PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: SwifDi on April 28, 2004, 12:45:21 PM
-
http://washingtontimes.com/national...05435-1862r.htm
===========================================
McDermott omits \'God\' from Pledge
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 28, 2004
Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, yesterday did not say the words "under God" as he led the House in its daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, accused Mr. McDermott of "embarrassing the House" and proving that "he and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors."
"The liberal wing of the Democrat Party launched yet another salvo today in its ongoing battle to drive a wedge between Americans and the values and ideals we hold dear," Mr. Sessions said in a statement last night.
T
he House has overwhelmingly approved two resolutions expressing outrage at the June 2002 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it is unconstitutional to have schoolchildren recite the Pledge in class because it includes the words "under God."
Mr. McDermott was one of seven Democrats who voted against a March 2003 House resolution -- approved 400-7 -- that condemned the 9th Circuit decision as inconsistent with the Supreme Court\'s interpretation of the First Amendment. The House passed a similar resolution, 416-2 in June 2002, immediately after the court\'s decision, and Mr. McDermott joined 10 Democrats in voting "present."
"Congressman McDermott already knew that he had a problem with the words \'under God,\' based on two votes he cast. The question is why he put himself in the position of embarrassing the House in this way," Mr. Sessions said.
When asked about yesterday\'s Pledge incident, Mr. McDermott\'s spokesman, Mike DeCesare, said his boss "hesitated, unsure of what he should do because the words \'under God\' are under court review." Mr. DeCesare confirmed that his boss did omit the words.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in March over whether to uphold the 9th Circuit\'s Pledge decision.
Mr. Sessions made a procedural inquiry on the House floor last night to confirm that current law lists the words "under God" as part of the Pledge and the official House record from yesterday will reflect that version of the Pledge -- and not what Mr. McDermott said.
Robin Scullin, spokeswoman for C-SPAN, said the producer who covers the House floor heard Mr. McDermott\'s altered Pledge recitation yesterday and alerted the main C-SPAN office.
Miss Scullin said C-SPAN, which telecasts House coverage from gavel to gavel, did not receive any calls from viewers about it, but the network\'s "Washington Journal" show put in a request for Mr. McDermott to explain on this morning\'s program why he omitted the words.
The House has been reciting the Pledge every morning since 1988, alternating between members of both parties to lead it, according to a C-SPAN Web site discussion on the topic. Recitation of the Pledge is listed in the official House rules as the third action in the daily order of business.
=========================================
Discuss.
Personally I think this is pathetic.
-
So whats wrong with Separating CHURCH & STATE ?
Mr Bush would find things easier if he just would.
-
First off, tradition is tradition. This isn\'t an issue of church and state, its about another typical liberal trying to set a few sparks off. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and pretty much everything this country\'s government\'s foundation is riddled with references of \'God\'. This is just ridiculous, if I ever hear somebody recite the pledge and go:
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
-
Here in Texas we have to pledge to the Texas flag after the US flag. I have more of a problem with that than anything. I personally don\'t give a **** if those two words left the pledge.
-
Yeah but who is he to choose how he wants to say it?
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
This is just ridiculous, if I ever hear somebody recite the pledge and go:
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
I dare you to do that to me and you will not get away with this. I am neutral about leaving the words in or out. But if I have to pick, I go with the words left out, and if you punch people just because of that...just show how much intolerance have you on others and how obnoxious you can be. Not to mention that you think you are better than other because of your religion....
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
This is just ridiculous, if I ever hear somebody recite the pledge and go:
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
How about if I say "One Nation, Above SATAN, With Liberty and Justice For All." Would that be ok with you? You\'re not telling me that I can\'t worship the Devil, are you? :laughing:
-
Dont know if its right but.......I heard that the governmet didnt put the words "under god" until the cold war. Everybody was afraid of communism spreading that they said "lets show those godless commies" and put it in pledge or made the pledge, I forgot.
-
I am for getting rid of all God references from anything political. I am tired of hearing about it. Take my God out of the politicians hands so they can get back to more important things like figuring out how to tax me into the poor house.
-
the words "under god" were added way, way before the cold war
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
If I do say the pledge (I\'m just jaded from saying it now. I said it every day for 10 years, I just don\'t want to say it anymore.), I do not say "under God". What are you gonna do? You going to force me to say it? I say take it out. "Under God" should not be in it. It never was in the pledge that Washington created. It was added. You want tradition? Then take it out. It was recited for like 150 years before they added it.
-
Originally posted by mm
the words "under god" were added way, way before the cold war
Wrong. :)
The Pledge dates from around 1892 when it was written by Francis Bellamy. (Not George Washington, sorry Titan.)
"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
"Under God" was officially changed to "Underpants" by Coredweller in 1978. :D
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
The Pledge dates from around 1892 when it was written by Francis Bellamy. (Not George Washington, sorry Titan.)
