leave out god in the pledge
Posted By: gt on 2005-09-15
In Reply to: It should only limit them from saying two words in the pledge - Reality check
Why not say the pledge which we have been brain washed to say but leave the two words out? Let those who want to hook up god with country to say in god to themselves.something I may say our forefathers did not want us to do..to put together state and church..
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Pledge
I remember back in high school, when we still said the pledge in home room..A friend's brother was killed in Vietnam and she refused to stand for the pledge or say it..The teacher told her to stand and say it, she refused. She was sent to the principal's office and suspended for not staying the pledge.
pledge
I say if they don't want to say under God, then just don't say the pledge. Our forefathers designed this pledge and it should STAY THAT WAY!!!!!
PLEDGE AGAIN
I STAND CORRECTED -STILL THINK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY UNDER GOD, THEN JUST DON'T SAY IT! HOW MANY SCHOOLS ACTUALLY SAY THE PLEDGE ANYWAY?
pledge
Under god was put into the pledge only in the 1950s..our forefathers did not create a pledge with under god in it..It should go back the way it was..If someone wants under god, say it to yourself, not in a pledge that is supposed to represent ALL Americans, even those who do not believe in a god.
Pledge...sm
I love #1, but personally don't agree with 8 or 9.
Erase Michael Moore (because that name drives some people wild) and I think this is the direction Pelosi wants to go.
Pledge
Well, there it is in print. You think that is the direction Pelosi wants to go. Please to put her name in a Google search and read all she has had to say up to the elections and tell me again how much she loves conservatives and wants to work with them. In other words, pull the other leg. She could have worked with Republicans for the last 8 years if she really believed that. What she means is, she wants Republicans to come to her side to push forward the most liberal agenda known to man whether that is good for anyone but Nancy Pelosi or not. You don't have to be in control to work with the other side. Why on God's green earth would anyone believe her now? Sigh. Conservatives got tired of Republicans not doing the job too, that is why they are out. Democrats are not in because they are doing a stellar job. They are in because conservatives were sending a message to Republicans and if you will note, it is mostly moderate Democrats who were voted for, not the liberal far left. That is my opinion of the vote this time. I do not see it as an endorsement for Democrats. I see it as a wakeup call for Republicans. P.S. Come back to this board in about 10-12 months and let's talk about what Nancy Pelosi is saying and doing. Her true colors will come out. It already has...supporting John Murtha over a moderate Democrat and wanting to appoint a fella who was impeached as a judge (and who she voted to impeach by the way). Sigh. I do not find her very trustworthy.
Maybe we all need to say the pledge every once in a while...
to remind ourselves that it is "one country, under God", not one country under whomever happends to be president.
While I have not been a Bush supporter for a long time, this article was really just another slam at Bush, the "wanna-be-facist", and could just as easily be turned around to say Obama, the wanna-be-socialist.
As a country, we are the great experiment, but if we fail, what are we left with?
Maybe we should all say the pledge next time we pass a flag.
Pledge unconstitutional
Federal Judge in Calif. Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional |
 |
 |
Kindergartners at Mayfair Elementary recite the Pledge of Allegiance Thursday, June 27, 2002 in Fresno, Calif. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional, but one of the two judges who issued the ruling came out with another order that will keep the decision from taking effect, until the full appeals court can reconsider it. (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian) |
09-14-2005 1:43 PM
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words under God was rejected last year by the 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.
Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,' Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.
I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't.
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 the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all 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, Va. 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.
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.
All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis, Newdow said.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment. |
No one should ever be required to say a pledge to anyone or anything.
Pledges are personal choices. Being forced to recite one is the opposite of freedom.
Every child in every classroom has the right to refuse to pledge.
It should only limit them from saying two words in the pledge
under God which only leaves about about a second of dead air time. It's really a lot of money spent to try to get a second's worth of it out kind of like spending millions of dollars to remove a mole you don't like.
god was added to the pledge of allegience
in the 1950s, during the Red scare, it wasn't originally written that way.
