but their actions.

Now get that ball gag back in your mouth before your master wakes up and uses you like the cock-cushion you are.

Excuse me, but did you not write:
"This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die, die today......"?

Sounds like a death threat to me.

BTW: Calling me a gimp and a cock-cushion... Now that's a class act.
BTW: I think the University of Missouri's School of Journalism is prestigious too. At least we agree on that.

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Excuse me, but did you not write:
"This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die, die today......"?

Sounds like a death threat to me.

BTW: Calling me a gimp and a cock-cushion... Now that's a class act.
BTW: I think the University of Missouri's School of Journalism is prestigious too. At least we agree on that.

At what point did I ever indicate I would take any action to facilitate anyone's death? You are a fine example of the failure of public education to teach it's students to read for comprehehnsion.

When did you decide to attch yourself to me? Go back to your buddy Mr. Wiggles or whatever the hell you call him and kneel at the shrine of the EMTs and all they represent. Ass magnet.

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 02:48 PM
When did you ecide to attch yourself to me? Go back to your buddy Mr. Wiggles or whatever the hell you call him and kneel at the shrine of the EMTs and all they represent. Ass magnet.

"ecide to attch" WTF???
Coming down off your Meth buzz???

It's Mr. Doggity to you, bud.

You're bagging on EMTs again? When your indignant neocon rage overcomes you and your blood pressure goes into overdrive, you're gonna give your left gonad for an EMT. I'd lay off them if I were you.

Ass Magnet?

You must have me confused with Karl Rove.

BTW: I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad thing in school. I just don't think its patriotic or proper to call for the death of a Federal Judge.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 02:49 PM
Just to be clear, you're making a death threat against U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton? Just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

That looks to be a commentary, not a death threat. Wake up and smell the coffee dude!

Boozer
09-14-2005, 02:49 PM
At what point did I ever indicate I would take any action to facilitate anyone's death? You are a fine example of the failure of public education to teach it's students to read for comprehehnsion.

When did you decide to attch yourself to me? Go back to your buddy Mr. Wiggles or whatever the hell you call him and kneel at the shrine of the EMTs and all they represent. Ass magnet.

When criticizing someone else's education it's (meaning "it is") best to use proper grammar yourself.

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:53 PM
"ecide to attch" WTF???
Coming down off your Meth buzz???

It's Mr. Doggity to you, bud.

You're bagging on EMTs again? When your indignant neocon rage overcomes you and your blood pressure goes into overdrive, you're gonna give your left gonad for an EMT. I'd lay off them if I were you.

Ass Magnet?

You must have me confused with Karl Rove.

BTW: I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad thing in school. I just don't think its patriotic or proper to call for the death of a Federal Judge.

Criticizing keystroke erors is the refuge of the weak. Mr. Doggity, Mr. Diggity, Mr. Dangly-poo, who cares? What's your obsession there boy, does he keep you in his cabana as his personal scrotum shaver and cucumber polisher?

I'm not banging on EMTs, they are there when you need them and I think that's great. Again, what's your obsession?

Sit, back calm down, and don't worry about a thing. The Republicans are in the White House and will be running everything for years to come. We will be installing a new Supreme Court Justice and Head Justice to ensure that little butt-boys like you stay in line.

vailpass
09-14-2005, 02:56 PM
When criticizing someone else's education it's (meaning "it is") best to use proper grammar yourself.

:banghead:

Nobody with ASU in their screen name is qualified to comment on any aspect of higher education. :p

Take care all, I gotta hit the 10 to the 51 to the 101 before traffic starts.

Boozer
09-14-2005, 02:59 PM
:banghead:

Nobody with ASU in their screen name is qualified to comment on any aspect of higher education. :p

I'll have you know I went to the Harvard of the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to say that, MCC is gaining quickly.

Saulbadguy
09-14-2005, 03:02 PM
I'll have you know I went to the Harvard of the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to say that, MCC is gaining quickly.
You shoulda just said "Scoreboard".

|Zach|
09-14-2005, 03:02 PM
Sit, back calm down, and don't worry about a thing. The Republicans are in the White House and will be running everything for years to come.
You would never know it hearing from convservitives....liberals are still responsible for everything thats is wrong to a lot of you fellas. Not to mention the inability to act like a majority party.

Boozer
09-14-2005, 03:03 PM
You shoulda just said "Scoreboard".

Nah, we play MCC next year. I don't want to give them bulletin board material.

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 03:27 PM
That looks to be a commentary, not a death threat. Wake up and smell the coffee dude!Looks like Vailpass has edited that statement from his original post, so I take it he really didn't mean he wanted a Federal Judge to die today. Good for him.

Actually, if a time frame was not specified, I would agree with you that it was commentary. But in this post, "today" made it more specific.

This is the definition of "death threat."

Death Threat
From Wikipedia

A death threat is a threat (often made anonymously) against a person threatening to kill them. Death threats are often intended to intimidate the victim, or to make them change their behaviour in some way. They are often made against people in the public eye, and for political reasons. However, a death threat is only violating the first amendment if a time is put on the threat.

Example:

I'm going to hurt you. (Still protected under the first amendment)
I'm going to hurt you, monday. (Not protected by the first amendment)

In many jurisdictions, making a death threat, even one that was not intended seriously, can be considered a crime.

Glad nobody is going to kill anyone, on purpose, specifically today.
Can we all sing Kumbaya now??

Swanman
09-14-2005, 03:40 PM
The Republicans are in the White House and will be running everything for years to come.

With GW's approval rating at historic lows, I wouldn't be counting your chickens till they're hatched. But then again, the Dems have a history of marching the biggest stiffs ever out as their presidential candidate, so it is possible the GOP could take the next election. It's times like these that I realize I'm becoming more of a Libertarian every day.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 03:42 PM
Looks like Vailpass has edited that statement from his original post, so I take it he really didn't mean he wanted a Federal Judge to die today. Good for him.

Actually, if a time frame was not specified, I would agree with you that it was commentary. But in this post, "today" made it more specific.

This is the definition of "death threat."

Death Threat
From Wikipedia

A death threat is a threat (often made anonymously) against a person threatening to kill them. Death threats are often intended to intimidate the victim, or to make them change their behaviour in some way. They are often made against people in the public eye, and for political reasons. However, a death threat is only violating the first amendment if a time is put on the threat.

Example:

I'm going to hurt you. (Still protected under the first amendment)
I'm going to hurt you, monday. (Not protected by the first amendment)

In many jurisdictions, making a death threat, even one that was not intended seriously, can be considered a crime.

Glad nobody is going to kill anyone, on purpose, specifically today.
Can we all sing Kumbaya now??

You should read some of the stuff that's been on this board. Some of the comments could land you in jail!!!

Uncle Flakey
09-14-2005, 03:43 PM
The minority once again tries to rule the majority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream.
Sharky - er, 'Vailpass' - is right.

If we only would stick to that simple, majority rule we'd still have slavery!

Think how much easier the Katrina cleanup would be!

Duck Dog
09-14-2005, 04:31 PM
Sharky - er, 'Vailpass' - is right.

If we only would stick to that simple, majority rule we'd still have slavery!

Think how much easier the Katrina cleanup would be!

What's wrong with voting? And are you sure the majority would approve slavery?

Not a good analogy.

We should stick to that simple, vote on it rule. The last thing I want is to have my life run by cry babies who scream and stomp their feet the loudest.

go bowe
09-14-2005, 04:50 PM
Excuse me, but did you not write:
"This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die, die today......"?

Sounds like a death threat to me.

BTW: Calling me a gimp and a cock-cushion... Now that's a class act.
BTW: I think the University of Missouri's School of Journalism is prestigious too. At least we agree on that.gimp?

where'd he say gimp?

for that matter, where did he say anything worth paying attention to?

ChiefsCountry
09-14-2005, 05:00 PM
Look what state & city this is in, explains everything.

Uncle Flakey
09-14-2005, 05:08 PM
The last thing I want is to have my life run by cry babies who scream and stomp their feet the loudest.
Well now, we're all about making Duck Dog happy so It Shall Be!

WoodDraw
09-14-2005, 05:21 PM
I've tried to get outraged about this before but now I just don't care. It's not something that is rooted in deep US history but it doesn't bother me either. I think we'd all be better off if the crazed atheists and "God belongs in everything!" people just disappeared. There are too many more important issues to make a big deal out of this, regardless of which way it goes.

|Zach|
09-14-2005, 06:13 PM
I've tried to get outraged about this before but now I just don't care. It's not something that is rooted in deep US history but it doesn't bother me either. I think we'd all be better off if the crazed atheists and "God belongs in everything!" people just disappeared. There are too many more important issues to make a big deal out of this, regardless of which way it goes.
Yes.

patteeu
09-14-2005, 07:01 PM
Excuse me, but did you not write:
"This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die, die today......"?

Sounds like a death threat to me.

BTW: Calling me a gimp and a cock-cushion... Now that's a class act.
BTW: I think the University of Missouri's School of Journalism is prestigious too. At least we agree on that.

Once you've been corrected by the primary source, it seems like you should be able to put 2 and 2 together to get 4 instead of sticking with your original answer of 5.

patteeu
09-14-2005, 07:06 PM
Looks like Vailpass has edited that statement from his original post, so I take it he really didn't mean he wanted a Federal Judge to die today. Good for him.

Actually, if a time frame was not specified, I would agree with you that it was commentary. But in this post, "today" made it more specific.

This is the definition of "death threat."

Death Threat
From Wikipedia

A death threat is a threat (often made anonymously) against a person threatening to kill them. Death threats are often intended to intimidate the victim, or to make them change their behaviour in some way. They are often made against people in the public eye, and for political reasons. However, a death threat is only violating the first amendment if a time is put on the threat.

Example:

I'm going to hurt you. (Still protected under the first amendment)
I'm going to hurt you, monday. (Not protected by the first amendment)

In many jurisdictions, making a death threat, even one that was not intended seriously, can be considered a crime.

Glad nobody is going to kill anyone, on purpose, specifically today.
Can we all sing Kumbaya now??

There's a huge difference between:

X can die.

and

I'm going to kill X.

go bowe
09-14-2005, 07:19 PM
There's a huge difference between:

X can die.

and

I'm going to kill X.the die is cast then... :p :p :p

gblowfish
09-14-2005, 07:43 PM
There's a huge difference between:

X can die.

and

I'm going to kill X.
It's a lovely, warm fuzzy sentiment either way, ain't it?
Besides, Vailpass retracted that statement, so no harm no foul IMHO.

mlyonsd
09-14-2005, 07:54 PM
I've tried to get outraged about this before but now I just don't care. It's not something that is rooted in deep US history but it doesn't bother me either. I think we'd all be better off if the crazed atheists and "God belongs in everything!" people just disappeared. There are too many more important issues to make a big deal out of this, regardless of which way it goes.

rep.

Duck Dog
09-14-2005, 08:56 PM
Well now, we're all about making Duck Dog happy so It Shall Be!

You'd have been off staying with zero posts.

Logical
09-14-2005, 09:47 PM
Simple answer take "under God" out and no more problem.

Logical
09-14-2005, 09:57 PM
What's wrong with voting? And are you sure the majority would approve slavery?

Not a good analogy.

We should stick to that simple, vote on it rule. The last thing I want is to have my life run by cry babies who scream and stomp their feet the loudest.Oh forbid that we have judges folllowing the Constitution and the First Amendment in making their rulings. You want to make it legal to say it, amend the constitution.

MrDoggity
09-14-2005, 09:59 PM
Simple answer take "under God" out and no more problem.

You mean go back to the original words as they were written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, before the commie-phobes added "under God" in 1954?

We'd have to start saying it again the way our parents and grandparents did!

Die, heretic!

MrDoggity
09-14-2005, 10:07 PM
Oh, and vailpass:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

You know that Freud had a psychoanalytical theory that men who use sexual orientation in a pejorative manner toward other men are masking internal concerns about their own orientation. In other words, only a self-loathing closet queen would ever attempt to insult another man by making homosexual references. Men who are comfortable with their masculinity don't do that. That's Freud's theory, anyway.

Of course, my ol' buddy Sharkie said Freud was a fag.

go bowe
09-14-2005, 10:49 PM
Oh, and vailpass:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

You know that Freud had a psychoanalytical theory that men who use sexual orientation in a pejorative manner toward other men are masking internal concerns about their own orientation. In other words, only a self-loathing closet queen would ever attempt to insult another man by making homosexual references. Men who are comfortable with their masculinity don't do that. That's Freud's theory, anyway.

Of course, my ol' buddy Sharkie said Freud was a Rump Ranger.well, God bless freud... :D :D :D

wait, are you talking about that weird old german butt munching fairy queen?

go bowe
09-14-2005, 10:52 PM
You mean go back to the original words as they were written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, before the commie-phobes added "under God" in 1954?

We'd have to start saying it again the way our parents and grandparents did!

Die, heretic!i don't really remember too well, but i'm sure i said it the "old" way without the under God when i was in kindergarten...

when i got to first grade, they changed it...

it works either way for me...



heh heh, commie-phobes...

nice...

DanT
09-14-2005, 11:57 PM
How many times does a school kid have to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the authorities are satisfied? They had us saying it damn near every day. I wonder if they ever got any covert 7-year-old Bolshevik to snap under the pressure. Just imagine where this country would be if it weren't for the Pledge of Allegiance ferreting out snot-nosed little commies and keeping them out of America's kickball games.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 12:10 AM
Oh, and vailpass:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

You know that Freud had a psychoanalytical theory that men who use sexual orientation in a pejorative manner toward other men are masking internal concerns about their own orientation. In other words, only a self-loathing closet queen would ever attempt to insult another man by making homosexual references. Men who are comfortable with their masculinity don't do that. That's Freud's theory, anyway.

Of course, my ol' buddy Sharkie said Freud was a fag.

No one believes in Freud anymore.

WilliamTheIrish
09-15-2005, 12:32 AM
Oh, and vailpass:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

You know that Freud had a psychoanalytical theory that men who use sexual orientation in a pejorative manner toward other men are masking internal concerns about their own orientation. In other words, only a self-loathing closet queen would ever attempt to insult another man by making homosexual references. Men who are comfortable with their masculinity don't do that. That's Freud's theory, anyway.

Of course, my ol' buddy Sharkie said Freud was a fag.

What did Freud say about those who claim the high ground then use sexual orientation in a perjorative manner toward other men after the first person starts it?

I believe he'd say, "you're both d*ck smokers." [relax, I'm kidding]

Or he'd say: ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic. In which case I'd say he's never been to ChiefsPlanet.

alanm
09-15-2005, 02:14 AM
Why am I not suprised that's it the 9th Circuit court of Appeals?
They'd probably go after the Star Spangled Banner given a chance. :rolleyes:

Boozer
09-15-2005, 06:18 AM
How many times does a school kid have to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the authorities are satisfied? They had us saying it damn near every day. I wonder if they ever got any covert 7-year-old Bolshevik to snap under the pressure. Just imagine where this country would be if it weren't for the Pledge of Allegiance ferreting out snot-nosed little commies and keeping them out of America's kickball games.


No kidding. Didn't Ike support adding "under God" because he thought that the Pledge sounded like it could be said by a bunch of school kids in Moscow?

Even with the "under God" part, mandated receital still sounds like something that will precede the broadcasting of slogans over a bad PA system.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 06:25 AM
"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets ... they are quite meaningless. At best, they are ignored. At worst, they infuriate people smart enough to understand complexities over platitudes."~ W. Edwards Deming (father of quality management)

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."~ Samuel Johnson (founding father)

Area 51
09-15-2005, 06:29 AM
Simple answer take "under God" out and no more problem.

No memyselfi, I don't think we should do that.

mlyonsd
09-15-2005, 06:35 AM
Not to worry. By the time this gets back to the SC we'll have two new justices that will knock this ruling down.

Earthling
09-15-2005, 06:59 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that the pledge is only said by school children? I can't remember if I ever had to give the pledge after the 6th grade. It is kind of ironic that most of the younger kids that learn the pledge have no idea of what it means, or are sincere in the giving of it.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 07:13 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that the pledge is only said by school children? I can't remember if I ever had to give the pledge after the 6th grade. It is kind of ironic that most of the younger kids that learn the pledge have no idea of what it means, or are sincere in the giving of it.

