Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: koala on June 26, 2002, 07:52:07 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56322,00.html
-
Whiners.
-
"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Nice record, I wonder what the other decisions were.
DmdKanth
-
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
-
I hear ya Loyalist. Can't ol' Ted Kennedy (one of my senators, sigh...) do anything right? Aw, hell. They're politicians. It's their job to be absurdly "patriotic" (HA!) to the point of obstructionism.
In the meantime, however:
SCORE ONE FOR THE LIBERALS! :D:D:D:D
(Just doing my job, mind you ;))
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
What makes you think the American people are respresented??
DmdKanth
-
"Senate condemns Pledge ruling 99-0 "
99-0 in the Senate? Amazing!
J_A_B
-
No surprise. :rolleyes:
Guys... as much as I might agree with the 9th Circuit Court, I have to be a realist.
The Supreme Court will overturn this one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No surprise. :rolleyes:
Guys... as much as I might agree with the 9th Circuit Court, I have to be a realist.
The Supreme Court will overturn this one.
Why?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Why?
Because it's inconsistent with existing laws.
"God" shows up all over. As has been stated in other posts... money says "In God We Trust", witnesses in court swear in with "so help me God," etc.
The Supreme Court will fight the fights that are worth fighting. In the broad scope of things, this one isn't important and to make this one stick, they've got a whole lot of other laws that will also have to be changed.
The Senate will go along with it because the vast majority of the people in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
-
Yeah but they changed the laws in the first place to have the word God on all this stuff, they have to start somewhere.
-
Revolution begins at home. I kept my son out of the Boy Scouts because I didn't approve of their emphasis on religion.
The 9th Court did the right thing. They exposed a flaw. Give it time. The Supreme Court may spackle the hole, but they know it's there.
-
WTG Senate. For some reason I like the utter clarity of unanimous votes! :)
Can we have the 2 judges shot?
-
Fortunately... even if they all agree they still might not be right. That's why the founding fathers came up with that whole check and balances thing.
Non-conformity isn't such a bad thing.
-
"Non-conformity isn't such a bad thing."
Rhetorical BS, Cough... BS BS
Care to say that about child molesters, rapists, and pediphiles?
Or about neo-nazis and the KKK?
Abberants are just that abberants and degenerates who should be kept in check.
-
There's a lot of gray that you don't see in your black and white world.
-
Answer the question!
You cant just say vague pointless BS like "Nonconformism is good", and then not expect to get challenged for it?
So do you support the KKK and child molester non-conformists.
Black, white, grey? Who cares. :rolleyes:
-
Actually, I never sated that non-conformity is good.
Rather than answer your argument, look at Nazi Germany. There is an excellent example of conformity gone wrong.
-
"Non-conformity isn't such a bad thing."
Oh yea thats not saying non-conformity is good....
Anyway sandman stop playing your stupid left-wing word games and please answer my question!
Do you think non-conformist pediphiles and KKK ["isn't such a bad thing"?
-
Hehe... nope... not going to play your right wing word games.
Let's see...
Child molestation = non-conformity
Child molestation = bad
Therefore:
Non-conformity = bad.
This is your point?
-
The definition of non conformity is rather wide.
And no I wouldnt use such a fallacius argument directly.
Anyway the question still stands, do you support child molestors and KKK?
-
Hehe... of course. We all do.
Taxation helps pay for the prisons.
-
Your'e intent on not answering my question. :) Support.. hehe
-
LOL... but I did answer the question. :D
Here's the answer you were looking for: No, I don't agree with nor morally support child molesters nor the KKK.
-
GRUNHERZ
Are you saying that Communist Party members were good?
-
Are you saying that Communist Party members were good?
This is exactly what he is saying, but he is too blind to see it...
-
Yes I think Communism is great! Best system ever, over a hundred dead million people cant be wrong. :rolleyes:
And communism wasnt about "conformity" as you wanna say it. It was about a bunch of non-conformist, anti religious zealot revolutionaries that schemed people in order to get power.
Back on topic, the judges must be arrested and shot at once!