I didn't know "under God" was not in the original pledge. sm
And I don't know the circumstance underwhich it was amended, but yeah you make a sound case and I can't help but agree that it should be taken back out and separation of church and state is a good thing.
When you make the case this way it makes sense to me because I have been very neutral about the 10 commandments in government buildings and the pledge being recited in the classes. But, people can spread the Word and fellowship on private time, but this should be off school property, off government property, etc. That would be true separation of church and state.
Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives sm
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, Blessed are the peacemakers, Love your enemies, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
If you leave our board, I'll leave your board.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
so leave
We make you sick but you just keep coming back and posting again and again and again.
I will leave that for you
I will leave the hate for you and your warmonger group, you the one who says I will chain myself to the WH gates and blow myself up, you who says Im a satanist. You are the one with the hate in your heart and soul and it comes through loud and clear.
Don't leave AW
Dont' leave American woman. I am the original poster, and I don't care what someone who comes onto this board just to troll thinks in the least, it did not bother me at all, so hold on there, Quickdraw!
Don't ask them to leave.
It's fun watching all their hatred explode to the point where they wind up fighting with each other but are too stupid to know it! 
I don't want to leave them to die...sm
But I don't want to be moving slow and steady 20 years from now. Something has got to give. Either fight like its a war and not an occupation, or come on home. The course we are on is not working and I think America is waking up to that. If the democrats change this course and you don't like it, blame Bush. He had 3 years and some months to pick up the pace over there.
I believe if Bush came out and admitted going into Iraq was a *mistake,* which it was, but which he will never do. And if he reached across the aisle for solutions to get us out *not cut and run* and *NOT stay the course.*
What does that mean? Means, I don't want to leave Iraqis to die, but I think Iraqis should take over the course.
I can't for the life of me understand that if Iraqis want this democracy as bad as we do, why not every man and boy fit to fight are not taking to the street to fight for the same. That's anybody's guess.
Side note: Funny how Bush and the likes have been squelshing any idea that this war has nothing to do with oil, but lately Bush himself has been on the campaign trail making comments that if we leave terrorist will get the oil. And he's said he's never said stay the course, WOW!
Oh no, kam...don't leave. They NEED you...
No, they don't just want the minority vote and the poor vote...they want all the votes, just like any other political party. I just find it mildly amusing that when Johnson signed the civil rights act he commented to his aide that the Dems had lost the south for a decade. That was his concern...losing the southern vote because (gasp) they were giving African Americans the vote. And what came next for Pres Johnson? The "War on Poverty" and the start of entitlement programs out the kazoo. If he and the Democratic party were really "true liberals," and they were in power and had the power, why would they have not embarked upon this mission BEFORE African Americans got the vote? They were somehow more worthy of programs when they could vote?
Having said that, I have never been against helping those truly in need, and even if starting it was self-serving, the end result was that those truly in need did get help and that part of it is a very good thing. It has ballooned, however, into a massive cash cow that is not overseen and the waste is astronomical. So, whatever administration is in, whatever party has the power, should exercise some common sense and prioritize as far as programs are concerned, cut the waste, and not raise taxes on us anymore. I would think that liberals and conservatives alike could agree on that point.
Not only will we not leave them with peace,
deficit in American history, caused by WHAT?
And I just love how anyone who doesn't agree with them is labeled as having no values.
What kind of values does someone have to take a healthy surplus upon entering office and not only SQUANDERING it but then going on to create the biggest deficit in American history?
What kind of values does someone have to send our children to an unnecessary war to die and/or be injured while neglecting to give them inadequate supplies?
What kind of values does someone have to send our children off to a foreign land to die for his own personal bogus war, when he was too much of a coward to serve in combat duty himself?
What kind of values does someone have to take the blood of 9/11 victims and the fear of all other Americans and USE it to wage a bogus war against Iraq when that was his goal before he was even elected President?