Exactly, which is why I think it should not be required in the first place. The fact that it features God (as an afterthought added in the 1950s) is really not of importance to me. It is the requiring children to recite something they have no idea what it means in the first place.

WilliamTheIrish
09-15-2005, 08:45 AM
"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets ... they are quite meaningless. At best, they are ignored. At worst, they infuriate people smart enough to understand complexities over platitudes."~ W. Edwards Deming (father of quality management)

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."~ Samuel Johnson (founding father)

Somebody get a book of quotes as a graduation present?

Area 51
09-15-2005, 10:13 AM
Exactly, which is why I think it should not be required in the first place. The fact that it features God (as an afterthought added in the 1950s) is really not of importance to me. It is the requiring children to recite something they have no idea what it means in the first place.

I get the feeling that you think that by reciting the pledge, in either form, does no good for anyone.

Quite a few years ago Red Skelton gave a definition of what the pledge meant to him, with "Under God" in and out of the pledge. It went into some depth as to what he felt the words meant to an American.

Red was a deeply religious man that had great respect for God and country.

The fact that God doesn't seem important to you isn't alarming, given your stance and current beliefs. It is a shame that you want to do exactly what you claim the religious people of the country have been blamed, forcing your beliefs on others.

Patriot 21
09-15-2005, 10:16 AM
Am I wrong in thinking that the pledge is only said by school children? I can't remember if I ever had to give the pledge after the 6th grade. It is kind of ironic that most of the younger kids that learn the pledge have no idea of what it means, or are sincere in the giving of it.

Yes, you would be mistaken. I attend at least three service meetings monthly that begin with the pledge...........and (gasp) a prayer. None of these are "church" organizations either. There's not too many leftists that attend "service" organizations meetings though, that could explain why you were unaware.

Patriot 21
09-15-2005, 10:18 AM
It is the requiring children to recite something they have no idea what it means in the first place.

Speak for your own "dumbed down" existance. My 5 year old (that attends a public school by the way) knows full well what the pledge means.
:)

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 10:18 AM
I get the feeling that you think that by reciting the pledge, in either form, does no good for anyone.

Quite a few years ago Red Skelton gave a definition of what the pledge meant to him, with "Under God" in and out of the pledge. It went into some depth as to what he felt the words meant to an American.

Red was a deeply religious man that had great respect for God and country.

The fact that God doesn't seem important to you isn't alarming, given your stance and current beliefs. It is a shame that you want to do exactly what you claim the religious people of the country have been blamed, forcing your beliefs on others.


Nice spin there. I did not say that God is not important to me. I said the word GOD within the pledge (added during the McCarthy years) is not the point here.

The point is requiring kids to pledge alligence to a flag and a country when most kids don't have a concept of what is going on outside their school or their immediate community...

Area 51
09-15-2005, 10:19 AM
Yes, you would be mistaken. I attend at least three service meetings monthly that begin with the pledge...........and (gasp) a prayer. None of these are "church" organizations either. There's not too many leftists that attend "service" organizations meetings though, that could explain why you were unaware.

Exellent!!! rep

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 10:19 AM
Somebody get a book of quotes as a graduation present?


The book of quotes I got for my graduation was hand written on papyrus. It was a while ago.

Area 51
09-15-2005, 10:21 AM
Nice spin there. I did not say that God is not important to me. I said the word GOD within the pledge (added during the McCarthy years) is not the point here.

The point is requiring kids to pledge alligence to a flag and a country when most kids don't have a concept of what is going on outside their school or their immediate community...

Just for your information God is not Allah!

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 10:22 AM
Just for your information God is not Allah!

Actually, God is Allah, God is Lord, God is Buddha, God is all of these and more...

Area 51
09-15-2005, 10:30 AM
Actually, God is Allah, God is Lord, God is Buddha, God is all of these and more...

You are mistaken. God is omnipresent but he is not Buddha. Buddha is a rock that is worshipped. Allah is not God, he is the "almighty of the muslim faith" and does not seem to have the same values as the God of Christianity.

God sends his son to die for us. Allah sends us to die for him while killing others he/they feel is inferior to their belief.

That is too wide of a gap for anyone to bridge with the "one god for all religions" to believe.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 10:39 AM
You are mistaken. God is omnipresent but he is not Buddha. Buddha is a rock that is worshipped. Allah is not God, he is the "almighty of the muslim faith" and does not seem to have the same values as the God of Christianity.

God sends his son to die for us. Allah sends us to die for him while killing others he/they feel is inferior to their belief.

That is too wide of a gap for anyone to bridge with the "one god for all religions" to believe.

God is to each belief what each belief chooses it to be. It's not my place to judge if they are right or not. It's my place to learn about God from all POVs and realize that there is no only God but there is ONE God.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 10:47 AM
The book of quotes I got for my graduation was hand written on papyrus. It was a while ago.

Well then, maybe you could use a refresher course or two because you seem to have some archaic beliefs that went out with the Berlin Wall.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 10:51 AM
Actually, God is Allah, God is Lord, God is Buddha, God is all of these and more...

Which is precisely why the word "God" in the pledge of allegience shouldn't be considered a 1st amendment violation. It would be different if the pledge went something like this:

... one nation, under the Pope's God ...

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 10:54 AM
Well then, maybe you could use a refresher course or two because you seem to have some archaic beliefs that went out with the Berlin Wall.

I teach, I read and I learn everyday.

You certainly seem obsessed with the Berlin Wall. Perhaps you should seek some counselling about that.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 10:57 AM
Which is precisely why the word "God" in the pledge of allegience shouldn't be considered a 1st amendment violation. It would be different if the pledge went something like this:

... one nation, under the Pope's God ...

Actually, the line 'one nation (meaning the USA) under God' could also be seen as God having some kind of bias or favor towards the US...

and we know that is not true.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 11:17 AM
Oh, and vailpass:
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

You know that Freud had a psychoanalytical theory that men who use sexual orientation in a pejorative manner toward other men are masking internal concerns about their own orientation. In other words, only a self-loathing closet queen would ever attempt to insult another man by making homosexual references. Men who are comfortable with their masculinity don't do that. That's Freud's theory, anyway.

Of course, my ol' buddy Sharkie said Freud was a Rump Ranger.


Feel free to use archaic points of reference. In addition to being an "emergency response expert" you are also an expert on psychoanalysis? I suppose you wrote a treatise just yesteday on the subject and will be presenting to the APA tomorrow?

One of my undergrad majors was Psych. The modern view of Freud is that you really wouldn't want to base your behaviors on his teaching but you would sure as hell like to party with him.

As to my making Rump Ranger jokes to your gimp buddy: this is a sports board and some of its participants can dish it out as well as take it. If you and your little buddy can't hang then simply don't respond tome, I'll leave you alone gladly. Calling someone a Rump Ranger makes me a Rump Ranger? I'll give you Freud's answer: sometimes a horse is just a horse. Figure it out there oh psychoanalysis expert, it's from one of Freud's defining cases.

jettio
09-15-2005, 11:18 AM
As much pissin' and moanin there is over this issue, I think that that word "indivisible" ought to be on the short list for a Presidential Medal of Freedom if you knowuddImean.

I think that is in there kinda rubbin' it in the face of the rebs, whose sons and daughters have just about fully capitulated unto Lincoln and the GOP that whupped'em.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 11:22 AM
Once you've been corrected by the primary source, it seems like you should be able to put 2 and 2 together to get 4 instead of sticking with your original answer of 5.

Zing! That's the sound of Patteeu's spot-on statement flying right over GoFish's head.
FWIW, I removed the words "die, die, die" not because they in any way, shape, or form constituted a threat but because GoFish's web behavior strikes me as unstable. I do not need my ISP reported to some gov. agency by a crackpot poster who has nothing better to do than sit in his mom's basement and make wild, baseless accusations while dreaming about the father figure he never had.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 11:22 AM
I teach, I read and I learn everyday.

You certainly seem obsessed with the Berlin Wall. Perhaps you should seek some counselling about that.

LMAO IIRC, this is the first time I've ever even mentioned the Berlin Wall on this message board. How you get "certainly seem obsessed" from that, I can't even begin to guess. Keep reading though. It may end up paying off.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 11:25 AM
Actually, the line 'one nation (meaning the USA) under God' could also be seen as God having some kind of bias or favor towards the US...

and we know that is not true.

First, I don't really see how you can read it that way.

Second, that has nothing to do with the point of my post so I'm not sure why you lead off with the word "Actually."

Third, I suspect this post is just a weak attempt to troll for religious patriots because I don't see any other purpose for it.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 11:26 AM
LMAO IIRC, this is the first time I've ever even mentioned the Berlin Wall on this message board. How you get "certainly seem obsessed" from that, I can't even begin to guess. Keep reading though. It may end up paying off.


You've apparently never read your own signature.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 11:30 AM
LMAO IIRC, this is the first time I've ever even mentioned the Berlin Wall on this message board. How you get "certainly seem obsessed" from that, I can't even begin to guess. Keep reading though. It may end up paying off.

LOL, I see now that you're referring to my sig quote. You may already understand this, but even though my sig quote appears thousands of times on this message board, I really don't consciously type it each time.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Feel free to use archaic points of reference. In addition to being an "emergency response expert" you are also an expert on psychoanalysis? I suppose you wrote a treatise just yesteday on the subject and will be presenting to the APA tomorrow?

One of my undergrad majors was Psych. The modern view of Freud is that you really wouldn't want to base your behaviors on his teaching but you would sure as hell like to party with him.

As to my making Rump Ranger jokes to your gimp buddy: this is a sports board and some of its participants can dish it out as well as take it. If you and your little buddy can't hang then simply don't respond tome, I'll leave you alone gladly. Calling someone a Rump Ranger makes me a Rump Ranger? I'll give you Freud's answer: sometimes a horse is just a horse. Figure it out there oh psychoanalysis expert, it's from one of Freud's defining cases.

And sometimes a horse lawyer with a degree from a diploma mill is the director of FEMA.

OK Doctor/Expert in journalism, at what point did I claim any expertise in psychoanalysis? I mearly quoted someone who is.

Your promise to "leave me alone gladly" is a nice bit of ironic humor -- considering your attack on me -- in abstentia, was the impetus for my joining this board in the first place, Doctor.

You have yet to provide one single piece of support for any of your outrageous comments and opinions. You move directly from opinion dumping to ad hominem abusive with nothing in between.

I frankly pity you, Doctor.

Area 51
09-15-2005, 11:36 AM
God is to each belief what each belief chooses it to be. It's not my place to judge if they are right or not. It's my place to learn about God from all POVs and realize that there is no only God but there is ONE God.

You finally have one thing right, there is only ONE God, I'm here to tell you that Allah is not him.

Area 51
09-15-2005, 11:39 AM
Actually, the line 'one nation (meaning the USA) under God' could also be seen as God having some kind of bias or favor towards the US...

and we know that is not true.

That is only your opinion as it is true for you, not for the rest of us. By the founding fathers belief of freedom of Religion most believe that this is a blessed nation. Once God is removed from prominence the blessed status could be revoked. Now that is MY opinion.

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 11:43 AM
Zing! That's the sound of Patteeu's spot-on statement flying right over GoFish's head.
FWIW, I removed the words "die, die, die" not because they in any way, shape, or form constituted a threat but because GoFish's web behavior strikes me as unstable. I do not need my ISP reported to some gov. agency by a crackpot poster who has nothing better to do than sit in his mom's basement and make wild, baseless accusations while dreaming about the father figure he never had.Hey Vailpass. I need your phone number, address and social security number for a friend of mine in California. Send them in a PM, OK?

BTW: Mom's are usually left out of name calling arguments, because it goes over the line.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 11:51 AM
Hey Vailpass. I need your your phone number, address and social security number for a friend of mine in California. Send them in a PM, OK?

BTW: Mom's are usually left out of name calling arguments, because it goes over the line.

Please don't be a pussy. Not only was his post completely without derogatory reference to your mom (unless it is implied by his suggestion that she raised a kid who can't get out of the house to live on his own), even if he did, its simple enough to realize that he doesn't know your mom so anything he says is just empty rhetoric. Falsely accusing him of making death threats seems more offensive to me than his benign use of the word "mom" in his post.

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 11:56 AM
Please don't be a pussy. Not only was his post completely without derogatory reference to your mom (unless it is implied by his suggestion that she raised a kid who can't get out of the house to live on his own), even if he did, its simple enough to realize that he doesn't know your mom so anything he says is just empty rhetoric. Falsely accusing him of making death threats seems more offensive to me than his benign use of the word "mom" in his post.
One guy calls me a pussy, the other one calls me a gimp, a fag, and brings my mom and dad into it, and I'm the bad guy? You guys are delusional. You should run for the state school board in Kansas!

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 11:57 AM
You finally have one thing right, there is only ONE God, I'm here to tell you that Allah is not him.

Allah is but one name for God. ONE, meaning encompassing all forms of God and not excluding them.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 12:00 PM
That is only your opinion as it is true for you, not for the rest of us. By the founding fathers belief of freedom of Religion most believe that this is a blessed nation. Once God is removed from prominence the blessed status could be revoked. Now that is MY opinion.

Your opinion, perhaps -- and one I thank God you have a right to express in our democracy -- but please leave the founding fathers out of this.

They were largely deists with a loose belief in God as a concept, but an outright contempt for organized religious expression of God, and little, if any use for Christianity.

I am a practicing, church-going Christian -- which is thankfully my right in America. But make no mistake, the founders of this nation - by in large - were not.

Jefferson called himself a "Unitarian" and "infidel". Adams claimed the world would be better off if there were no religions. Franklin called himself a "Deist". The Anglican Bishop at the time said that Washington was a great man, but he was no Christian. Paine proclaimed, "My mind is my church." Lincoln was quoted, "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Washington and Adams wrote, "…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Jefferson stated, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Paine called Genesis "an anonymous book of stories, fables …invented absurdities and of downright lies." Jefferson often compared the stories in the Bible to Greek mythology. Jefferson denounced the use of public schools to promote any theology. But clearly they supported public-funded education. Adams said that, "no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant". Jefferson said that children should "…be carried at the public expense through the college and university."

Space prohibits going on, although volumes could be written. Suffice to say that the founders meant to protect our right to worship as we choose; they also meant to prevent my faith, or any other from being promoted by the government or in public schools. Like it or not, conservatives – you are the ones diverting us from the course set by the founders.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:02 PM
I'm glad I went to school when we said the pledge of allegiance. An, believe it or not, I new what I was saying when I was saying it (gasp).

God is God, Allah is Allah, and Buddha is Buddha. If Buddha was God, wouldn't you think they would call him God? And the Allegiance says "one nation, under God...", not one nation, under god. Allah and Buddha may be other people's gods. But there is only one God.

Area 51
09-15-2005, 12:04 PM
Your opinion, perhaps -- and one I thank God you have a right to express in our democracy -- but please leave the founding fathers out of this.

They were largely deists with a loose belief in God as a concept, but an outright contempt for organized religious expression of God, and little, if any use for Christianity.

I am a practicing, church-going Christian -- which is thankfully my right in America. But make no mistake, the founders of this nation - by in large - were not.

Jefferson called himself a "Unitarian" and "infidel". Adams claimed the world would be better off if there were no religions. Franklin called himself a "Deist". The Anglican Bishop at the time said that Washington was a great man, but he was no Christian. Paine proclaimed, "My mind is my church." Lincoln was quoted, "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Washington and Adams wrote, "…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Jefferson stated, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Paine called Genesis "an anonymous book of stories, fables …invented absurdities and of downright lies." Jefferson often compared the stories in the Bible to Greek mythology. Jefferson denounced the use of public schools to promote any theology. But clearly they supported public-funded education. Adams said that, "no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant". Jefferson said that children should "…be carried at the public expense through the college and university."

Space prohibits going on, although volumes could be written. Suffice to say that the founders meant to protect our right to worship as we choose; they also meant to prevent my faith, or any other from being promoted by the government or in public schools. Like it or not, conservatives – you are the ones diverting us from the course set by the founders.

Your belief that they didn't have a plan is total :BS:

Regardless of what has been written in the past 50 years about the founding of the country there is no credible documents that describe the "Freedom FROM Religion" relating to the Government, if that had been the case the predominance of God in all of the places of government would not have been allowed even back then.

:BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS:

Saulbadguy
09-15-2005, 12:05 PM
But there is only one God.
So you think.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:07 PM
So you think.
I was taught that there is a difference between saying god and God. There are several gods. Who do you think of when someone says God?

luv
09-15-2005, 12:14 PM
Anyway, I am usually for most things Christian, but I have a different opinion in this case. No matter what people interpret the phrase as meaning, we are not pledging allegiance to God when reciting it. We are pledging allegiance to the flag which is representative of our country. I would say the pledge of allegiance with or without the phrase. I pledge my allegiance to God on other occasions.

I think that kids need to learn the pledge, as it is a symbol of patriotism. When saying it, the should take pride in being an American. If they want to take out the phrease "under God", then so be it. I still think children should learn the pledge and what it means.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 12:14 PM
God is God, Allah is Allah, and Buddha is Buddha. If Buddha was God, wouldn't you think they would call him God? And the Allegiance says "one nation, under God...", not one nation, under god. Allah and Buddha may be other people's gods. But there is only one God.

LOL, they are the names 'other people's' use for God. :rolleyes:

patteeu
09-15-2005, 12:15 PM
One guy calls me a pussy, the other one calls me a gimp, a fag, and brings my mom and dad into it, and I'm the bad guy? You guys are delusional. You should run for the state school board in Kansas!

Just to be clear, you accused Vailpass of making death threats against a federal judge before either of us addressed you in any way. In your first post on the subject, you acted like you were trying to understand whether your interpretation was correct, but when Vailpass made it clear you were mistaken, you pressed on and made it clear that you weren't sincerely interested in understanding but instead you had the intent to attack. So, yes, you are the bad guy. You were looking for conflict. But it gets worse. When you found the conflict you were seeking, it turns out that you are a super sensitive guy who can't take the return fire. Now you want to play the victim.

So to recap:

1. You find a death threat where none exists and start slinging accusations.

2. You find insults to your mom where none exist and start wimpering about such insults being over the line.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 12:15 PM
I was taught that there is a difference between saying god and God. There are several gods. Who do you think of when someone says God?

That it is all encompassing term for anyone and everyone's belief in God. One entity, many names, terms, meanings.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:18 PM
LOL, they are the names 'other people's' use for God. :rolleyes:
No need to roll your eyes at me. I am not here to argue. I am simply stating my opinion. Whether or not you agree is up to you. It really doesn't concern me.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 12:24 PM
Hey Vailpass. I need your phone number, address and social security number for a friend of mine in California. Send them in a PM, OK?

BTW: Mom's are usually left out of name calling arguments, because it goes over the line.

You need my name and coordinates for someone in CA? ROFL Is this another adult you are going to run and cry to like you did with Diggity Doo? Are you threatening me little boy? How about you handle your own biz instead of threatening to turn me in to the mysterious Cali connection? Don't pick a fight with me for no reason then run crying when you get slapped. ROFL

Lighten up Francis.
Alluding that you are an internet shut-in who hasn't yet moved out of your mom's house is a pretty standard barb on BBs and in no way crosses the mom line. If you want to see the difference we can start any time you like. If your feeling froggy just jump.

I don't mean to offend, frighten, or upset you it's just that you are not equipped to play this game. From here on out if you will refrain from responding to my posts in an aggressive fashion, like you did on this one and the N.O. EMT make-believe article, I will leave you alone. You dont have to worry about me making you cry ever again, it's up to you.

|Zach|
09-15-2005, 12:25 PM
No need to roll your eyes at me. I am not here to argue. I am simply stating my opinion. Whether or not you agree is up to you. It really doesn't concern me.
Ehh, actually it seemed like you were throwing out things that you believe are absolutes and other people should as well...

luv
09-15-2005, 12:27 PM
Ehh, actually it seemed like you were throwing out things that you believe are absolutes and other people should as well...
I'm sorry. I think I said that is what I was taught. When did I tell people they had to believe it again?

MOhillbilly
09-15-2005, 12:27 PM
If you are a Nationalist you dont have to look much further that this to see why The Republic is falling apart.

Area 51
09-15-2005, 12:28 PM
Ehh, actually it seemed like you were throwing out things that you believe are absolutes and other people should as well...

I can't agree with that response.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 12:28 PM
Your belief that they didn't have a plan is total :BS:

Regardless of what has been written in the past 50 years about the founding of the country there is no credible documents that describe the "Freedom FROM Religion" relating to the Government, if that had been the case the predominance of God in all of the places of government would not have been allowed even back then.

:BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS: :BS:

You might try actually reading their writings yourself before going on the ad hominem.

That seems to be a common thread among the conservatives here.

Here are some from Jefferson. He was one of the moderates in this debate. You want radicals, read Paine.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094045016X/freethinkers/103-8887568-1579808

vailpass
09-15-2005, 12:31 PM
You might try actually reading their writings yourself before going on the ad hominem.

That seems to be a common thread among the conservatives here.

Here are some from Jefferson. He was one of the moderates in this debate. You want radicals, read Paine.


Thomas Jefferson...
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a strictly 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. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest and preacher have been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

You say you are a Christian. I am not. I am of a religioius sect by myself, as far as I know. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

I can never join John Calvin in addressing his god... [H]is religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

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 birth of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read [the book of] Revelation, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825


"Brevity is a virtue; conciseness a gift to the reader" Vailpass, 2005

"Original thoughts, though painful in the birthing, are the only children we can truly name our own" Vailpass, 2005

"Fo, Fo, Fo" Moses Malone, 1986

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 12:34 PM
Lighten up Francis.


The only intellgent thing I've seen you post. Yet, unfortunately it was directed outward rather than inward.

Several posts have validated and corraborated the paramedic story by at least a dozen different sources. Yet you rant -- totally devoid of anything to support your ridiculous ranting -- that this story was somehow fabricated.

Then you get juvenile and personal for no rational reason that I can determine other than it must give you a woody. If you ever need a point of reference for the description you laid on Blowfish, find a mirror.

MOhillbilly
09-15-2005, 12:41 PM
Colonials thought that king george was the antichrist and the stamp act the mark of the devil.

tom jefferson said alot of shit that wasnt true 'all men are created equal'

God and Country have always gone hand in hand.
socialist intelectuals are destroying our countries strengths one step at a time.
this is just another step.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 12:41 PM
The only intellgent thing I've seen you post. Yet, unfortunately it was directed outward rather than inward.

Several posts have validated and corraborated the paramedic story by at least a dozen different sources. Yet you rant -- totally devoid of anything to support your ridiculous ranting -- that this story was somehow fabricated.

Then you get juvenile and personal for no rational reason that I can determine other than it must give you a woody. If you ever need a point of reference for the description you laid on Blowfish, find a mirror.

There is already a thread on this subject, here are my final words on it it until an investigation occurs:

Someone said it on the interweb so it must be true? It was picked up by a couple of left-leaning rags and a couple of libby EMTs so that makes it so?
Sorry bud, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the police officers, National Guard, and Sheriff's deputies way before I'll credit a dogma-laden piece of crap put forth by a couple of EMTs.

Now go feed GoFish, he is probably hot and hungry inside of that chest you keep him locked up in. That black leather suit you dress him in is probably ready to come off about now so you can get the old bishop polished.

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 12:45 PM
There is already a thread on this subject, here are my final words on it it until an investigation occurs:

Someone said it on the interweb so it must be true? It was picked up by a couple of left-leaning rags and a couple of libby EMTs so that makes it so?
Sorry bud, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the police officers, National Guard, and Sheriff's deputies way before I'll credit a dogma-laden piece of crap put forth by a couple of EMTs.

Now go feed GoFish, he is probably hot and hungry inside of that chest you keep him locked up in. That black leather suit you dress him in is probably ready to come off about now so you can get the old bishop polished.


You were the one who brought it up on this thread, not me.

Every post of yours gets progressively less intelligent, more juvenile and less funny. An amazing quality really.

|Zach|
09-15-2005, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry. I think I said that is what I was taught. When did I tell people they had to believe it again?
Sounds pretty declartive.

But there is only one God.

I have no problems with your beliefs...and I don't think you said someone else HAD to believe what you did. But alot of your posts seem to come from alot more this is truth place than this is my opinion place.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:50 PM
Sounds pretty declartive.



I have no problems with your beliefs...and I don't think you said someone else HAD to believe what you did. But alot of your posts seem to come from alot more this is truth place than this is my opinion place.
What opinions don't come across that way? If I say strawberry ice cream is the best, that's declaritive. It's also just my opinion.

I may believe some things as absolutes, but I am not forcing them on others. Should I say "I believe" in front of everything? People will still say the same thing back.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 12:52 PM
You were the one who brought it up on this thread, not me.

Every post of yours gets progressively less intelligent, more juvenile and less funny. An amazing quality really.

Your bark is kinda' weak ther old dog, maybe you need some time on the porch? Perhaps a couple of your EMT buddies could get you some pure oxygen on the side, guys like that can always use a little extra coin. You know, a little somethin-somethin to ease that vericose vein pain.

Maybe you could recite to them out of that quote book of yours instead of wasting valuable bandwith on this BB.

|Zach|
09-15-2005, 12:53 PM
What opinions don't come across that way?
I like strawberry ice cream.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:54 PM
I like strawberry ice cream.
I like more than strawberry ice cream though. To me, it's the best. Okay, I should put IMO after everything?

vailpass
09-15-2005, 12:54 PM
I like strawberry ice cream.

I like peaches.
Millions of peaches, peaches for me..

She's lump, she's lump, she's lump , she's in my head..


Thanks a lot Zach, now I have POTUSA rolling around my brain.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:55 PM
I like more than strawberry ice cream though. To me, it's the best. Okay, I should put IMO after everything?
I am not trying to argue. I am simply asking what I should do in order to "tone down" my opinions so that other people don't get offended.

luv
09-15-2005, 12:57 PM
I like peaches.
Millions of peaches, peaches for me..

She's lump, she's lump, she's lump , she's in my head..


Thanks a lot Zach, now I have POTUSA rolling around my brain.
ROFL

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 12:57 PM
Colonials thought that king george was the antichrist and the stamp act the mark of the devil.

tom jefferson said alot of shit that wasnt true 'all men are created equal'

God and Country have always gone hand in hand.
socialist intelectuals are destroying our countries strengths one step at a time.
this is just another step.

LOL! Liberals and intellectuals FOUNDED this freaking country. What planet are you from? It would pay you to do a little reading of the writings of these great intellectuals who dreamt up this marvelous experiment.

And these concepts are hardly recent:

"I suggest for your earnest consideration that a constitutional amendment be submitted to establish and forever maintain free public schools adequate to the education of all the children, irrespective of sex, color, birth-place or religion, forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, Atheistic, or Pagan tenets, and prohibiting the granting of any school funds or school taxes or any part thereof, either by legislative, municipal, or other authority, for the benefit, or in aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination." ~ President Ulysses S. Grant.

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." ~ Abraham Lincoln

God and country go hand-in-hand in Iran.

God and country walk side by side here, but have thankfully a much more platonic relationship.

go bowe
09-15-2005, 12:57 PM
You might try actually reading their writings yourself before going on the ad hominem.

That seems to be a common thread among the conservatives here.

Here are some from Jefferson. He was one of the moderates in this debate. You want radicals, read Paine.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094045016X/freethinkers/103-8887568-1579808 eh, most of the rational conservatives, and for that matter, many of the liberals and moderates have stopped freguenting this forum...

those people didn't bother with juvenile personal attacks and elementary school logic (bullies are always right, i'm rubber and you're glue, etc.)...

i guess you're too late, because it looks like there isn't going to be much traffic over here, anymore... :( :( :(

go bowe
09-15-2005, 12:59 PM
I like more than strawberry ice cream though. To me, it's the best. Okay, I should put IMO after everything?no

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 01:03 PM
eh, most of the rational conservatives, and for that matter, many of the liberals and moderates have stopped freguenting this forum...

those people didn't bother with juvenile personal attacks and elementary school logic (bullies are always right, i'm rubber and you're glue, etc.)...

i guess you're too late, because it looks like there isn't going to be much traffic over here, anymore... :( :( :(


Thanks.
It just got a little quieter.

There is no rational discussion with honest and supported points of view. Just the repugnant un-American, un-Christian vitriol that can only come from knowing you are anonymous. Just like the 101st Flying Keyboardist "Chickenhawk" rightwingnut pundits and bloggers who love war but have never put on a uniform.

Been real. I may continue to post opinions about football, but this cesspool is pretty hopeless.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 01:03 PM
eh, most of the rational conservatives, and for that matter, many of the liberals and moderates have stopped freguenting this forum...

those people didn't bother with juvenile personal attacks and elementary school logic (bullies are always right, i'm rubber and you're glue, etc.)...

i guess you're too late, because it looks like there isn't going to be much traffic over here, anymore... :( :( :(

Do you really think this thread is about rational debate? For me it's a good time killer that presents the opportunity to yank people's chains. It's a source of amusement man not the floor of the senate.
Juvenille personal attacks? Why not?
Is there some sort of sacred decorum to be followed here? That's for real life not internet time.

MOhillbilly
09-15-2005, 01:04 PM
LOL! Liberals and intellectuals FOUNDED this freaking country. What planet are you from? It would pay you to do a little reading of the writings of these great intellectuals who dreamt up this marvelous experiment.



here you are telling other to read carefully and you dont take your own advice.
Nuff said!

I never said liberals.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 01:04 PM
LOL! Liberals and intellectuals FOUNDED this freaking country. What planet are you from? It would pay you to do a little reading of the writings of these great intellectuals who dreamt up this marvelous experiment.

And these concepts are hardly recent:

"I suggest for your earnest consideration that a constitutional amendment be submitted to establish and forever maintain free public schools adequate to the education of all the children, irrespective of sex, color, birth-place or religion, forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, Atheistic, or Pagan tenets, and prohibiting the granting of any school funds or school taxes or any part thereof, either by legislative, municipal, or other authority, for the benefit, or in aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination." ~ President Ulysses S. Grant.

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." ~ Abraham Lincoln

God and country go hand-in-hand in Iran.

God and country walk side by side here, but have thankfully a much more platonic relationship.


Colonial era liberals and intellectuals != socialist intellectuals

Colonial era liberals were a lot more like today's libertarians (and libertarian conservatives) than socialists.

go bowe
09-15-2005, 01:05 PM
I am not trying to argue. I am simply asking what I should do in order to "tone down" my opinions so that other people don't get offended.hey, this is the internet...

you can hurl balls of fire and platinum tipped javelins, girl...

who cares if somebody is offended?

if they are that's their problem, and they can deal with it...

btw, don't let that silly college kid cool your jets...

hell, he only played h.s. ball, he doesn't know as much about football as you do...

don't tone it down, turn it up!! PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ

patteeu
09-15-2005, 01:06 PM
eh, most of the rational conservatives, and for that matter, many of the liberals and moderates have stopped freguenting this forum...

those people didn't bother with juvenile personal attacks and elementary school logic (bullies are always right, i'm rubber and you're glue, etc.)...

i guess you're too late, because it looks like there isn't going to be much traffic over here, anymore... :( :( :(

Sadly, that's too true.

luv
09-15-2005, 01:06 PM
here you are telling other to read carefully and you dont take your own advice.
Nuff said!

I never said liberals.
I was reading. You said socialists. Do I get a cookie? :D

Make it a fat free fig newton.

:p

vailpass
09-15-2005, 01:06 PM
Thanks.
It just got a little quieter.

There is no rational discussion with honest and supported points of view. Just the repugnant un-American, un-Christian vitriol that can only come from knowing you are anonymous. Just like the 101st Flying Keyboardist "Chickenhawk" rightwingnut pundits and bloggers who love war but have never put on a uniform.