Anyway if you fail to see the difference between individualism and free thought compared to degeneracy and abbereant behavior shown by the judges then you are quite frankly a possible idiot.
-
You folks have been watching too much TV. I haven't heard an affirmation to "God" for witnesses in court since I started in Police work many moons ago.
Any court, including Magistrate court I've been in simply ask that you that you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth.
Hell most courts took out the swear because X-ians wouldn't "swear" on a bible.
-
In this political climate. Can you imagine a politician standing up, and saying that he is against the oath of allegiance. He might just as well drive his secretary off a bridge and drown her.
-
Hmmmm. OK. Bad example.
-
LOL
-
God and Government=Bad things
As if they werent both bad enough.
Quit Crying, it's only going to get worse.
-
Originally posted by koala
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56322,00.html
two words.........
November Elections
-
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation
under god
indivisible
with liberty, and justice, for all
AMEN !
-
For all the left and right wailing and gnashing of teeth, has the inclusion, or the proposed exclusion, of this phrase altered your lives one bit?
My unedumacated guess would be NO.
And if folks try to come back and say, yeah, but the exclusion of this will lead us to moral anarchy or the opposite, the inclusion has stifled my ability to my freedom of religious expression in my daily life, then you're lying here and to yourselves. Neither case alters our basic principles and our personal morales on bit.
So in order to restore harmony and preserve the Union, I propose that we put in the phrase, One Nation Under Cod.
:)
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Cobra
For all the left and right wailing and gnashing of teeth, has the inclusion, or the proposed exclusion, of this phrase altered your lives one bit?
My unedumacated guess would be NO.
Of course it does. My son is 8 month old. In a three-four years I will have to explain to him what The Plege means and how to be a citizen.
miko
-
You guys should know you can't forcefully strip people of their superstitions, they just become more deeply rooted.
Just keep your head down and try not to snicker during the blessing.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh yea thats not saying non-conformity is good....
Anyway sandman stop playing your stupid left-wing word games and please answer my question!
Do you think non-conformist pediphiles and KKK "isn't such a bad thing"?
Grun.. go out and buy yourself a dictionary. Non-conformity and Aberation are nowhere near the same thing. BTW a non-conformist KKK member would probably have a black girlfriend.
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
USA= Republic. Not a democracy.
xBAT
-
"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress,"
His thug Ashcroft will lead the new Inquisistion.
:rolleyes:
-
What if back in the 50s they had added the words under no god instead of Eisenhower's under god and today a court decided that the "under no god" part was unconstitutional . Do you think the senate vote would be differently ? If so why ?
-
Grunherz you seem to equate nonconformist with degenerate . You either don't understand the word or you are exercising illogic .
-
btw, the KKK was a "Christian" group.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
btw, the KKK was a "Christian" group.
-SW
sure it was and the priests who molested children were "holy men" too
you are judged by your deeds, not your title
-
I know Eagler, that's why I put the quotes around it.... I was just trying to point out something.. whatever it was, I forgot.
-SW
-
Weazel, you don't really believe the crap you're spewing do ya?
-
Eagler,
You failed to address any of the post directed at you so I'll repost this here for you in this thread as well.
Loyalist hit the nail on the head.
Everytime some Christian starts raising cane about prayer in school around my house, and brings up the pledge I clearly point out that I and my child will not be raised to be forced to sit thru THEIR beliefs. Oh but that's not what we're doing, God can mean whatever..yea freaking right....bullchit.
I say the same thing. If I wanted you to recite something with Gods, Goddess, Allah, Jehovah, Brigid, Osiris, Hecate, No god, etc, you that support the "under God" bit would have a holy fit because it wasn't "christian". You can't have it both ways.
I could care less if you worshipped Grapefruits. That doesn't mean everyone should or does think Grapefruits are divine.
There's no way as a X-ian that you'd stand to have your child or yourself acknowledge any other diety except yours. "god" as ADDED to the pledge was added to refer to the X-ian "god" and him only. So don't pull that viel down saying we can use it as an all encompassing term.
-
If we're going to place our nation under a ficticious charactor, I'd prefer Froto from the lord of the Rings.