What kind of values does someone have to not care enough about securing or borders or our ports or protecting our airspace and chemical/nuclear plants and decreases the budget for rail and subway security?
What kind of values does someone have to have to neglect to develop enough smallpox vaccines FOUR YEARS after the worst attack in American history, when bio attacks using smallpox was felt to be a threat?
What kind of values does someone have to have to make sure that his huge war budget includes FREE comprehensive medical benefits for all Iraqi citizens while he presides over a country where many of his own citizens who work 40 hours or more a week can't even afford health insurance?
What kind of values does someone have to have to deny American scientists the opportunity to study stem cell research, using the argument that he wants to "protect life" when he presides over a country where our children are being routinely molested and MURDERED by animals who the government refuses to keep in jail?
Out of all the talk on these boards about life being "precious" as it regards stem cell research, I have yet to see ONE SINGLE POST about the multitude of children that have been abducted, sexually abused and murdered in this country in the last six months. What kind of values does someone have to have to care more about cells in a petrie dish than the children who are already here?
Those examples aren't values. Those examples do nothing but reflect the values that are ABSENT in an egotistical moron of a president who, at his very BEST, is nothing but DANGEROUS.
And of course, let's just leave out what DixieDew said to Nan. SM
That's so much more convenient. Who's the phoney now?
The trolls appear to be gone anyway. Why leave now?
ta dum
Because you won't leave us alone on our own board.
If you leave us alone, I'll leave you alone.
Pwnd....huh? I think you need to leave now before..
Your language skills get.... 
Love it or leave it. Is that all you got?
I am wondering if you ever see or hear youself before, during or after your tantrums. I could not find a more perfect example of what I was trying to convey than this current post, even if my life depended on it.
Ordinary, garden-variety right-wing impotence. Attacks on patriotism and America, love-it-or-leave it. Boring….surely you can do better than that. Show me where I said I was disappointed in America. Please don’t respond with another fabrication. Blind, deaf, illiterate, which is it? Guess you skated right on past the part about being “no less American” or “proud of America and the ideals we try to uphold,” in your haste to find something to assault or ridicule.
Your attempt at humor falls about as flat as McCain’s let’s-annihilate-an-entire-population and rape jokes. MSNBC is a little on the tame side for me. Next time you really want to insult a democrat, try playing the Democracy Now! and KPFT/Pacifica card. Anyone genuinely interested in alternative viewpoints on issues that NEVER make to the mainstream media might want to check them out, but you will be disappointed if you are looking for candidate, spouse and their associates bashing. As for you, Sam, enjoy Hannity. It’s preaching-to-the choir audience and content ought to make you feel right at home, all safe and validated and it's a great place to go when you need to refresh those tired tactics and stock up on mud.
You seem to be a little confused today, (gag me) “dear.” Must be the way you tow your party line and jump right in with that hostility toward facts and information. Those “elite” and “snobbish” remarks are just as inappropriate and untrue about me as they are about Obama. Let me break this down for you. The “elite,” in most contexts, refers to the wealthy, aristocratic, blue-blood, upper class… the “haves.” That world of economic and class distinction can be found on the republican planet, where all the “snobs” live. We dems are the roll-up your sleeves, blue-collar, working class, champion of the underdogs bunch…“the have-nots.” Try to keep that straight next time you need to use that ploy. Being an MT, I belong to that second clan, to be sure, since very few of us have amassed vast wealth, and it should come as no surprise that my politics arise from that place.
I think the word you are looking for to rail against would be “academic.” I don’t feel I need to excuse or defend myself for trying to be equipped with a few facts, reading a few books, taking a class or 2 or checking into misinformation. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why so many right-wingers feel so threatened by that. I do not think I am smarter than the next guy. I just don’t want to sound as dumb and ignorant, that all. In fact, the best knowledge I have was picked up on the street, at the school of hard knocks and simply being alive for so long. In any case, there are a whole bunch of academic people out there Sam. They are your fellow Americans, and every once in a while, it is their turn to speak. Do us all a favor and get over yourself, puh-leeze.