Whatever. Thanks for correcting me though. I thought I heard in history class a few years back that Washington made the pledge. Bah, what do teachers know. My points the same though. It never was in there nor should it remain.
-
wrong?
cold war didnt peak untill the mid 70\'s to late 80\'s
-
I\'m going to be punching a lot of people in their faces...
And you\'re all missing my point. Do you seriously think this guy was trying to stand up for a belief, or simply trying to instigate a debate similiar to the one here?
Mark my words, the next step is people crying rivers about "In God we Trust".
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Mark my words, the next step is people crying rivers about "In God we Trust".
I believe that is already an issue.
-
I really don\'t see why it bothers people... If you have a problem with seeing it on your dollar bills, I\'ll gladly take them from you.
-
Ok to make it simple... Eisenhower added the words to the pledge of allegiance. Should the words stay?? I would say yes because I am a traditionalist.
-
Yeah I knew about that. Eisenhower was the man.
-
The thing is not every American believes in God. Imagine visiting China and your kids are forced to say "one nation under Buddha" everyday during school.
I don\'t think they should change the pledge though. Either say it or don\'t.
Out of curiosity do other countries have a similar pledge of allegiance the kids say every morning at school?
-
Meh... \'God\' can be whatever entity they want though...
-
Originally posted by mm
wrong?
cold war didnt peak untill the mid 70\'s to late 80\'s
Oh man, I just can\'t let that stand. :laughing: You have a problem with admitting when you\'re wrong don\'t you? :p I guess we already knew that.
This is the weakest display of backpedaling I\'ve seen around here in a long time. You said "the words \'under god\' were added way, way before the cold war"
You did not say "way before the peak of the cold war"
Don\'t bother trying to argue that the Cold War had not started by 1954. Lol. :laughing:
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Meh... \'God\' can be whatever entity they want though...
To repeat THX: "The thing is not every American believes in God." This is in case you didn\'t read it. Just a public service. :)
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Meh... \'God\' can be whatever entity they want though...
But I don\'t believe in God. Why should I have to say it when I pledge? I just chose to leave it out, since I don\'t believe it should be in there. Now, In God We Trust on the money is more traditional and I think we should keep it. Why? Because this country was founded because of religious persecution. Religion is what founded this country. So by saying "In God We Trust" on our money, it shows our proud heritage. (wow, that was a lot of BS wasn\'t it?). I guess its kind of hypocritical of me isn\'t it? If its taken out, fine if not, it doesn\'t bother me. The pledge though kind of bothers me.
-
Overall, I couldn\'t really care less to be honest. The only thing about this situation is this guy is representing a large body. Say what you want, but I\'m keeping God in my pledge of allegiance.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Oh man, I just can\'t let that stand. :laughing: You have a problem with admitting when you\'re wrong don\'t you? :p I guess we already knew that.
This is the weakest display of backpedaling I\'ve seen around here in a long time. You said "the words \'under god\' were added way, way before the cold war"
You did not say "way before the peak of the cold war"
Don\'t bother trying to argue that the Cold War had not started by 1954. Lol. :laughing:
Coredweller really nailed mm there. :dance:
how about it, let Cored be mod....:laughing:
From Titan
Now, In God We Trust on the money is more traditional and I think we should keep it. Why? Because this country was founded because of religious persecution. Religion is what founded this country. So by saying "In God We Trust" on our money, it shows our proud heritage. (wow, that was a lot of BS wasn\'t it?).
LOL!:laughing:
I don\'t often have this many laugh for one day...
-
If it is a typical requirement to say the pledge of allegiance in the house of representatives, whoever has the duty of reciting the pledge should read it as designed. They should not rewrite the pledge to suit their politics. If they have a problem with something in the pledge they should focus their attention on removing it as opposed to performing meaningless and attention whoring actions.
How would this guy feel if someone stepped in front of the house and said "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the corporate owned states of america"?
Its not the Black Album. Not everyone can remix it like they want to.
-
....sigh
americans weren\'t afraid of the "pinkos" untill 1962 at the earliest
and it took alot more than "under god" to make them feel secure
twice now, you\'ve failed to prove me wrong, just pointed out that you think i am
please core, i\'m not here to educate you
-
Actually, the US was afraid of the "pinkos" much earlier. In 1953 the McCarthy Hearings were in full swing as the country backed him and his misguided effort to root out communism in American Society.
Speaking of the McCarthy Hearings in 1953-54 it is no coincidence that the pledge was amended in 1954...
"The "under God" phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 -- signed into law by President Eisenhower -- when the nation wanted to further distinguish the difference between itself and godless Communism."
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/062802/opi_eb.shtml
One could also argue that the Cold War intensified when the USSR exploded its first Atomic Bomb on August 29, 1949.