Been real. I may continue to post opinions about football, but this cesspool is pretty hopeless.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Hugs and Kisses Diggity Doo,
Vailpass

patteeu
09-15-2005, 01:07 PM
no

Are you saying that "no" is the absolute right answer and you expect us to all agree with it or are you really saying "no, IMO?" ;)

luv
09-15-2005, 01:08 PM
hey, this is the internet...

you can hurl balls of fire and platinum tipped javelins, girl...

who cares if somebody is offended?

if they are that's their problem, and they can deal with it...

btw, don't let that silly college kid cool your jets...

hell, he only played h.s. ball, he doesn't know as much about football as you do...

don't tone it down, turn it up!! PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ
ROFL

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm sure he knows MUCH more about football than me. I'm still learning basic stuff. I'm catching on though! :)

Saulbadguy
09-15-2005, 01:19 PM
This MrDoggity guy is pretty funny. Except for the K-State remark. He can burn in hell for that.

alanm
09-15-2005, 01:20 PM
You need my name and coordinates for someone in CA? ROFL Is this another adult you are going to run and cry to like you did with Diggity Doo? Are you threatening me little boy? How about you handle your own biz instead of threatening to turn me in to the mysterious Cali connection? Don't pick a fight with me for no reason then run crying when you get slapped. ROFL

Lighten up Francis.
Alluding that you are an internet shut-in who hasn't yet moved out of your mom's house is a pretty standard barb on BBs and in no way crosses the mom line. If you want to see the difference we can start any time you like. If your feeling froggy just jump.

I don't mean to offend, frighten, or upset you it's just that you are not equipped to play this game. From here on out if you will refrain from responding to my posts in an aggressive fashion, like you did on this one and the N.O. EMT make-believe article, I will leave you alone. You dont have to worry about me making you cry ever again, it's up to you.
FTR VP didn't threaten a federal judge. I'd be the 1st one all over him if he had.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 01:47 PM
I am not trying to argue. I am simply asking what I should do in order to "tone down" my opinions so that other people don't get offended.

I would say 'don't bother' but then you see how that works for me... ;)

My :rolleyes: was at the insinuation that YOUR God, the Christian version, is THE God.

You can believe it if you want. But then realize the consequences of that belief within any and all religions...

MOhillbilly
09-15-2005, 01:59 PM
I would say 'don't bother' but then you see how that works for me... ;)

My :rolleyes: was at the insinuation that YOUR God, the Christian version, is THE God.

You can believe it if you want. But then realize the consequences of that belief within any and all religions...





the Christian God,Is the Same God as the Muslim God,Is the Same God as the Jewish God.
The God of Abraham,Isaac & Jacob.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 02:00 PM
the Christian God,Is the Same God as the Muslim God,Is the Same God as the Jewish God.
The God of Abraham,Isaac & Jacob.

Are you making a statement or asking a question? If you are making a statement, I agree.

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 02:08 PM
FTR VP didn't threaten a federal judge. I'd be the 1st one all over him if he had.Here's a portion of what VP's original post said before editing:

"The minority once again tries to rule the minority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream. This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die ,die today....."

"This Guy" meant US Federal Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. So VP wished Judge Karlton and everyone working with him in the Ninth Circuit "can die, die, die today..." Not tomorrow, not next week, today.

Not my words, but Vail Pass' words.

I don't think its productive or humorous for someone in a public forum to wish death on a US Judge and those who work around him. Do others of you agree with this sentiment? You want this Judge and those who work with him to die? It's a simple question.

If so, you should consider who you want to kill.
Who is Judge Karlton?

Lawrence K. Karlton
United States California District Court
Senior District Court Judge

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

Federal Judicial Service:

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

Professional Career:
1958-1960
U.S. Army

1960-1962
Civilian legal officer, Sacramento Army Depot

1962-1976
Private practice, Sacramento, California

1976-1979
Judge, Superior Court of California, Sacramento County

So, he's a Veteran. He graduated from a prestigious Law School. He's served his country as a Judge since 1976.

Well, VP must figure all that marks this guy for death.

Vailpass is probably out in his barn mixing fertilizer with diesel fuel and loading up the U-Haul as we speak.

By the way, VP, if you've got any sack, why not contact the Judge directly and tell him you want him dead? Tim Hinkle is his clerk. Reach his office at 916-930-4130. He'll be expecting your call.

MOhillbilly
09-15-2005, 02:22 PM
Are you making a statement or asking a question? If you are making a statement, I agree.


i just wonder where you get off saying 'your version' and then lumping the 'christian god' in w/ it.

God is the same only the prophets or lack of make them secular.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 02:29 PM
FTR VP didn't threaten a federal judge. I'd be the 1st one all over him if he had.

GoFish was trying to make an issue where there was none. My anger is with the actions, not the person, the office, not the judge.
It is my right as an American to feel so.

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 02:47 PM
GoFish was trying to make an issue where there was none. My anger is with the actions, not the person, the office, not the judge.
It is my right as an American to feel so.Do you want the Judge and all his co-workers in the 9th Circuit to die, or don't you? You seem to be flip flopping on the issue. Very John Kerry of you.

Let's see, this whole diatribe started over "Under God" being part of the Pledge of Alligiance. That's why you're upset, right?

Have you read the Ten Commandments? They're posted all over Court Houses in the South. One of the Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Or is that one just optional with you?

Area 51
09-15-2005, 02:53 PM
You might try actually reading their writings yourself before going on the ad hominem.

That seems to be a common thread among the conservatives here.

Here are some from Jefferson. He was one of the moderates in this debate. You want radicals, read Paine.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094045016X/freethinkers/103-8887568-1579808

You might not understand this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Their personal religious beliefs did not interfere with the way they setup the country. That's the great thing about what they did. They left it up to us and did indeed include God in many of the documents.

It is not a freedom FROM religion, it is a freedom OF religion.

vailpass
09-15-2005, 02:54 PM
Here's a portion of what VP's original post said before editing:

"The minority once again tries to rule the minority, just like gay marriage. They can't win it by popular vote so they circumvent the people by going through the courts. Makes me want to scream. This guy and the 9th Circuit can die, die ,die today....."

"This Guy" meant US Federal Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. So VP wished Judge Karlton and everyone working with him in the Ninth Circuit "can die, die, die today..." Not tomorrow, not next week, today.

Not my words, but Vail Pass' words.

I don't think its productive or humorous for someone in a public forum to wish death on a US Judge and those who work around him. Do others of you agree with this sentiment? You want this Judge and those who work with him to die? It's a simple question.

If so, you should consider who you want to kill.
Who is Judge Karlton?

Lawrence K. Karlton
United States California District Court
Senior District Court Judge

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

Federal Judicial Service:

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

Professional Career:
1958-1960
U.S. Army

1960-1962
Civilian legal officer, Sacramento Army Depot

1962-1976
Private practice, Sacramento, California

1976-1979
Judge, Superior Court of California, Sacramento County

So, he's a Veteran. He graduated from a prestigious Law School. He's served his country as a Judge since 1976.

Well, VP must figure all that marks this guy for death.

Vailpass is probably out in his barn mixing fertilizer with diesel fuel and loading up the U-Haul as we speak.

By the way, VP, if you've got any sack, why not contact the Judge directly and tell him you want him dead? Tim Hinkle is his clerk. Reach his office at 916-930-4130. He'll be expecting your call.

ROFL Dance little monkey, dance. I see you have composed another novel that nobody will read. The only one on this board who thinks there was a death threat made is you; stop flogging the dead equine and face it boy: you got nothin'. If that particular judge dropped dead tomorrow I would not shed a tear but that is a long way from a threat.

Now spin some more for me monkey, spin like your mom on a Saturday night. Shhhh, be a good little boy and go to bed when your told and you won't see anything you don't like.

Taco John
09-15-2005, 03:54 PM
As a person who believes in God and also in Jesus Christ, I'm saddened to see this.

As an American who believes in Libertarian values (individual liberty), I can understand why some Americans would feel uncomfortable being forced to recognize a diety in whom they don't believe in to pledge their allegiance to the United States.

Given that this Country was founded on the tenets of religious freedom, which also includes the freedom to not have a religion, I don't have a problem with them reverting the pledge to it's previous state.

When prompted, I will still say the pledge using the words "under God." That's ingrained in me and I don't think I could ever quit. But honestly, I can't remember the last time I was asked to say the pledge...

I guess this is another one of those issues where people are just dividing themselves for the sake of dividing themselves.

Taco John
09-15-2005, 03:56 PM
ROFL Dance little monkey, dance.

That's a compelling argument...

go bowe
09-15-2005, 04:05 PM
Are you saying that "no" is the absolute right answer and you expect us to all agree with it or are you really saying "no, IMO?" ;)imo, i don't know what i'm talking about...

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 04:22 PM
ROFL Dance little monkey, dance. I see you have composed another novel that nobody will read. The only one on this board who thinks there was a death threat made is you; stop flogging the dead equine and face it boy: you got nothin'. If that particular judge dropped dead tomorrow I would not shed a tear but that is a long way from a threat.

Now spin some more for me monkey, spin like your mom on a Saturday night. Shhhh, be a good little boy and go to bed when your told and you won't see anything you don't like.You can't argue with a sick mind.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 05:43 PM
Here's a portion of what VP's original post said before editing:

...

By the way, VP, if you've got any sack, why not contact the Judge directly and tell him you want him dead? Tim Hinkle is his clerk. Reach his office at 916-930-4130. He'll be expecting your call.

You don't know when to stop do you? If you took this off the board and actually called this guy with your slander, you are a far bigger tool than I initially thought. I've almost never been in favor of banning anyone around here (I regularly vote to keep memyselfi from being banned), but if you did call this guy, you should be permanently banned, IMO.

Taco John
09-15-2005, 05:45 PM
No doubt... Why would anyone do that?

patteeu
09-15-2005, 05:46 PM
Do you want the Judge and all his co-workers in the 9th Circuit to die, or don't you? You seem to be flip flopping on the issue. Very John Kerry of you.

Let's see, this whole diatribe started over "Under God" being part of the Pledge of Alligiance. That's why you're upset, right?

Have you read the Ten Commandments? They're posted all over Court Houses in the South. One of the Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Or is that one just optional with you?

Being indifferent to their deaths (or even hoping for their deaths) may be callous, but it isn't a death threat.

patteeu
09-15-2005, 05:50 PM
That's a compelling argument...

The argument comes a little later in his post. That part is just intended to get gblowfish's blood pressure up a bit so he will continue to make a fool of himself. I thought you understood how internet message boards worked. :p

Taco John
09-15-2005, 05:52 PM
Does that work? I've always found that goofy taunts like that only make one look like more of a jackass and is counterproductive. I guess I prefer to get under people's skin with some substance...

NewChief
09-15-2005, 05:56 PM
You don't know when to stop do you? If you took this off the board and actually called this guy with your slander, you are a far bigger tool than I initially thought. I've almost never been in favor of banning anyone around here (I regularly vote to keep memyselfi from being banned), but if you did call this guy, you should be permanently banned, IMO.


Yeah, because no one has ever made a phone call and screwed up someone's personal life before, getting them in serious trouble, eh?

patteeu
09-15-2005, 05:57 PM
Does that work? I've always found that goofy taunts like that only make one look like more of a jackass and is counterproductive. I guess I prefer to get under people's skin with some substance...

I suspect it does work on some thinner-skinned people. And it's not fair to compare the average internet poster's trolling techniques with yours, you are a master. :)

Taco John
09-15-2005, 06:00 PM
"What is the sound of one head banging on a keyboard?"

gblowfish
09-15-2005, 06:34 PM
You don't know when to stop do you? If you took this off the board and actually called this guy with your slander, you are a far bigger tool than I initially thought. I've almost never been in favor of banning anyone around here (I regularly vote to keep memyselfi from being banned), but if you did call this guy, you should be permanently banned, IMO.So far there's been over 145 posts on this thread. The thread starter (VP) originally wrote that he wanted a Federal Judge and all the people who worked in the Ninth Circuit with him to "die die die today." That sounded very Tim McVeyish to me. I asked him to clarify, then when VP edited his original post to delete that language, I said, "No harm no foul" (see post #33) In the course of this discussion, you and VP have applied a generous amount of insult including this crop of elegant debate:

Gimp
Cock Cushion
Ass Magnet
Scrotum Shaver
Cucumber Polisher
Rump Ranger
Crackpot
Pussy
Monkey
Tool

Nice, very nice. I'm sure you learned those words in Wednesday Night Bible study. Yeah, I'm the one with no class here.

So in post 133 VP says "If that particular judge dropped dead tomorrow, I would not shed a tear."

OK, so he wouldn't mind it at all if the guy was dead. That's how he really feels. So I provided the Judge's Clerk's name and phone number, so if that's how VP feels, he can certainly put his money where his mouth is. Lots of others have assuredly made that call, or had the cajones to make that call. But you jump to conclusions, call me a tool, and say I should be banned for narcing on poor VP, because oops, he may have committed a felony. Now who can't handle the heat?

You guys amaze me. Neocons are consistent, that's for sure. You say you want to whack someone who pisses you off, but are too chicken to handle it yourselves. Send somebody else..or somebody else's kids to do it for you.

If VP doesn't want the Judge and everyone who works with him dead, he should simply apologize and move on. If he does, then he shouldn't back off his original statement. Just stick to one story. That's all I saying.

I'm not a snitch. Never have been. I fight my own battles, try not to resort to name calling in a debate and I'm not afraid to apologize when I'm wrong. How about you?

Taco John
09-15-2005, 07:07 PM
I've been going to the wrong Wednesday Night Bible Study!

|Zach|
09-15-2005, 07:14 PM
I've been going to the wrong Wednesday Night Bible Study!
Pretty much.

http://pick1es.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/picture020.jpg.w300h375.jpg

patteeu
09-15-2005, 07:56 PM
So far there's been over 145 posts on this thread. The thread starter (VP) originally wrote that he wanted a Federal Judge and all the people who worked in the Ninth Circuit with him to "die die die today." That sounded very Tim McVeyish to me. I asked him to clarify, then when VP edited his original post to delete that language, I said, "No harm no foul" (see post #33) In the course of this discussion, you and VP have applied a generous amount of insult including this crop of elegant debate:

Gimp
Cock Cushion
Ass Magnet
Scrotum Shaver
Cucumber Polisher
Rump Ranger
Crackpot
Pussy
Monkey
Tool

Nice, very nice. I'm sure you learned those words in Wednesday Night Bible study. Yeah, I'm the one with no class here.

So in post 133 VP says "If that particular judge dropped dead tomorrow, I would not shed a tear."

OK, so he wouldn't mind it at all if the guy was dead. That's how he really feels. So I provided the Judge's Clerk's name and phone number, so if that's how VP feels, he can certainly put his money where his mouth is. Lots of others have assuredly made that call, or had the cajones to make that call. But you jump to conclusions, call me a tool, and say I should be banned for narcing on poor VP, because oops, he may have committed a felony. Now who can't handle the heat?

I don't know where to start with this. Go ahead and add "dumbass" to your list while I take in the incredible absence of logic and the multiple examples of misinterpretation contained in your post. OK, let's get started.

First, that's a ridiculous use of the phrase "put his money where his mouth is." Do you even know what that phrase means? It doesn't mean that if you have a thought about someone you have some kind of honor-based obligation to call them and tell them about it. I don't care what Randy Moss had for dinner. Do I need to contact him and let him know about my indifference to put my money where my mouth is? That's simply not how that phrase is used.

Second, I didn't jump to any conclusions. I drew a reasonable inference from your comment about Mr. Hinkle expecting VP's call but I allowed for the possibility that it was just poor wording on your part by calling for your banning only IF the inference was accurate.

Finally, there is absolutely no possibility that VP committed a felony despite your desire to cling to that misconception.

You guys amaze me. Neocons are consistent, that's for sure. You say you want to whack someone who pisses you off, but are too chicken to handle it yourselves. Send somebody else..or somebody else's kids to do it for you.

You don't know what a Neocon is and no one said anything about whacking anybody.

If VP doesn't want the Judge and everyone who works with him dead, he should simply apologize and move on. If he does, then he shouldn't back off his original statement. Just stick to one story. That's all I saying.

VP doesn't owe anyone an apology for something gblowfish imagined.

I'm not a snitch. Never have been. I fight my own battles, try not to resort to name calling in a debate and I'm not afraid to apologize when I'm wrong. How about you?

If you're not afraid to apologize when you're wrong then put your money where your mouth is.(1) You owe VP an apology for mischaracterizing his comments repeatedly in this thread.


--------------------------
(1) Notice that this is an appropriate use of the phrase "put your money where your mouth is."

go bowe
09-15-2005, 08:07 PM
geez...

if you ban the blowfish, there'll only be 2 of us left here in d.c. :(

Logical
09-15-2005, 08:41 PM
Yes, you would be mistaken. I attend at least three service meetings monthly that begin with the pledge...........and (gasp) a prayer. None of these are "church" organizations either. There's not too many leftists that attend "service" organizations meetings though, that could explain why you were unaware.Yes because to be a Patriot you must pray and say something about God as often as possible.