Or maybe Spiderman
-Sikboy
-
Past a certain point non-conformist behavior becomes dangerous degenerate and abbernt behavior. Im sure that we all agree on this point no? Certainly Jeff Dahmer was non conforming to the normal ideas of USA society, and did so to an extent that made him an abberant and degenerate.
And Tahgut dont you think KKK are non conformist with respect to most of us? Dont they not conform the generally accepted idea that non-whites and non-protestants are people desreving of civil rights and liberity and life on the USA?
My whole point it that the judges went past the point of acceptable non conformity. They are a bunch of self righteus degenerates who must be arrested and shot.
Plus I really really really like the word degenerate. :)
-
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE),
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
San Francisco (SatireWire.com) — A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor.
While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases "One nation, under Wal-Mart," "One nation, under Windows XP," and "One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks."
Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)."
While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in judges and politicians. According to analysts, severing that 226-year relationship without an alternative is a mistake.
"Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina."
But others defended the decision, saying it was wrong to force religion on anyone. "The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"
Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the uproar. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing."
Back in America, many questioned whether the United States really needs a patron, and instead suggested the Pledge should include verbiage that simply reflects America. So far, the leading contenders:
¤ "One nation, under indictment,"
¤ "One nation, road under repair,"
¤ "One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!"
¤ "One nation, under yellow alert, please report any suspicious activity,"
¤ "One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada."
God, in various forms, currently sponsors most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.
-
Tac
It'd have to be:
"one nation under Bill Gates" :)
-
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd go for "sure, but with cheerleaders" myself!
hehe, how come it wasn't "under cheerleaders"? too easy to be construed as "underage cheerleaders"??? :eek:
-
One nation under bush?
You know what bugs me, is when people put their hand on their heart during the singing of the national anthem. It's a great song and take your hat off in respect, but you place your hand on your heart during a "pledge"...you "pledge" something.
Anyway, the pledge sounds fine to me without a deity. I don't think it will alter anyone's life by taking it out.
"I pledge alegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." I think the pledge only started in that late 40's or early 50's anyway.
Sikboy...Frodo? heh heh
-
Eh, never mind.
-
Heh, this will be overturned, unfortunately.
But it's a good start.
I mean, the logic involved is easily understood.
The term 'God' refers to an entity existing in certain religious beliefs. Christians call their god 'god' with a capital G, just as it is in the pledge.
The constitution forbids the government from promoting one religion before another. This dates back to the bad experiences with the Church of England, and it is in this light the founding fathers decision must be seen.
'God' with a capital G is a direct reference to the Christian deity. 'god' would be more all encompassing, but that would promote monotheistic faiths before polytheistic ones. Those lacking faith would also find themselves on the wrong side of government favour.
This is how simple it is: 'God' is a reference to the Christian deity. By using it, you exclude polytheistic faiths, and those Americans lacking faith.
I know that Ronald Reagain, head of state for eight years said that '...atheists aren't real Americans' but again, such a statement is not in line with the constitution.
The 'under God' phrase was added in 1954 in an effort to further show the separation between the godless communists and the God fearing American people.
It's a religious addition endorsing one or several religions before others, or before lack of faith.
And that, my friends, is unconstitutional. Simple :).
The ruling will be overturned. Senators calling a judge 'stupid'. 'That judge is just stupid'. Senators using ad hominem attacks, calling others stupid, like kindergarden kids do. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Good luck with it though :). At least you have (in theory) a separation between church and state, and that's more than we have here.
-
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
25% of Americans being retarded seems a bit high. Unless they polled Ted Turner's family and friends :)
Nuke
-
Speaking of ad hominem...
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
CNN Poll
Question 1
Do you watch Fox News?
Question 2
Are you Republican?
*** Note to poll taker:
A "Yes" answer to Question 1 or Question 2 disqualifies this person from any CNN poll. Hang up immediately and call the next person on the list ... :)
Question 3
Do you have AOL 7.0? :)
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?
At the polls when their senator was elected 75%-25%. The United States of America is a republic, not a pure democracy.