-
Originally posted by mm
....sigh
americans weren\'t afraid of the "pinkos" untill 1962 at the earliest
and it took alot more than "under god" to make them feel secure
twice now, you\'ve failed to prove me wrong, just pointed out that you think i am
please core, i\'m not here to educate you
The issue is not "when the peak was" or when Americans became fearful of communism. You didn\'t put that in your original post. You added it later after it was revealed that your original statement was wrong. Based on your original statement, before I educated you, you\'ve been proven wrong.
Perhaps you should browse a history book, then you\'d learn some of the things that Giga included in his post. :) You can try to cloud the issue, but none of this would be necessary if you\'d just admit that you were wrong.
Have a nice day. :)
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
The issue is not "when the peak was" or when Americans became fearful of communism. You didn\'t put that in your original post. You added it later after it was revealed that your original statement was wrong. Based on your original statement, before I educated you, you\'ve been proven wrong.
Perhaps you should browse a history book, then you\'d learn some of the things that Giga included in his post. :) You can try to cloud the issue, but none of this would be necessary if you\'d just admit that you were wrong.
Have a nice day. :)
he shoots, he scores! :D
-
I feel that there is nothing wrong with using the term "God" in the pledge of allegiance, on our currency or when swearing in an official. It part of tradition and ceremony. Our fouding fathers made many references to God and The Creator so why should we ban it in such superficial things as these?
If the government or elected officials were using God or religion in making policy decisions (as the Republicans try to do on abortion), I would definitely be opposed to it. The fact is most American\'s do believe in God and how can one honestly be offended at the mere word?
The nine Democrats who voted "present" on the condemnation of the 9th Circuit Court ruling (James McDermott was one of them) don\'t help the image of the Democratic Party with mainstream America. It is instances like these in this post that portray the Democratic Party as being governed by liberal left wing fanatics.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
This is just ridiculous, if I ever hear somebody recite the pledge and go:
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
I\'ll get over them speaking of "god", the real problem is bible thumpers like this. Today I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Real men follow jesus". BLAH
-
Man... I love Christian bumper stickers... Nothing is better than:
"WARNING! In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
-
Seperation of church and state is a good idea.
Take god off of money, and take god out of my state sponsored school in the morning.
If you want god, go to a private school
I seriously cannot understand how anyone could argue that it SHOULD be said in public schools.
I do not believe in any god, and I do not want something i do not believe in to partially represent the country I live in, ESPECIALLY when the constitution agrees with me.
-
Nobody is forcing anybody to say it. Why this is such a big issue is beyond me. If a teacher is forcing a student to say it in school, then that\'s another issue altogther.
-
Maybe if they knew what kind of debate this was going to start our founding fathers wouldn\'t have been so ambigious. How can one say that Christianity has no role to play in this country? Maybe not at the governmental level, but it was founded upon those ideals and principles.
You may not believe in God, but you are in the minority. I may feel "faith based initiatives" are a waste of time and money, but I am in the minority also. Arguing over two words in a pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency is looking at the small picture.
-
we\'ve been sayin it for years on end...why make a big fiasco out of it?...people need to stop being so f**kin\' sensitive...there are way more important issues at hand..
-
...like renaming french fries
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
First off, tradition is tradition. This isn\'t an issue of church and state, its about another typical liberal trying to set a few sparks off. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and pretty much everything this country\'s government\'s foundation is riddled with references of \'God\'. This is just ridiculous, if I ever hear somebody recite the pledge and go:
"... and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I am punching them in the face.
The unlikely event that we would meet, I would do it just so you could "punch me in the face" and you get beat up by a woman.
In no way is that pathethic except for your message of violence because some choose to actually attempt to seperate church and state as it is supposed to be.
What are you about 15-16?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I feel that there is nothing wrong with using the term "God" in the pledge of allegiance, on our currency or when swearing in an official. It part of tradition and ceremony. Our fouding fathers made many references to God and The Creator so why should we ban it in such superficial things as these?
If the government or elected officials were using God or religion in making policy decisions (as the Republicans try to do on abortion), I would definitely be opposed to it. The fact is most American\'s do believe in God and how can one honestly be offended at the mere word?
The nine Democrats who voted "present" on the condemnation of the 9th Circuit Court ruling (James McDermott was one of them) don\'t help the image of the Democratic Party with mainstream America. It is instances like these in this post that portray the Democratic Party as being governed by liberal left wing fanatics.
As opposed to the conservative right wing fanatic that is currently running our country into the ground?
-
If I was in charge, I\'d rip "god" out of everything political and move on. Once it\'s gone, no one will miss it and we could get back to looking at other important things like, say, those dead Americans in Saudi Arabia.
Besides, kids don\'t have to say the pledge during school if they don\'t want to, and they can drop words like "under god," too.