Of course the good news is that if you don't pray and talk about God all the time you don't have to serve in the military or fight any wars to protect the country, right Patriot21?

Logical
09-15-2005, 08:46 PM
You finally have one thing right, there is only ONE God, I'm here to tell you that Allah is not him.What a dipshit Allah is God, God is Allah

Main Entry: Al·lah http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?allah001.wav=Allah')) http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?allah002.wav=Allah'))
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&, 'a-l&, 'ä-"lä, ä-'lä
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic allAh
: GOD (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/god+)1a -- used in Islam

Logical
09-15-2005, 08:51 PM
Your opinion, perhaps -- and one I thank God you have a right to express in our democracy -- but please leave the founding fathers out of this.

They were largely deists with a loose belief in God as a concept, but an outright contempt for organized religious expression of God, and little, if any use for Christianity.

I am a practicing, church-going Christian -- which is thankfully my right in America. But make no mistake, the founders of this nation - by in large - were not.

Jefferson called himself a "Unitarian" and "infidel". Adams claimed the world would be better off if there were no religions. Franklin called himself a "Deist". The Anglican Bishop at the time said that Washington was a great man, but he was no Christian. Paine proclaimed, "My mind is my church." Lincoln was quoted, "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Washington and Adams wrote, "…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Jefferson stated, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Paine called Genesis "an anonymous book of stories, fables …invented absurdities and of downright lies." Jefferson often compared the stories in the Bible to Greek mythology. Jefferson denounced the use of public schools to promote any theology. But clearly they supported public-funded education. Adams said that, "no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant". Jefferson said that children should "…be carried at the public expense through the college and university."

Space prohibits going on, although volumes could be written. Suffice to say that the founders meant to protect our right to worship as we choose; they also meant to prevent my faith, or any other from being promoted by the government or in public schools. Like it or not, conservatives – you are the ones diverting us from the course set by the founders.

I don't know who Mr Doggity is but I like the views expressed in this post. He is absolutely correct about the founding fathers views as deists and of their contempt for organized religion.:thumb:

MrDoggity
09-15-2005, 09:00 PM
What a dipshit Allah is God, God is Allah


Brother - save your breath. This is the 1984 thread. This is doubleplus ungood.

A guy threatens a judge in a public forum and then, when called on it, acts all indignant. His slurp buddy goes ad hominem ballistic. Then they do the classic Rovian attack on the guy who has the audacity to tell the truth. The whacks who call themselves vailpass and patteeu behave as though they are un-American, un-Christian examples of classic fascists, by the Mussolini definition. To vailpass's credit, he admitted to being here simply to pull chains. Something generally done by the unemployed with nothing better to do with their time -- but at least honest. I fear that his lackey patteeu is giving every indication that he's really ignorant enough to believe his own drivel.

Scary.

Logical
09-15-2005, 09:04 PM
Your belief that they didn't have a plan is total :BS:

Regardless of what has been written in the past 50 years about the founding of the country there is no credible documents that describe the "Freedom FROM Religion" relating to the Government, if that had been the case the predominance of God in all of the places of government would not have been allowed even back then.
...

Oh really what about the Treaty of Tripoli

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2646526&postcount=58

Also, check out some quotes from the founding fathers I have previously posted.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2646521&postcount=57

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2646517&postcount=55

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2646517&postcount=55

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2646519&postcount=56

Logical
09-15-2005, 09:07 PM
Brother - save your breath. This is the 1984 thread. This is doubleplus ungood.

A guy threatens a judge in a public forum and then, when called on it, acts all indignant. His slurp buddy goes ad hominem ballistic. Then they do the classic Rovian attack on the guy who has the audacity to tell the truth. The whacks who call themselves vailpass and patteeu behave as though they are un-American, un-Christian examples of classic fascists, by the Mussolini definition. To vailpass's credit, he admitted to being here simply to pull chains. Something generally done by the unemployed with nothing better to do with their time -- but at least honest. I fear that his lackey patteeu is giving every indication that he's really ignorant enough to believe his own drivel.

Scary.

I have known patteau a long time and in general in the past have found him to be a reasonable sort who just believes strongly in what he professes. As to Vailpass I will take your word on it.

Logical
09-15-2005, 09:09 PM
LOL, they are the names 'other people's' use for God. :rolleyes:While that is true of Allah, I thought Buddha like Jesus was considered a disciple, I know you have more knowledge of Buddhism than I do so fill me in on the details.

memyselfI
09-15-2005, 09:43 PM
While that is true of Allah, I thought Buddha like Jesus was considered a disciple, I know you have more knowledge of Buddhism than I do so fill me in on the details.

Depends on who you talk to. I know Christians that consider Jesus one in the same with God. I have read Buddhists who feel the same. That their 'disciple' was 'God' manifested in human form.

Logical
09-15-2005, 10:41 PM
Depends on who you talk to. I know Christians that consider Jesus one in the same with God. I have read Buddhists who feel the same. That their 'disciple' was 'God' manifested in human form.Thanks

Earthling
09-16-2005, 12:58 AM
Yes, you would be mistaken. I attend at least three service meetings monthly that begin with the pledge...........and (gasp) a prayer. None of these are "church" organizations either. There's not too many leftists that attend "service" organizations meetings though, that could explain why you were unaware.

I would be very happy to make you a wager that most of the people on this board have not had to recite the pledge since early school years. Do you not see the irony in that? Its interesting that you would draw an opinion on my political leanings based on that. Also, do you not see a difference with yourself reciting the pledge by choice rather than by rote as we all did in school? Is the "service " organization something like the militia? Just curious.

go bowe
09-16-2005, 01:18 AM
by rote?

wow, haven't heard that one in a long time...

you must have gone to school back in the days when a person could still get a good education in high school...

Earthling
09-16-2005, 01:21 AM
by rote?

wow, haven't heard that one in a long time...

you must have gone to school back in the days when a person could still get a good education in high school...

ROFL I have learned to fake it well.

Patriot 21
09-16-2005, 05:14 AM
I would be very happy to make you a wager that most of the people on this board have not had to recite the pledge since early school years. Do you not see the irony in that? Its interesting that you would draw an opinion on my political leanings based on that. Also, do you not see a difference with yourself reciting the pledge by choice rather than by rote as we all did in school? Is the "service " organization something like the militia? Just curious.

No, what I find ironic is that you and Jim Reynolds both need to have the meaning of "service organization" explained to you.

...........oh, and "Had" to say the pledge? :shake: No, some of us do it out of respect. Respect for the sacrifice that was made by many to build a Republic where even people like you, memyselfandvladlogicslav and islamofacistmemyselfandI are allowed to publicly make morons out of themselves.

vailpass
09-16-2005, 11:10 AM
Brother - save your breath. This is the 1984 thread. This is doubleplus ungood.

A guy threatens a judge in a public forum and then, when called on it, acts all indignant. His slurp buddy goes ad hominem ballistic. Then they do the classic Rovian attack on the guy who has the audacity to tell the truth. The whacks who call themselves vailpass and patteeu behave as though they are un-American, un-Christian examples of classic fascists, by the Mussolini definition. To vailpass's credit, he admitted to being here simply to pull chains. Something generally done by the unemployed with nothing better to do with their time -- but at least honest. I fear that his lackey patteeu is giving every indication that he's really ignorant enough to believe his own drivel.

Scary.

ROFL Nice 1984 reference grandpa. What's next, a lesson from Space Odyssey 2001? Fascists? Mussolini? Wow are you ever trying too hard. ROFL
Listen to the guy who has been on the board for two days and thinks he knows who is who. By way of introduction:
Diggity, you have aligned yourself with Vlad which means you also carry the seal of approval from islamamama. Good luck with that.

I am a visitor here, not a full-fledged member since I am not a
Chief. I come here for a few laughs and to the football board for knowledgeable football talk/smack. I apologize to the members of this board, when I came in a couple of days ago I should have checked my shoes as it appears I tracked a couple pieces of dog shit across your carpet.

Anyone will tell you that Patteeu is level headed and reasonable and therefore is usually on the opposite side of the fence from me. In this particular case the words and actions of GoFish are so outlandish, so unstable, so downright CREEPY and stalker-like, that IMO Patteeu's sense of logic and proper behavior was offended. Patteeu schooled GoFish, GoFish kept running his mouth and making false accusations and blabbering on with one inane comment ofter another.

Diggity Dog, your use of five dollar words to express five cent thoughts is assinine, as though this were the Forum in ancient Rome instead of an internet BB. You rush to GoFish's aid with a sound and a fury that is much ado about nothing. You act like this is real life, as if this is something more than a venue for entertainment. It's the interweb, ya' know?

GoFish is unstable bordering on insane, I have never seen anyone so ill-equipped to handle a BB session. I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something strange about you two.

vailpass
09-16-2005, 11:11 AM
No, what I find ironic is that you and Jim Reynolds both need to have the meaning of "service organization" explained to you.

...........oh, and "Had" to say the pledge? :shake: No, some of us do it out of respect. Respect for the sacrifice that was made by many to build a Republic where even people like you, memyselfandvladlogicslav and islamofacistmemyselfandI are allowed to publicly make morons out of themselves.
:clap: Here here :clap:

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 11:16 AM
While that is true of Allah, I thought Buddha like Jesus was considered a disciple, I know you have more knowledge of Buddhism than I do so fill me in on the details.

Geezus, you're creepy. I still haven't figured out why you kiss Islamamomma's taint so much recently. Looks like she has her very own sheep.

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 11:31 AM
The way I see it, is you either pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, or you don't. If you decide not to, you should lose your citizenship. If you hate America so bad, leave. Go to one of those countries that libs are always bragging on, like pre-war Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe France will want you, they always accept cowards and I'm sure expatriates would fit in real well there.

If you don't like the term 'under God' then take it upon yourself to replace it with whatever it is you worship. But to strike it down completely, is asinine. This is a predominantly Christian nation and there is nothing wrong with expressing that.

We've used the term 'under God since the 1950's, why change it for a few liberals because they scream the loudest?

"God, Guns and Country."

If this offends you, you are probably gay.

vailpass
09-16-2005, 11:38 AM
The way I see it, is you either pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, or you don't. If you decide not to, you should lose your citizenship. If you hate America so bad, leave. Go to one of those countries that libs are always bragging on, like pre-war Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe France will want you, they always accept cowards and I'm sure expatriates would fit in real well there.

If you don't like the term 'under God' then take it upon yourself to replace it with whatever it is you worship. But to strike it down completely, is asinine. This is a predominantly Christian nation and there is nothing wrong with expressing that.

We've used the term 'under God since the 1950's, why change it for a few liberals because they scream the loudest?

"God, Guns and Country."

If this offends you, you are probably gay.

Don't worry Duck, when push comes to shove the vast majority of the US still feels this way. The lunatic liberal fringe minority barks loudly but we still carry the big stick.

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 11:48 AM
Don't worry Duck, when push comes to shove the vast majority of the US still feels this way. The lunatic liberal fringe minority barks loudly but we still carry the big stick.


I think you're right and GW clearly proved that last November. It's too bad for the dems that they let the liberals take over their party. People will tolerate the far right long before they will tolerate the far left.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 11:50 AM
The way I see it, is you either pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, or you don't. If you decide not to, you should lose your citizenship. If you hate America so bad, leave. Go to one of those countries that libs are always bragging on, like pre-war Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe France will want you, they always accept cowards and I'm sure expatriates would fit in real well there.

If you don't like the term 'under God' then take it upon yourself to replace it with whatever it is you worship. But to strike it down completely, is asinine. This is a predominantly Christian nation and there is nothing wrong with expressing that.

We've used the term 'under God since the 1950's, why change it for a few liberals because they scream the loudest?

"God, Guns and Country."

If this offends you, you are probably gay.

I don't really have a problem with removing "under God" from the pledge if that's what the majority of people want. But to have a small panel of judges decide, out of the blue (relatively speaking), that it is unconstitutional is outrageous.

For heaven's sake, the Declaration of Independence would probably be ruled unconstitutional if it were created by government officials today:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

the Talking Can
09-16-2005, 11:52 AM
Brother - save your breath. This is the 1984 thread. This is doubleplus ungood.

Scary.

rep for that...right over their heads, but spot on....

vailpass
09-16-2005, 11:54 AM
rep for that...right over their heads, but spot on....

Right over our heads?
Please.
Orwellian references are sooooo 1983.

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 11:55 AM
I don't really have a problem with removing "under God" from the pledge if that's what the majority of people want. But to have a small panel of judges decide, out of the blue (relatively speaking), that it is unconstitutional is outrageous.

For heaven's sake, the Declaration of Independence would probably be ruled unconstitutional if it were created by government officials today:


I agree completely. I just see this whole attempt as a lead in to removing the pledge all together. Because every good liberal knows, that it aint cool to show love for the stars and stripes.

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 11:59 AM
Brother - save your breath. This is the 1984 thread. This is doubleplus ungood.

A guy threatens a judge in a public forum and then, when called on it, acts all indignant. His slurp buddy goes ad hominem ballistic. Then they do the classic Rovian attack on the guy who has the audacity to tell the truth. The whacks who call themselves vailpass and patteeu behave as though they are un-American, un-Christian examples of classic fascists, by the Mussolini definition. To vailpass's credit, he admitted to being here simply to pull chains. Something generally done by the unemployed with nothing better to do with their time -- but at least honest. I fear that his lackey patteeu is giving every indication that he's really ignorant enough to believe his own drivel.

Scary.

I call a spade a spade.

know it alls like you have the least to give and the most to learn.
You can throw rhetoric around w/ the best,but thats it.

WilliamTheIrish
09-16-2005, 12:02 PM
This MrDoggity guy is pretty funny. Except for the K-State remark. He can burn in hell for that.

Right-o !!

Perhaps Doggitty, Saul and I could invite you to the game this year?

We'll fit you for the bottom half of Willie's costume.

Swanman
09-16-2005, 12:09 PM
I think you're right and GW clearly proved that last November. It's too bad for the dems that they let the liberals take over their party. People will tolerate the far right long before they will tolerate the far left.

The only reason the Dems didn't beat Bush is because they somehow found one of maybe 3 or 4 politicians in the world that couldn't beat Bush. That party is famous for picking stiffs as its presidential candidate. And I wouldn't say Bush "clearly proved" anything with the election, as the outcome basically came down to whoever won Ohio. I'd say Reagan over Mondale (49 states to 1) was a blowout, not this past election.

vailpass
09-16-2005, 12:11 PM
The only reason the Dems didn't beat Bush is because they somehow found one of maybe 3 or 4 politicians in the world that couldn't beat Bush. That party is famous for picking stiffs as its presidential candidate. And I wouldn't say Bush "clearly proved" anything with the election, as the outcome basically came down to whoever won Ohio. I'd say Reagan over Mondale (49 states to 1) was a blowout, not this past election.

My God this country could use a couple terms of President Reagan right now. He would whip things into shape in a hurry.
Sigh.

gblowfish
09-16-2005, 12:11 PM
I am a visitor here, not a full-fledged member since I am not a
Chief. I come here for a few laughs and to the football board for knowledgeable football talk/smack. I apologize to the members of this board, when I came in a couple of days ago I should have checked my shoes as it appears I tracked a couple pieces of dog shit across your carpet.
Well, at least VP apologized for something. It might be a good idea for him to post his "all the people I want to see dead list" just so we can get it out of the way.

VP's not even a Chiefs fan. That's a relief.

I now understand why the mods decided to move the Washington DC forum to the outskirts of the BB. More specifically, to the extreme right outskirts of the BB.

vailpass
09-16-2005, 12:12 PM
Well, at least VP apologized for something. It might be a good idea for him to post his "all the people I want to see dead list" just so we can get it out of the way.

VP's not even a Chiefs fan. That's a relief.

I now understand why the mods decided to move the Washington DC forum to the outskirts of the BB. More specifically, to the extreme right outskirts of the BB.

Uh..with reference to my 'apology': you do realize to whom the dogshit comment applies, don't you?
Are you done falsely accusing me yet boy are do we have to go through another day of your insanity?

WilliamTheIrish
09-16-2005, 12:13 PM
Brother - save your breath. . This is doubleplus ungood.

had a shirt with this quote on it when I was younger man.