You do seem to be reasonably intelligent. Academics, like bilingualism….not fatal. Indulge yourself and try it sometime. You just might like it. IMO, you probably would be pretty good at it. It certainly is a lot more stimulating than all this mud-slinging…more inspiring, too. I’ll say it again. Intelligence is a terrible thing to waste. If you think it’s funny, it’s your loss, not mine.
This is the only chat room I ever use. I do not come here for information. I come here because of the isolation factor in the life of a work-at-home MT. At least we all have that in common and I would like to assume that we are an off-the-beaten path community of fairly intelligent folks. I do not consider chat rooms, blogs, the Internet or any network, CNN, Fox or MSNBC broadcasts to be particularly reliable sources of information. I come from the old school (don’t go ballistic on me…it’s not a 4-letter word). I feel much more comfortable with good old-fashioned investigative reporting, and I am not referring to what has been passed off as such in recent times. Here’s what is looks like: It strives to be objective and unbiased. It is exhaustive and thorough. It examines the pros and cons of an issue, presents facts and alternative viewpoints and does not edit or opine. It leaves its conclusions up to the reader. That is how one develops original thinking. Not a hat you try on to see how cute it will make you look. It is a process of protracted, lifetime pursuit.
I will not dignify your accusations of being a mouthpiece for the party with a response, although there are certain aspects of the platform that do represent where I am coming from. This is simply another conclusion you have jumped to with great glee, and is a pitifully transparent avoidance of engaging any of the real issues I have raised. I will also pass on the delusions or grandeur dig…. (yawn) just more of the same senseless mud-slinging you seem to enjoy so much.
I am not interested in repeating myself on the immigrant issue since you’re not listening anyway….waste of time. I most certainly do see the Americans in my midst. I am one of them. You missed the point (no surprise there). I try not to respond to all those “shoulds.” Awfully one-dimensional, if you ask me, and besides, they do nothing to shed light on the topic, nor do they lead us to any viable solutions. BTW, show me where I said I want you to be Ethiopian or Cuban. Not. I want you to let them be Ethiopian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, etcetera. Assimilation is a HUGE issue with many facets and is way too complex to comprehend in the absence of the ability to put oneself into another’s shoes. Besides, I am sure that assimilation does not mean the same thing to you as it does to me. But I am glad you brought this up, because it plays into the broader issue of what it means to be an American, past, present and future.
You are most definitely not prepared to have any meaningful exchange on why immigrants come here and, yes, I can agree with at least one thing you said. Things aren’t so great where they come from. The question is why….and furthermore, that subject requires the ability to listen and respond to some honest and humbling self-examination and (gasp) criticism of the good ole US. Being the superpower that we are, it would be foolish to deny that US foreign policy failures have not played a significant role in that arena. I’ll go there with someone who is not quite as, shall we say, “sensitive” on that subject.
It may come as a shock to you that Americans are not one huge homogenous monolith that agrees with your vision of what America should or should not be. Quite the contrary. We are allowed to be diverse in our ideas and lifestles, without the fear of persecution. Spare me those chest-beating lectures on patriotism and your sanitized American utopian ideal. I read the DAR old home week posts but kept my distance. I will inject these two comments, which I am sure you will find offensive….oh well. American Indians have LOTS of issues between themselves and the US government….still. If nobody ever hears complaints from them, it is not from lack of trying. It would be because their news never makes it to mainstream media, but they do get weekly air time on Pacifica. They are not silent. Nobody is listening, and to our eternal shame, nobody cares and never did. They would not exactly be delighted to be dragged out in a horse-and-pony exhibition as mutt ancestors of non-Native Americans who would use their heritage in a whose-more-American contest. In fact, they remain pretty big on the idea of preserving their own ethnic purity. Not a whole lot of room there for the DAR. Last time I checked, they take their pride in being aboriginal natives who live in sovereign nations…not exactly receptive to the kind of assimilation you have in mind. Bet their vision of the REAL America wouldn’t look anything like yours.