Used to crack up my college prof's with it.

Ahh, the good old days.

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 12:19 PM
The only reason the Dems didn't beat Bush is because they somehow found one of maybe 3 or 4 politicians in the world that couldn't beat Bush. That party is famous for picking stiffs as its presidential candidate. And I wouldn't say Bush "clearly proved" anything with the election, as the outcome basically came down to whoever won Ohio. I'd say Reagan over Mondale (49 states to 1) was a blowout, not this past election.


No, Bush won because the dems didn't have anyone in the world who could beat him. You may be correct about Bush not proving anything. I'd say the voters did though.

Correctomundo on the last bit. :thumb:

patteeu
09-16-2005, 12:20 PM
More specifically, to the extreme right outskirts of the BB.

Feeling overwhelmed? ROFL

Everyone else says conservatives don't come around here anymore. Maybe you're just further left than you realized.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 12:21 PM
had a shirt with this quote on it when I was younger man.

Used to crack up my college prof's with it.

Ahh, the good old days.

You must be a liar. Talking Can said it was over our heads. :p

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 12:26 PM
Feeling overwhelmed? ROFL

Everyone else says conservatives don't come around here anymore. Maybe you're just further left than you realized.


I can't speak for other right leaning posters, but I know I've stayed away for a while because I got tired of reading the constant hate filled posts by our resident Islamogunt and her recently knew adopted sheep, Evil Logicstan.

It's no longer entertaining to just read through threads because of the constant negativity.

Simply put, those two walking hand in hand will harsh your buzz.

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 12:29 PM
I can't speak for other right leaning posters, but I know I've stayed away for a while because I got tired of reading the constant hate filled posts by our resident Islamogunt and her recently knew adopted sheep, Evil Logicstan.

It's no longer entertaining to just read through threads because of the constant negativity.

Simply put, those two walking hand in hand will harsh your buzz.

i hear you. Instead of saying whatsright w/ America or ideas to fix it they just put a new spin on tired old hate.

gblowfish
09-16-2005, 12:30 PM
Feeling overwhelmed? No, just feeling like I need a shower. Really, the last time I can remember hearing abuse like this is when I went to a Raider-Cheifs game in LA in 1991. In order to complete the flashback, here's a little something you guys can chuck at people you don't agree with, just like a Raiders Fan!

patteeu
09-16-2005, 12:34 PM
I can't speak for other right leaning posters, but I know I've stayed away for a while because I got tired of reading the constant hate filled posts by our resident Islamogunt and her recently knew adopted sheep, Evil Logicstan.

It's no longer entertaining to just read through threads because of the constant negativity.

Simply put, those two walking hand in hand will harsh your buzz.

The recent Memyselfi-VladLogicslav alliance is indeed disturbing. I don't think Memyselfi deserves ALL of the harshness that comes her way (just most of it), but Vlad carries sensitivity and understanding to an unhealthy extreme. His conversion reminds me of the middle-aged guy who, after raising his kids, leaves his wife to go live the gay lifestyle he's always secretly desired. (Note: I'm not saying Vlad is gay. No, Vlad's transformation appears to be far worse than that. :p )

Duck Dog
09-16-2005, 12:37 PM
The recent Memyselfi-VladLogicslav alliance is indeed disturbing. I don't think Memyselfi deserves ALL of the harshness that comes her way (just most of it), but Vlad carries sensitivity and understanding to an unhealthy extreme. His conversion reminds me of the middle-aged guy who, after raising his kids, leaves his wife to go live the gay lifestyle he's always secretly desired. (Note: I'm not saying Vlad is gay. No, Vlad's transformation appears to be far worse than that. :p )


Wow, that has to be the best (at least the funniest) analogy. ROFL

patteeu
09-16-2005, 12:41 PM
No, just feeling like I need a shower. Really, the last time I can remember hearing abuse like this is when I went to a Raider-Chiefs game in LA in 1991. In order to complete the flashback, here's a little something you guys can chuck at people you don't agree with, just like a Raiders Fan!

Dude, you were the one who started the hate in this thread by insisting against VP's denial (and despite the plain meaning of his original text) that he was threatening a judge. It didn't have to escalate, but you chose that path by pushing on (with the threat charge) and by finding offense where none was present (regarding your mom). Don't come in here, throw crap on the floor, and then complain about how messy it is.

go bowe
09-16-2005, 12:49 PM
The recent Memyselfi-VladLogicslav alliance is indeed disturbing. I don't think Memyselfi deserves ALL of the harshness that comes her way (just most of it), but Vlad carries sensitivity and understanding to an unhealthy extreme. His conversion reminds me of the middle-aged guy who, after raising his kids, leaves his wife to go live the gay lifestyle he's always secretly desired. (Note: I'm not saying Vlad is gay. No, Vlad's transformation appears to be far worse than that. :p )you've been here as long as i have...

do you really think vlad has undergone a "transformation"?

he's always leaned towards the liberal side when it comes to social and "moral" issues as far as i can remember...

like me, he supported the president with respect to going to war in iraq, but he has since changed his mind, as have many americans according to the polls (if the newscasters are correctly characterizing the poll results)...

and those have been the main topics for the past year or more - the election and the way...

but vlad has always been more liberal-ish on most social issues, which we used to discuss before the onslaught of electioneering partisans last year...

or are you just kidding vlad, like bill mahr kids the president? :p :p :p

|Zach|
09-16-2005, 12:53 PM
i hear you. Instead of saying whatsright w/ America or ideas to fix it they just put a new spin on tired old hate.
Dude c'mon now...

You spend as much time talking about "whats wrong" with America as anyone...

:hmmm: :shrug:

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 12:56 PM
Dude c'mon now...

You spend as much time talking about "whats wrong" with America as anyone...

:hmmm: :shrug:

i also spend just as much time on how i think it could be righted.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 01:06 PM
you've been here as long as i have...

do you really think vlad has undergone a "transformation"?

he's always leaned towards the liberal side when it comes to social and "moral" issues as far as i can remember...

like me, he supported the president with respect to going to war in iraq, but he has since changed his mind, as have many americans according to the polls (if the newscasters are correctly characterizing the poll results)...

and those have been the main topics for the past year or more - the election and the way...

but vlad has always been more liberal-ish on most social issues, which we used to discuss before the onslaught of electioneering partisans last year...

or are you just kidding vlad, like bill mahr kids the president? :p :p :p

I'm just kidding him,... mostly. I know that his positions haven't changed too much on basic issues (e.g. abortion and gay marriage, property rights, crime, etc.), but his approach on this message board has changed considerably. He used to troll for people like memyselfi and jAZ. Now he focuses most of his trolling on conservatives (especially Christian conservatives). And he didn't just change his mind on the Iraq war and Bush's presidency in general, he's gone from generally being supportive to taking relatively extreme rhetorical positions against them. It's really more style than substance that has changed.

I don't really have any problem with Vlad or his new approach. In many ways, I agree with most of his basic positions. Even wrt his position on Iraq (where we do have an apparent disagreement), he thinks we should be fighting harder, better, smarter (IIRC) rather than pulling out our troops and bringing them home. I don't necessarily disagree with him on that. But I have trouble when he blows kisses at memyselfi when she posts on this issue since she is (AFAICT) in the bring them home and impeach Bush camp.

|Zach|
09-16-2005, 01:12 PM
i also spend just as much time on how i think it could be righted.
Beyond your take on the dog issue in relation to freedom?

StcChief
09-16-2005, 01:21 PM
In the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia why doesn't this surprise anyone.

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 02:23 PM
Beyond your take on the dog issue in relation to freedom?

ive posted my views though not always popular on abotion,gays,immigration,politicians,big buisness in govt.,The soverienty of America,race issues,forgien policy ect ect ect ect.

|Zach|
09-16-2005, 02:49 PM
ive posted my views though not always popular on abotion,gays,immigration,politicians,big buisness in govt.,The soverienty of America,race issues,forgien policy ect ect ect ect.
Fiar enough, im not sure who hasn't done the same thats been around here enough. :hmmm:

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 03:07 PM
Fiar enough, im not sure who hasn't done the same thats been around here enough. :hmmm:

seems to me like alot of the regulars only spout rhetoric along party line regardless if they thinkits right or really good for America.

Logical
09-16-2005, 03:12 PM
i hear you. Instead of saying whatsright w/ America or ideas to fix it they just put a new spin on tired old hate.Speaking only for myself you really need to read my posts more carefully. It is rare when I do not post my proposed solution along with my complaint.

To offset the devastation and mismanagement of Katrina I suggested raising a new federal disaster tax and pulling our troops (phased withdrawel) out of the mismanagaed Iraqi occupation.

I suggested using those troop to fight the actual WOT by send in covert teams into the areas Al Quaeda is in hiding and terminating them. I suggested using the other troops brought out of Iraq to support helping the management of the Katrina recovery acts.

I could go on but you get the point or should.


Oh and on this issue I believe I was the first to propose doing the simple thing and just removing the words under God. I have never said the pledge should not be recited, or banned.

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 03:30 PM
Speaking only for myself you really need to read my posts more carefully. It is rare when I do not post my proposed solution along with my complaint.

To offset the devastation and mismanagement of Katrina I suggested raising a new federal disaster tax and pulling our troops (phased withdrawel) out of the mismanagaed Iraqi occupation.

I suggested using those troop to fight the actual WOT by send in covert teams into the areas Al Quaeda is in hiding and terminating them. I suggested using the other troops brought out of Iraq to support helping the management of the Katrina recovery acts.

I could go on but you get the point or should.


Oh and on this issue I believe I was the first to propose doing the simple thing and just removing the words under God. I have never said the pledge should not be recited, or banned.
more taxs isnt what we need,programs to make americans proactive in all phases of homeland security and relief would go alot father than just taxing and spending.

Sending covert teams to infiltrate al quaeda would be like trying to send a non-italian to break up the mafia.

i say stay in Iraq make it work and that will not only show Muslims in the ME that we wont cut and run on our allies but it will also lend strength to the people of the region,and that will break the back of terrorists like AQ.

About the pledge i dont see anything wrong w/ under god. shit im agnostic but see nothing wrong w/ bringing abit of god into american politics.
like i said GOD IS GOD.

Seems like alot of liberals have such a viseral hate for the powers in office that they rail against ANYTHING that might even remotely have a breath in the same context as the GOP.

same goes for cons. on issues like abortion,civil rights and all the others.

Logical
09-16-2005, 03:46 PM
more taxs isnt what we need,programs to make americans proactive in all phases of homeland security and relief would go alot father than just taxing and spending.

Sending covert teams to infiltrate al quaeda would be like trying to send a non-italian to break up the mafia.

i say stay in Iraq make it work and that will not only show Muslims in the ME that we wont cut and run on our allies but it will also lend strength to the people of the region,and that will break the back of terrorists like AQ.

About the pledge i dont see anything wrong w/ under god. shit im agnostic but see nothing wrong w/ bringing abit of god into american politics.
like i said GOD IS GOD.

Seems like alot of liberals have such a viseral hate for the powers in office that they rail against ANYTHING that might even remotely have a breath in the same context as the GOP.

same goes for cons. on issues like abortion,civil rights and all the others.Why more taxes bcecause I know we will never lower spending and we have to offset the spending and stop racking up this much debt (some debt is fine but not this exorbitant rate)

LOL why would you want to infiltrate them I said covert teams to seek and destroy them.

Personally if you think we can do other than put our stanp of approval on Islamic state then you IMO are just fooling yourself. Also when we leave that country is heading for a civil war sure as I breath air. I have said a phased withdrawel but you will never have a Western Democracy in Iraq the best we can hope for is a Democratic Theocracy like Egypt has in place.

Allah is also God, Buddha is God they are all one God, and people have the right to not believe in any God. The origignal pledge had no "under god" just go back to the original version.

Next paragraph does not relate to me, I believe you were just ranting.

jettio
09-16-2005, 03:49 PM
I know that I go to church more often than my posts would indicate, but it seems that I have been outdone, and it is kind of odd that the loudest voices in this thread for not having "under God" considered unconstitutional are using a lot of language not normally associated with the God fearing.

MOhillbilly
09-16-2005, 03:59 PM
Why more taxes bcecause I know we will never lower spending and we have to offset the spending and stop racking up this much debt (some debt is fine but not this exorbitant rate)

LOL why would you want to infiltrate them I said covert teams to seek and destroy them.

Personally if you think we can do other than put our stanp of approval on Islamic state then you IMO are just fooling yourself. Also when we leave that country is heading for a civil war sure as I breath air. I have said a phased withdrawel but you will never have a Western Democracy in Iraq the best we can hope for is a Democratic Theocracy like Egypt has in place.

Allah is also God, Buddha is God they are all one God, and people have the right to not believe in any God. The origignal pledge had no "under god" just go back to the original version.

Next paragraph does not relate to me, I believe you were just ranting.

How are you going to find AQ cells and deploy teams w/out infiltration by operatives into cells?
you must have solid info from American operatives.

Fine tax away.
It makes more sence to me to have a home gaurd type of system than more people who know as much as they do now.
More money is not the answer.......get a plan to the people in clear language that will HELP not hender them in planning for disasters.

Give the people of America some responcibility. Dont give the Govt. more.
IMO looking for the govt. to get it right is like your take on Dem. in Iraq.


Id say the best we can hope for in Iraq is a new kind of democratic state for other muslim nations to view.
Im a pesimist but to cut and run now or any kind of prolonged pullout will just lend strength to people who want a totalitarian religous state.

IMO deal w/ it know,get it right whatever the cost.
To say otherwise is to say the WILL of America is no better than a bully.


your right god is what he is.
Athiest see a loophole in the US const. and are trying IMO to devalue it for there own motives which run much deeper that just the pledge.

Whats next? No God Bless America sung at 4th of julys paid for by city or state govs.

enough already i say.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 04:56 PM
I know that I go to church more often than my posts would indicate, but it seems that I have been outdone, and it is kind of odd that the loudest voices in this thread for not having "under God" considered unconstitutional are using a lot of language not normally associated with the God fearing.

At least two of the people in this thread who oppose this court's actions are agnostics. And anyway, why would you expect God fearing CP posters to use more God-friendly language than you yourself do?

Taco John
09-16-2005, 05:11 PM
At least two of the people in this thread who oppose this court's actions are agnostics.

Yes, but their arguments are disingenuous and unconvincing. They're only making the arguments they're making because they don't want to fall on the same side as "liberals."

And anyway, why would you expect God fearing CP posters to use more God-friendly language than you yourself do?

I find this to be a kind of silly question. Bt whatever.

I don't care one way or another how the SC comes down on this argument. I don't need the pledge to reaffirm my belief in God. If I want my kids to say Under God, I'll send them to private school where they can recite the pledge the way I would like them to say it. I don't see why we should be forcing God on kids in public schools.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2005, 05:32 PM
What it boils down to is political correctness. The fact is that the founding fathers, despite their personal beliefs, thought that religion and government shouldn't mix.

Therefore, anything relating to the government or things the government provides shouldn't include a religious connotation. So, that's why the 10 Commandments shouldn't be posted in the courtroom and the "under God" part should be omitted once again.

The next things, if this stands (assuming its taken to the Supreme Court) will be the "In God we trust" on the coins.

The fact of the matter is: it is unconsitutional because the interpretation of the Consitution and the founding fathers ideas were that church and state are seperate.

In NO way, shape or form, does this have anything to do with the majority versus minority. The fact is political correctness.


That said, I do see where people are coming from. I can see why you would be mad that someone (singular) declares the pledge, something very old and well known, unconstituional because of an (singular) athiest.

Now, I don't know about you guys but I haven't recited the pledge since 8th grade. I don't think I will ever say it again. Personally, I don't experience many people saying it. That combined with being an athiest myself, I don't have a problem. Of course, the raised Christian doesn't have a problem either.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 05:35 PM
Yes, but their arguments are disingenuous and unconvincing. They're only making the arguments they're making because they don't want to fall on the same side as "liberals."

Disingenuous? No. They may be unconvincing to you, but considering how wrong you are with the rest of this analysis, I'm not sure that's a very telling factor.

I find this to be a kind of silly question. Bt whatever.

Silly in what way?

It's a rhetorical question pointing out the hypocrisy of Jettio's dig at the people he believes to be Christian Conservatives. Jettio is one of the more foul-mouthed posters around here but he claims (and I believe him) to be a believer. I see no reason why those who oppose removing "under God" should be held to a higher standard than the one to which he holds himself.

I don't care one way or another how the SC comes down on this argument. I don't need the pledge to reaffirm my belief in God. If I want my kids to say Under God, I'll send them to private school where they can recite the pledge the way I would like them to say it. I don't see why we should be forcing God on kids in public schools.

Real Libertarians care about Consitutional interpretation and don't believe the Constitution should be treated like an empty vessel which can be filled by the whims of contemporary society. If I were to base my opinion of this decision on how it personally affects me like you appear to be doing, I wouldn't care about it either.

patteeu
09-16-2005, 05:39 PM
What it boils down to is political correctness. The fact is that the founding fathers, despite their personal beliefs, thought that religion and government shouldn't mix.

Therefore, anything relating to the government or things the government provides shouldn't include a religious connotation. So, that's why the 10 Commandments shouldn't be posted in the courtroom and the "under God" part should be omitted once again.

The next things, if this stands (assuming its taken to the Supreme Court) will be the "In God we trust" on the coins.

The fact of the matter is: it is unconsitutional because the interpretation of the Consitution and the founding fathers ideas were that church and state are seperate.

In NO way, shape or form, does this have anything to do with the majority versus minority. The fact is political correctness.


That said, I do see where people are coming from. I can see why you would be mad that someone (singular) declares the pledge, something very old and well known, unconstituional because of an (singular) athiest.

Now, I don't know about you guys but I haven't recited the pledge since 8th grade. I don't think I will ever say it again. Personally, I don't experience many people saying it. That combined with being an athiest myself, I don't have a problem. Of course, the raised Christian doesn't have a problem either.


When you say something like "the fact of the matter is" you should follow it with something that is actually true. (Edit: I suppose that what you said might be true if it is just an awkward way of saying that the courts get to interpret the constitution no matter how much they depart from the original meaning of the document).

irishjayhawk
09-16-2005, 06:48 PM
When you say something like "the fact of the matter is" you should follow it with something that is actually true. (Edit: I suppose that what you said might be true if it is just an awkward way of saying that the courts get to interpret the constitution no matter how much they depart from the original meaning of the document).

Judicial Review is an implied power by the courts. They get to interpret the Consitution.

That said, it is still a fact that they(founding fathers) saw the seperation of church and state as a good thing and therefore adhered to it. If that is being questioned, then there is a problem with basic understanding of their wording, thinking, and quotes. I thought it was common fact that the founding fathers sought the seperation of church and state. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I don't want to split hairs, im just stating how i see it and what I was told about the founding fathers.

Earthling
09-16-2005, 07:41 PM
No, what I find ironic is that you and Jim Reynolds both need to have the meaning of "service organization" explained to you.

...........oh, and "Had" to say the pledge? :shake: No, some of us do it out of respect. Respect for the sacrifice that was made by many to build a Republic where even people like you, memyselfandvladlogicslav and islamofacistmemyselfandI are allowed to publicly make morons out of themselves.

Go straight to hell. If you are refering to the Armed Service as your sevice organization why not say so. I proudly served this country 69-73 in the US Navy. You sir are an idiot.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2005, 07:53 PM
No, what I find ironic is that you and Jim Reynolds both need to have the meaning of "service organization" explained to you.

...........oh, and "Had" to say the pledge? :shake: No, some of us do it out of respect. Respect for the sacrifice that was made by many to build a Republic where even people like you, memyselfandvladlogicslav and islamofacistmemyselfandI are allowed to publicly make morons out of themselves.

I am just going to say that I applaud anyone who recites it out of "respect."

That said, I can find more ways of showing respect than saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Not saying they are MORE respectful, just clarifying that the pledge isn't the ONLY way to show respect.

(On a side note, I always felt the pledge was just a subtle form of propoganda, but thats beside the point.)

Logical
09-16-2005, 08:05 PM
Geezus, you're creepy. I still haven't figured out why you kiss Islamamomma's taint so much recently. Looks like she has her very own sheep.Because I know she has studied Buddhism extensively it made sense to ask her. I met many Buddhists while in Japan and I visited at least a dozen of their temples. I sort of thought Buddha was considered a disciple not actually God but was not sure. Since I know she has studied Buddhism I simply asked her for a clarification. Some would have viewed that as challenging her.

Patriot 21
09-16-2005, 08:47 PM
Go straight to hell. If you are refering to the Armed Service as your sevice organization why not say so. I proudly served this country 69-73 in the US Navy. You sir are an idiot.

No, I'm afraid I won't go to hell. I believe I've got that one covered.

You calling me an idiot? The one who doesn't know what the meaning of a "service organization" is? It just solidifies the point I made earlier. I doubt you have ever even heard of one, much less been to the meeting of one. :shake:

patteeu
09-16-2005, 09:09 PM
Judicial Review is an implied power by the courts. They get to interpret the Consitution.

That is a power that the courts have given themselves. Having said that, it is a long accepted practice so I agree with you.

That said, it is still a fact that they(founding fathers) saw the seperation of church and state as a good thing and therefore adhered to it. If that is being questioned, then there is a problem with basic understanding of their wording, thinking, and quotes. I thought it was common fact that the founding fathers sought the seperation of church and state. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I don't want to split hairs, im just stating how i see it and what I was told about the founding fathers.

What isn't nearly as clear as you seemed to suggest in your first post is the extent to which the founding fathers thought relgion and state should be separated. Since there were no public schools during the early years of our country, it's hard to know where the founding fathers would have drawn the line for issues such as the one discussed in this thread. And, obviously, different founding fathers would have probably drawn the line in different places. But it is my opinion that they were not trying to cleanse all religious concepts from public life. Our forefathers have passed on plenty of indications that they didn't believe that government had to be completely separated from religion. E.g. "In God We Trust" on our money and opening prayers for Congress.

Earthling
09-16-2005, 09:23 PM
You calling me an idiot? The one who doesn't know what the meaning of a "service organization" is? It just solidifies the point I made earlier. I doubt you have ever even heard of one, much less been to the meeting of one. :shake:

How did you deduce that? Its pretty obvious I haven't been to one if I don't know what it is. I will plead ignorance in that regard. Were you born with this knowledge or did someone else have to inform you? Did they also think you were an idiot?

Logical
09-16-2005, 10:16 PM
No, what I find ironic is that you and Jim Reynolds both need to have the meaning of "service organization" explained to you.

...........oh, and "Had" to say the pledge? :shake: No, some of us do it out of respect. Respect for the sacrifice that was made by many to build a Republic where even people like you, memyselfandvladlogicslav and islamofacistmemyselfandI are allowed to publicly make morons out of themselves.Not sure why you named me, I did not ask you to name or describe a service organization. I poked fun at your ignorance by using sarcasm and wit. Clearly all the people that work for Habitat for Humanity are not all conservatives, nor are the ones who join the Peace Corp. That you are so deluded to believe that liberals don't participate in service organizations was worthy of great ridicule.

go bowe
09-17-2005, 12:35 AM
I'm just kidding him,... mostly. I know that his positions haven't changed too much on basic issues (e.g. abortion and gay marriage, property rights, crime, etc.), but his approach on this message board has changed considerably. He used to troll for people like memyselfi and jAZ. Now he focuses most of his trolling on conservatives (especially Christian conservatives). And he didn't just change his mind on the Iraq war and Bush's presidency in general, he's gone from generally being supportive to taking relatively extreme rhetorical positions against them. It's really more style than substance that has changed.

I don't really have any problem with Vlad or his new approach. In many ways, I agree with most of his basic positions. Even wrt his position on Iraq (where we do have an apparent disagreement), he thinks we should be fighting harder, better, smarter (IIRC) rather than pulling out our troops and bringing them home. I don't necessarily disagree with him on that. But I have trouble when he blows kisses at memyselfi when she posts on this issue since she is (AFAICT) in the bring them home and impeach Bush camp.are there any rational people that have actually called for impeachment (which begs the question, impeachment for what?)?

otoh, i'm a little surprised how few people seem to be on the bring 'em home right now bandwagon...

most politicians with a shred of good sense have taken the position that we're there now, so we better accomplish something before we come home, in one denomination or another... ymmv

and, so far, there hasn't really been any large scale vietnam-era-style protests (just scattered small groups like duhneese and her "ilk" (teehee teeheeeee)...

go bowe
09-17-2005, 12:47 AM
I know that I go to church more often than my posts would indicate, but it seems that I have been outdone, and it is kind of odd that the loudest voices in this thread for not having "under God" considered unconstitutional are using a lot of language not normally associated with the God fearing.ok, stop that shit right now...

you can't let a few words get in the way of appreciatiing perfectly good rants...

it's unamerican... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

Taco John
09-17-2005, 01:35 AM
Real Libertarians care about Consitutional interpretation and don't believe the Constitution should be treated like an empty vessel which can be filled by the whims of contemporary society. If I were to base my opinion of this decision on how it personally affects me like you appear to be doing, I wouldn't care about it either.



Real Libertarians also know that the original pledge said nothing about "Under God," and that it was added later for some strange reason.

I'd be interested in learning what Constitutional interpretation you are using that guarantees that "Under God" will always be kept in the pledge of allegience.

Real Libertarians find this whole argument to be a distracting joke from the real issues of the day... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory92.html)

The sad thing is that you used to be a real Libertarian... You've since become a reactionary ready to defend growing government at all costs.



By the way... Did anybody know that the pledge used to look like this?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/pledge.jpg

That was before Hitler, of course...

Logical
09-17-2005, 01:36 AM
are there any rational people that have actually called for impeachment (which begs the question, impeachment for what?)?

otoh, i'm a little surprised how few people seem to be on the bring 'em home right now bandwagon...

most politicians with a shred of good sense have taken the position that we're there now, so we better accomplish something before we come home, in one denomination or another... ymmv

and, so far, there hasn't really been any large scale vietnam-era-style protests (just scattered small groups like duhneese and her "ilk" (teehee teeheeeee)...In all honesty who would want Bush impeached when it means Cheney would take over. That is not something I could get behind. It would have to be an offense that would get them both impeached. Again it is the lesser of the two evils, pretty sad state of affairs, but why I won't call for the impeachment of Bush.

patteeu
09-17-2005, 07:39 AM
Real Libertarians also know that the original pledge said nothing about "Under God," and that it was added later for some strange reason.

I'd be interested in learning what Constitutional interpretation you are using that guarantees that "Under God" will always be kept in the pledge of allegience.

Real Libertarians find this whole argument to be a distracting joke from the real issues of the day... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory92.html)

The sad thing is that you used to be a real Libertarian... You've since become a reactionary ready to defend growing government at all costs.



By the way... Did anybody know that the pledge used to look like this?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/pledge.jpg

That was before Hitler, of course...


Real Libertarians would, of course, be against government schools and mandatory pledges in the first place, but my point was that they aren't in favor of a Constitution that is subject to the whims of a handful of judges. In your post, you didn't call for an end to government schools or the pledge itself, you said you were indifferent to this court decision.

Like I said a couple of times already in this thread, on it's own, the pledge issue doesn't move me one way or the other either. But I do have a problem with court decisions like this one. Most people in this thread are arguing for or against this decision because it's the result they want. That's not where I'm coming from.

I'm no more a defender of big government at all costs (based on my limited defenses of some government spending, e.g. the Iraq war) than you are a defender of an unchecked judicial tyranny (based on your occasional indifference to the type of judicial activism demonstrated by this decision).

patteeu
09-17-2005, 07:41 AM
...It would have to be an offense that would get them both [Cheney and Bush] impeached....

See what I mean, Go Bo. lol

irishjayhawk
09-17-2005, 10:37 AM
Real Libertarians would, of course, be against government schools and mandatory pledges in the first place, but my point was that they aren't in favor of a Constitution that is subject to the whims of a handful of judges. In your post, you didn't call for an end to government schools or the pledge itself, you said you were indifferent to this court decision.

Like I said a couple of times already in this thread, on it's own, the pledge issue doesn't move me one way or the other either. But I do have a problem with court decisions like this one. Most people in this thread are arguing for or against this decision because it's the result they want. That's not where I'm coming from.

I'm no more a defender of big government at all costs (based on my limited defenses of some government spending, e.g. the Iraq war) than you are a defender of an unchecked judicial tyranny (based on your occasional indifference to the type of judicial activism demonstrated by this decision).

So you're taking the stance that the minority shouldn't rule the majority, on any issue?

memyselfI
09-17-2005, 11:54 AM
The recent Memyselfi-VladLogicslav alliance is indeed disturbing. I don't think Memyselfi deserves ALL of the harshness that comes her way (just most of it), but Vlad carries sensitivity and understanding to an unhealthy extreme. His conversion reminds me of the middle-aged guy who, after raising his kids, leaves his wife to go live the gay lifestyle he's always secretly desired. (Note: I'm not saying Vlad is gay. No, Vlad's transformation appears to be far worse than that. :p )

I guess that is one way of looking at it. I see it differently having known Jim for almost ten years now...

Me, I'll admit he was never as RWNJ as *I* tried to pretend he was. Therefore, his 'conversion' isn't as drastic as some try to portray it. I do believe that after his recent brush with death he's more OPEN to the possibility of being wrong, admitting his error, and 'seeing' things he couldn't 'see' before.

I don't think this is exclusive to Logical. I've read of others who were steeped in a certain conviction only to have life (or death) experiences open their eyes to new sights or at least new insights.

So while I'd like to believe Jim has come to learn and accept what is outside of him, the truth is he's learned to accept stuff WITHIN him and that has challenged some of his previously held beliefs and preconceived notions.

IMHO Jim, to his credit, has used his illness to be given a gift of introspection and, subsequently, consciousness that previously wasn't there...

so go ahead and laugh and belittle him and try to embarrass him by saying he's somehow suckling off of me. In reality, it has NOTHING to do with me and everything to do with him and his mortality and how he's choosing to view life because of it.

Taco John
09-17-2005, 01:08 PM
Real Libertarians would, of course, be against government schools and mandatory pledges in the first place, but my point was that they aren't in favor of a Constitution that is subject to the whims of a handful of judges. In your post, you didn't call for an end to government schools or the pledge itself, you said you were indifferent to this court decision.

I've atually voiced my displeasure over the public school system several times before. I think it's a waste of breath to do it in this thread. This thread is about keeping religious statements in a national mantra that our kids are required to recite every day in school. It's a joke that you're going all "constitutional" on this argument considering that the pledge itself isn't constitutional. But it's traditon, and I'm ok with that. I see no reason to fight against having the pledge. I couldn't imagine a more petty waste of my time.


Like I said a couple of times already in this thread, on it's own, the pledge issue doesn't move me one way or the other either. But I do have a problem with court decisions like this one. Most people in this thread are arguing for or against this decision because it's the result they want. That's not where I'm coming from.

I can't understand why you'd have a problem with a court decision like this one. It seems cut and dried to me. Like I say, I'd prefer the "Under God" to stay in there, but it's pretty obvious to me why it doesn't belong there. If I were an athiest, why should me and my family be forced to kneel before a God I don't believe in order to affirm my loyalty to my country? I personally believe in God, and I don't believe that he cares if he receives that kind of forced tribute.

Basically, your argument is the tired "activist courts" crap that is a broken record. It's like they say... Win elections. The system is working just fine. You just don't like who has been in control of the courts making the decisions. It looks like the other side will get their own dose of that in good time.


I'm no more a defender of big government at all costs (based on my limited defenses of some government spending, e.g. the Iraq war) than you are a defender of an unchecked judicial tyranny (based on your occasional indifference to the type of judicial activism demonstrated by this decision).


Judicial tyranny. That's rich. The only decision in my lifetime that I would consider to be true Judicial tyranny is the Eminem Domain (tic) decision. That's just a matter of government steamrolling the little guy for an extra buck. Most of the rest are just decisions that could go either way depending on how you look at it.

Claynus
09-17-2005, 02:01 PM
I've never said the pledge of allegiance.

DanT
09-17-2005, 03:10 PM
The following essay from Alan Bock appeared in today's edition of www.lewrockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/bock2.html


The Pledge: The Real Objection
by Alan Bock



Well, we’ve had another federal judge rule that making children in public schools recite the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, because it amounts to establishing a religion. As long as the topic is likely to be in the news again – and probably a godsend for Republicans concerned about the Bush administration’s performance in Iraq and our own Gulf in the 2006 election – we might as well widen the debate.