In any case, it’s a brand new day in the USA. This is not 1800 and its not 1900…globalization is here, and it’s not going away. We unleashed it with our own hands and now it’s time to grow up and deal with what it all means. The face of the earth will never look the same again and there is no going back to the good old days. Sorry about that. Breaking news. There are around 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants in the US. Granted, they are English speaking but not AMERICAN English. What WILL we do with them all….round them up and ship this back across the Atlantic? Would that be all right with you?
That Krushchev remark was asinine and completely off the wall. I know you were trying to be cute and I got the general drift about his prediction and “without firing a shot.” You would like to misconstrue this and use it to bolster your immigration argument. Have it your way. Lets go there. I was alive and kicking, we had a TV and I was old enough to understand the report and the broadcast. I remember what happened. One shoe incident (there were a few) was an angry gesture on his part in a heated exchange with the Filipino minister during a rant against Western colonialism/imperialism. The prediction you cite was a completely different occasion, and was made in reference to the cold war, boasting that America's children would be living under communism without firing a shot. He couldn’t care less about the illegal immigration “problems” in the US. In fact, back then there was not a whole lot of that anyway. So enlighten me, oh Wise One. What truth am I missing here?
The degree of bigotry you hold inside yourself is hateful, a viewpoint shared by a majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle. Before you get your drawers in an uproar and start dragging out the denial defense, lets look at what Merriam Webster has to say. Bigot = “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Never heard you talk about religion, but by all other counts, you qualify. It is as exhaustive for you to nurture that kind of hatred as it is for anyone who tries to reason with you about it. Be a bigot. It’s a free country. But let it be known that as long as bigotry continues to exact its toll of division among us and inflicts the pain and suffering that it so obviously fosters, there will always be legions of us who will stand up against it. I am only being realistic about what lies ahead of all of us in terms of globalization. Stick your head in the sand. No problem. But it’s coming and there is really no force on earth that is going to stop that train.
Even an 8th grader knows that Nazis failed in creating a pure race. Nothing cute at all about the suffering that that kind of bigotry caused. If you feel that strongly about the pure race and making time stand still, maybe you should start a secession movement.
Hannity is too ill-informed, way too pathetic and just downright too stupid to push any of my buttons but he should be right up your alley...2 of a kind. Throw that therapy insult at someone else. Play time is over and it’s time for me to get out of the sandbox and go home.
In closing, you couldn’t recognize an issue if it came up kicked you in the face. Takes no talent whatsoever to get down there in the dirt where you seem to feel so much at home. Unfortunately, you set the tone for the responses you get. Anyone interested in answering you has to sink to your level just to have a conversation with you. Not all of us get our kicks like that and certainly I have much better ways to spend my time.
Let me know if you ever find your way past all those obnoxious personal attacks, clichéd catch phrases, dodges, deflections and deceptions and actually want to wrap your brain around some real issues. In the meantime, I won’t be back in sandbox at least for the next couple of days…looking to change my job. I know you will miss me just about as much as I will miss you. When I come back, I’ll be dialing it back a notch or two….this drivel is certainly not worth getting kicked off the board over.
Actually, she does leave the caveat of...
abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. So she is not 100%. Now you are hawking abortion as a straight birth control method? Geeezzzzzz. Take a pill, save a baby!
Card carrying feminist...yeah right. Only feminists who share your narrow views. Obviously there are some independent feminists out there, and they may well be your candidate's undoing as well, because you just can't help being mean and condescending, and some people are just sick of it. Some Democrats are just sick of it. Keep it up! Less work for us.
Leave her up there where she belongs.
nm
There is still a shot he might not leave. sm
The economy is very bad and there could be a catastrophic emergency (Directive 51), and we are stuck with him.
i'm sure he is ready to leave,
and would not worry about that. Also am glad that the provisions are in place for every kind of emergency, including directive 51, to preserve the integrity of our government. If the terrorists will try again, i'm sure they'll wait to test Obama rather than mess with Bush. You'd best worry instead whether Obama will be ready 'on day 1'.
leave her siblings
out of it.
Yep....they don't dare leave the US
The Hague (World Court) has pretty much charged Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush with war crimes.
on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be served.
Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to proceed with the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior administration's abusive interrogation tactics.
And I'm told to forget about Bush - NO FREAKING WAY! This sucks out loud!!!
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'll leave that to his
I've lived long enough not to swallow everything I see, especially from sources like this, as "gospel", if you'll pardon the pun.
All I want is for people to leave
the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. It is a sacred bond between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. I have no problem compromising and making all "marriages" civil unions and then letting the believers have their marriage performed in a church by their pastor. Funny how we are willing to compromise though. I remember asking if the gay community would be willing to have civil unions and I was told that it wasn't fair and why should the gay community settle for civil unions? Now all of sudden you are for civil unions? I personally don't see why both marriages in a church and civil unions can't both have the benefits that marriage currently does. That way we can keep our religion and our marriage to ourselves and you can have your civil unions. Now you want people who are believers and who want to get married to have their benefits stripped away just to make you happy and feel good about gay civil unions? Once again....talk about a group who cries and whines about their rights but have no problem trying to take rights away from someone who doesn't have the same opinion or beliefs.
We could leave "marriage" as it is, and have....sm
homosexual UNIONS. People having traditional marriages keep on as before, but homosexuals wishing to engage in a "union" could do the legal thing.
That sounds about right to me. :)
Yes, you have the freedom to LEAVE
if you don't like the direction our country is heading. You LOST. The Good Guys Won. Deal with it!! Get behind our President and our Country. Or LEAVE! We don't need treason like this you are expressing.
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.
I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer. for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board. It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other. She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.
My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board. It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.
Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top? I sure do. Do I understand why she said them? My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people. I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).
sm is not me. And I offered to leave too. It's on the board. SM
look for yourself. Geesh.
I second that American Woman. Don't leave.
You have added much to the liberal board. Don't let them run you off. That's what they come here for. Don't give them what they want.
I'm not bashing and I never agreed to leave
but I am growing tired of this so that should give you some hope.
yeah we'll leave you to your
leave you to your bong and love beads. You all talk a big game but your brain cells are too fried to actually do anything for this country
Because you won't leave which makes you a PEST.
LOL! and leave MY great country
to the Bu$shbots?
I think not. Better to stay and fight for what is right.
Well then quit threatening to leave
because you just keep getting my hopes up.
Stay or leave I really don't care, because the sane people who are the MAJORITY in this country will protect us all from the likes of you...a hate filled leftist.
No. You won't leave. You'll continue on.
Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here.
Accidents are exused. There's no reason on earth to excuse you.
I have sticking to my opinion...please leave me alone
you are bordering on harassment here. I do not care what you think of me or of anything, do you understand that? My opinion is mine, understand that? Stop trying to come off as you are so much better than me because I made a comment I disliked the baby being passed around.
I still dislike it - I will always dislike when people use children, babies, or whatever. It looked like a staged phoney scene to try to appeal to women voters, which I guess was successful by your comments.
I had to leave the room when NP and BF were speaking
I absolutely got sick!
uhh... Joe the Plumber is not running for VP, leave
nm
Those 2 elections didn't leave a
shred of honesty in our election process. As I recall in 2000 GWB declared himself to be president before he was declared the winner wrongly. And people talk about Obama's b/c and want to know the "truth" about that. I'd like to know the truth about the 2000 and 2004 elections and then I might be willing to talk about the "truth" of O's b/c.
Not a tactic, just scripture. Take it or leave it.
And you are the one shaming Christianity -- if you truly claim to be one.
|