It’s not the "under God" part I object to; although I can see an abstract argument that this is a first step on a slippery slope toward establishing a religion, it really isn’t. If I thought it really meant the nation was to submit itself to God, which would mean a lot fewer wars of choice and a lot less stealing in the "public interest," I might even be enthusiastic. But this formulation is one of vague public piety more meant to imply that God is on our side than to express fealty to His commandments.

I object to the very idea of making students "pledge allegiance" to a rapacious state mechanism – and that is unquestionably what the pledge was designed to do, to encourage an attitude of unquestioning obedience that is unworthy of a free people.

As this article by Gene Healy of Cato asks, "What’s Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?" The pledge was drafted in virtually its present form in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, an unapologetic socialist who had been pushed out of his position as a Baptist minister because his sermons reflected more socialism than Gospel. Francis was cousin to Edward Bellamy, who wrote the 1888 utopian socialist novel Looking Backward, which I had to read in college in a class on utopian thinking. I guess it was valuable to know that to Bellamy utopia meant a highly regimented place where all incomes were equal and men were drafted into the state’s "industrial army" at age 21 and did whatever the state decided they should do. It helped to cement my distaste for such a system.

After being kicked out of the pulpit Francis Bellamy went to work for a magazine called Youth’s Companion, and decided to work through the public schools rather than the church to advance his notion of a socialist worker’s paradise. The Pledge was unquestionably part of this campaign. Bellamy even recommended that the ceremony start with a military salute and "At the words, ‘to my Flag,’ the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation." For better or worse (and to be fair, long after Bellamy’s recommendation) the Nazis adopted this same salute. It was quietly dropped from American practice, but the intention was similar – to encourage a quasi-religious subordination to government.

In a country founded on "unalienable rights" of individuals, in which the government’s job is supposedly to "preserve these rights" and not much else, the government should be pledging allegiance to citizens and their rights, not the other way around.

It is curious that people who call themselves conservatives now consider this overtly socialist inducement to state-worship part of the sacred tradition of liberty and justice.


September 17, 2005

Alan Bock is Senior Essayist at the Orange County Register. He is the author of Ambush at Ruby Ridge and Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana.

jettio
09-17-2005, 04:17 PM
It's a rhetorical question pointing out the hypocrisy of Jettio's dig at the people he believes to be Christian Conservatives. Jettio is one of the more foul-mouthed posters around here but he claims (and I believe him) to be a believer. I see no reason why those who oppose removing "under God" should be held to a higher standard than the one to which he holds himself.


You don't understand the definition of the word hypocritical if you would apply it to my previous post.

And I certainly have not formed any beliefs about the piety of anyone, and I did not make any normative claims or prescriptions for behavior for the under God crowd.

So your first and third sentences above don't make much sense.

Why I oughta :$2500: :$2500:

gblowfish
09-17-2005, 05:44 PM
The following essay from Alan Bock appeared in today's edition of www.lewrockwell.comGuess we'll have to add Alan Bock to the aforementioned death wish list. The guy makes absolutely too much sense.
:p

Baby Lee
09-18-2005, 08:55 AM
The recent Memyselfi-VladLogicslav alliance is indeed disturbing. I don't think Memyselfi deserves ALL of the harshness that comes her way (just most of it), but Vlad carries sensitivity and understanding to an unhealthy extreme. His conversion reminds me of the middle-aged guy who, after raising his kids, leaves his wife to go live the gay lifestyle he's always secretly desired. (Note: I'm not saying Vlad is gay. No, Vlad's transformation appears to be far worse than that. :p )
I don't think it's a transformation at all. Vlad has always needed to be the one people react to. He fancies himself a puppetmaster, pulling strings and sparking indignation. This is just a new way to do it.
It's more like the middle-aged guy who says
"my wife and kids ignore me most of the time lately, maybe if I stick my dick in a dude, people will notice and be shocked by my bad self again."

Area 51
09-19-2005, 04:42 PM
I don't think it's a transformation at all. Vlad has always needed to be the one people react to. He fancies himself a puppetmaster, pulling strings and sparking indignation. This is just a new way to do it.
It's more like the middle-aged guy who says
"my wife and kids ignore me most of the time lately, maybe if I stick my dick in a dude, people will notice and be shocked by my bad self again."

After doing a search and reading quite a bit of what Vlad has said in about 100 of his posts I've determined that his little choo-choo must have chugged around the bend. It doesn't seem as if there is a path back to normality for him. Too bad, some of his earlier stuff had some insight and was well thought out, this new Vlad seems to be something of an enigma.

go bowe
09-19-2005, 07:30 PM
See what I mean, Go Bo. lolbut, but, but...

surely it's just a phase... :D :D :D

Logical
09-19-2005, 10:48 PM
ROFL at the conservatives who feel scorned. Baby Lee's post was particularly pathetic for a person of his erudition.

NewChief
09-20-2005, 05:29 AM
ROFL at the conservatives who feel scorned. Baby Lee's post was particularly pathetic for a person of his erudition.

Unfortunately, that's becoming par for the course for him. I once thought of him as one of the most intelligent and balanced posters on the board. Now, when I can even understand what he's going on about, his takes are little more than an attempt to serve as some kind of sarcastic furies scourge.

Baby Lee
09-20-2005, 06:25 AM
ROFL at the conservatives who feel scorned. Baby Lee's post was particularly pathetic for a person of his erudition.
Sorry to be blunt, but if you have the sense that anything you could do would lead me to feel 'scorned,' your sense of the situation differs wildly from reality.
I remember the convo about how you treat your wife in real life.
I remember the convos about how you were just an 'evil puppetmaster' on here.
I bear you no ill-will, but did you seriously think we were bosom buds at some point, whatever your political leanings?

Brock
09-20-2005, 06:28 AM
I don't think it's a transformation at all. Vlad has always needed to be the one people react to. He fancies himself a puppetmaster, pulling strings and sparking indignation. This is just a new way to do it.
It's more like the middle-aged guy who says
"my wife and kids ignore me most of the time lately, maybe if I stick my dick in a dude, people will notice and be shocked by my bad self again."

Funny because it's true.

Logical
09-20-2005, 09:45 PM
Sorry to be blunt, but if you have the sense that anything you could do would lead me to feel 'scorned,' your sense of the situation differs wildly from reality.
I remember the convo about how you treat your wife in real life.
I remember the convos about how you were just an 'evil puppetmaster' on here.
I bear you no ill-will, but did you seriously think we were bosom buds at some point, whatever your political leanings?Actually I always thought of you as a challenging and witty, sometimes creative adversary. Not this pathetic figure who turns to sexual insults because you seem to lack the sharpness you used to possess. Talk about sad, your performance of late defines it.

Feel free to pick on me and my wife's relationship because I doubt you would be wrong most of the time. However, you could not be more off track with me and my kids. They all three still live at home with me. We eat dinner together almost every night, we go to the movies together, hang out and talk, go to sporting events etc. If you have any children I hope your relationships with them turn out so well.

Taco John
09-20-2005, 11:56 PM
Damn. "Conservatives" are ruthless. Start losing an argument and they start rationalizing about their position by making homosexual references and start picking away at failed personal relationships.

I guess you punked him, but wow. It sure got ugly in here.

listopencil
09-21-2005, 01:02 AM
"Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

Ha ha! You're going to jail.

Baby Lee
09-21-2005, 05:03 AM
Actually I always thought of you as a challenging and witty, sometimes creative adversary.
That right there is the root of the problem. In the past I've posted here to express my opinion or provide my analysis of an issue, not to pick friends and enemies and do daily battle. This is a discussion board, not some sh!tty political version of World of Warcraft.
Not this pathetic figure who turns to sexual insults because you seem to lack the sharpness you used to possess.
I didn't 'turn' to a sexual insult. I extended the EXISTING metaphor on this thread that you were having a midlife crisis, to demonstrate that I thought you were just looking for new and exciting strings to pull. And what's so insulting anyway? That I'd insinuate that you're gay? Is there something wrong with being gay? Or that you'd pretend to be gay for the attention? How's that different than any of the other positions you've pretended to take for the reaction it'd evoke.
Talk about sad, your performance of late defines it.
Again, I came here for conversation. Apparently, a contingent came for a 'performance.'
Feel free to pick on me and my wife's relationship because I doubt you would be wrong most of the time. However, you could not be more off track with me and my kids. They all three still live at home with me. We eat dinner together almost every night, we go to the movies together, hang out and talk, go to sporting events etc. If you have any children I hope your relationships with them turn out so well.
Feel free to pretend I said anything about your kids.
And feel free to think I was 'picking on' your relationship, when you were the one who raised the theory that I'm some dude who's crying because I've lost you as some best buddy or bankie or something, and I was just reminding you of past conversations where our 'relationship' was defined in, say, a slightly less co-dependent manner.

vailpass
09-21-2005, 10:01 AM
They need to change the name of this place from DC to Tampax.

Logical
09-21-2005, 03:57 PM
...

Feel free to pretend I said anything about your kids.
.....
Really, you did not mention my kids eh?

Originally Posted by Baby Lee
I don't think it's a transformation at all. Vlad has always needed to be the one people react to. He fancies himself a puppetmaster, pulling strings and sparking indignation. This is just a new way to do it.
It's more like the middle-aged guy who says "my wife and kids ignore me most of the time lately, maybe if I stick my dick in a dude, people will notice and be shocked by my bad self again."

Baby Lee
09-21-2005, 05:13 PM
Really, you did not mention my kids eh?

[/i]
I'll have to plead a deficit of articulation on my part, there.
That was an extension of the existing metaphor that you were suffering a mid-life crisis HERE ON THE BOARD. The reference to your "wife and kids" in that post was your metaphorical peers here on the board. That's why I used the conventional "like the middle-aged guy" instead of naming you specifically.
By the time you responded to my post specifically about you and your wife, I'd forgotten that I'd worded the metaphor that way.
Sorry if the mix-up caused you undue agita.

peterchiefs
09-21-2005, 05:24 PM
The Supreme Court will over rule this without no problem. In fact, some on the court were wanting to reject it on its merrit. Instead, they thought they can save some time by stating that this man has no standing, since he does not have custody of his child.

It is important to know that his child has no problems saying the Pledge of Allegience, her mother has no problem. It is a father on his own mission, and he is using his daughter. Shame on him.

Sully
09-21-2005, 08:02 PM
So for my first post in this thread, this room and on this board in whole, I will surely alienate many... but here goes.

Why, as a Christian, are we so defensive and insecure about our beliefs and the passing on of those beliefs, that we are so offended that someone would want to take it out of a pledge? If the two words were removed from the pledge, would that make us less Christian? And to dabble in other subjects related in a way, if we were to remove the Ten Commandments from publicly funded buildings would that make us believe less? No one is advocating taking away our rights as Christians, or making us teach our beliefs in complete privacy. I think the point is just that there are far too many factors in a child's upbringing to put them on unequal footing with other children in their classrooms. If there are a small majority who are from non-Christian households, why should we add one more strike against them by making them feel even more marginalized by our "National Pledge?" Teach your children of the Jesus and Bible you love, let them wear the shirts, the bracelets, the crucifixes all they/you want. But when a teacher stands at the front of the room and teaches them a speech in which they denounce their own beliefs and give in to others, or at the very least, makes them abstain (if as children they already have the internal strength to not run with the masses) and sets them apart, then they are being taught from a very early age that they are tolerated in this "Christian" country rather than welcomed in this melting pot, or even better, tossed salad of a country in which all beliefs are/ should be treated with the same dignity and respect.

Logical
09-21-2005, 09:52 PM
So for my first post in this thread, this room and on this board in whole, I will surely alienate many... but here goes.

Why, as a Christian, are we so defensive and insecure about our beliefs and the passing on of those beliefs, that we are so offended that someone would want to take it out of a pledge? If the two words were removed from the pledge, would that make us less Christian? And to dabble in other subjects related in a way, if we were to remove the Ten Commandments from publicly funded buildings would that make us believe less? No one is advocating taking away our rights as Christians, or making us teach our beliefs in complete privacy. I think the point is just that there are far too many factors in a child's upbringing to put them on unequal footing with other children in their classrooms. If there are a small majority who are from non-Christian households, why should we add one more strike against them by making them feel even more marginalized by our "National Pledge?" Teach your children of the Jesus and Bible you love, let them wear the shirts, the bracelets, the crucifixes all they/you want. But when a teacher stands at the front of the room and teaches them a speech in which they denounce their own beliefs and give in to others, or at the very least, makes them abstain (if as children they already have the internal strength to not run with the masses) and sets them apart, then they are being taught from a very early age that they are tolerated in this "Christian" country rather than welcomed in this melting pot, or even better, tossed salad of a country in which all beliefs are/ should be treated with the same dignity and respect.Rep, very well thought out post.

go bowe
09-21-2005, 11:40 PM
welcome aboard...

pay no mind to the nutjobs and moon bats hereabouts...

it's really a good site, with lots of good people and the usual not so good too...

be sure to check out the main board too...

oh, btw, damned fine post... :thumb:

patteeu
09-23-2005, 06:33 AM
So you're taking the stance that the minority shouldn't rule the majority, on any issue?

I don't know how you got that out of my post. Did you go to KU?

Of course there are times when the minority should trump the majority. Those times are specified in the Constitution. For example, if a majority wants to re-elect Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or GW Bush to a third term, the minority should prevail because that is prohibited by the Constitution. If the majority wants to elect Arnold as the next president, the minority should prevail because he doesn't meet the minimum requirements in the Constitution. If the majority want the federal government to establish Catholicism as the state religion, the minority should prevail because the Constitution forbids it.

The question here is whether or not the Constitution forbids the use of the words "under God" in a pledge that local school boards determine should be recited in their schools. I say no. I don't see this as an establishment of one religion over another.

patteeu
09-23-2005, 06:48 AM
I've atually voiced my displeasure over the public school system several times before. I think it's a waste of breath to do it in this thread. This thread is about keeping religious statements in a national mantra that our kids are required to recite every day in school. It's a joke that you're going all "constitutional" on this argument considering that the pledge itself isn't constitutional. But it's traditon, and I'm ok with that. I see no reason to fight against having the pledge....

This whole thread is about the constitution.

... I couldn't imagine a more petty waste of my time.

I can't understand why you'd have a problem with a court decision like this one. It seems cut and dried to me. Like I say, I'd prefer the "Under God" to stay in there, but it's pretty obvious to me why it doesn't belong there. If I were an athiest, why should me and my family be forced to kneel before a God I don't believe in order to affirm my loyalty to my country? I personally believe in God, and I don't believe that he cares if he receives that kind of forced tribute.

Basically, your argument is the tired "activist courts" crap that is a broken record. It's like they say... Win elections. The system is working just fine. You just don't like who has been in control of the courts making the decisions. It looks like the other side will get their own dose of that in good time.

It IS petty. It's at least as petty for an athiest to squeal about having to recite a pledge that mentions some generic God than it is for believers to complain about having to study evolution as fact, IMO. Are we going to protect the believers from that kind of uncomfortable situation?

Judicial tyranny. That's rich. The only decision in my lifetime that I would consider to be true Judicial tyranny is the Eminem Domain (tic) decision. That's just a matter of government steamrolling the little guy for an extra buck. Most of the rest are just decisions that could go either way depending on how you look at it.

If you read what I wrote more carefully, I was saying that I'm not a defender of big government at all costs (as you accused me of being). I tried to make the point by comparing it to something you would recognize that you aren't. Namely, a defender of unchecked judicial tyranny.

patteeu
09-23-2005, 06:58 AM
Guess we'll have to add Alan Bock to the aforementioned death wish list. The guy makes absolutely too much sense.
:p

Alan Bock draws a key conclusion that is in sync with those who oppose this decision:

[A]lthough I can see an abstract argument that this is a first step on a slippery slope toward establishing a religion, it really isn’t.

Bock's arguments against the pledge are on the merits of the pledge itself not on it's constitutionality. He's not arguing that the court got this decision right. The right way to eliminate the words "under God" from the pledge, or for that matter the right way to eliminate the pledge itself, is through the legislative process. The court's interest in this matter is only whether or not the pledge runs afoul of the constitution. On that point, Bock appears to be on the side of this court's critics.