The whole debate is just silly.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by TSina
The unlikely event that we would meet, I would do it just so you could "punch me in the face" and you get beat up by a woman.
In no way is that pathethic except for your message of violence because some choose to actually attempt to seperate church and state as it is supposed to be.
What are you about 15-16?
He\'s older than me. Turning 18, right swif?
I keep flip flopping on this under god issue. As of right now, I\'d just take it out and say to hell with it and move on (talking about money and stuff like that too).
-
Originally posted by TSina
As opposed to the conservative right wing fanatic that is currently running our country into the ground?
The lesser of 2 evils IMO is Bush. I would hardly call him a "fantatic" as well. Conservative yes, fanatic no. Listening to too much of that liberal media have we?
The ones who perform gay marriages with no legal authority to do so are symptoms of the what is wrong with the left wing in this country. I am not going to debate gay marriage, but a mayor certainly has no right to "interpret" the law to fit his own agenda.
-
Originally posted by Titan
He\'s older than me. Turning 18, right swif?
I keep flip flopping on this under god issue. As of right now, I\'d just take it out and say to hell with it and move on (talking about money and stuff like that too).
Damn that\'s sad that he is turning 18.
It\'s not that I am Mother *-Teresa-* or anything as I do think violence is acceptable at many times, but just because you dont like what someone said...or in this case, didnt say. That is just flat out retardly stupid. He has alot to learn before he goes off to college, if he does.
Flip flopping ehh? Maybe you are a liberal indeedy, like John Kerry\'s flip flopping self. :stick: ;)
-
Ones who try to ban a basic right of citizens is what is wrong with the right wing in our society.
On the same token..anyone who tries to outlaw something they feel is RELIGIOUSLY wrong, not to mention taking away rights from certain individuals certainly sounds fanatical to me. President or not, he has no right to do what he tried to do to fit his own agenda.
If certain mayors are, then certain presidents are as well no.
-
Marriage was started as a religious ceremony and most people today still view it as one. Like I said I am not going to get into a debate on this in this thread.
-
And that has what to do with the LEADER of our country mixing church and state? That is what he is doing you know. Because of what again? The same thing you accuse a certain mayor of doing, catering to his own personal agenda. Just like the war in Iraq, but thats another can-O-worms altogether.
-
What did you not understand about what I said? Marriage is a religious ceremony. The problem isn\'t with them living together in some form of union it is them using the term "married". If the government has to step in to protect the rights of those of us that cherish the sanctity of marriage than more power to him.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Flip flopping ehh? Maybe you are a liberal indeedy, like John Kerry\'s flip flopping self. :stick: ;)
Like I said before, I have some liberal views (like the God in the Pledge and money. Shows I\'m more or less neutral), other than those very few, I\'m conservative. If I ever go liberal, I think I\'m going to jump off my roof.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What did you not understand about what I said? Marriage is a religious ceremony. The problem isn\'t with them living together in some form of union it is them using the term "married". If the government has to step in to protect the rights of those of us that cherish the sanctity of marriage than more power to him.
Don\'t be condescending to me. With that said....
What did YOU not understand about what I said? Seeing how marriage is the religious ceremony it is in some cases, the government HAS NO BUSINESS nor say in what two others want to do. They are not hurting anyone by wanting to be married. At this point I have to ask what you may be smoking or injecting into your veins. What I mean by that is this.
You and others have no rights when it concerns someone elses marriage. Do you not understand that? It is quite simple. The government has NO business in matters of someone marriage, the idea that they do is simply absurd.
Ever hear of marriages between man and women that do not concern some sort of religious body. Such as city hall or a justice of the peace? Many of these same weddings between a man and a woman do not have any religious words in the ceremony. Should those be banned as well. Opps..should YOUR(ha-ha) rights be protected there too?
Opps..no b/c it doesn\'t concern you one iota(sp?)
Maybe this will be more clear
Church-------insert SEPERATION DIVIDER here---- Government
PS..Titan, I was just ribbing ya\' a little bit, hence the emoticons. :)
-
Originally posted by TSina
Don\'t be condescending to me. With that said....
What did YOU not understand about what I said? Seeing how marriage is the religious ceremony it is in some cases, the government HAS NO BUSINESS nor say in what two others want to do. They are not hurting anyone by wanting to be married. At this point I have to ask what you may be smoking or injecting into your veins. What I mean by that is this.
You and others have no rights when it concerns someone elses marriage. Do you not understand that? It is quite simple. The government has NO business in matters of someone marriage, the idea that they do is simply absurd.
I know it is hard for you to understand but allowing gays to marry makes a mockery of the institution of marriage. Civil unions yes, marriage no. I am not going anymore OT than we already have. This is about the pledge... keep it there.
-
No it doesnt. Seperation of church and try..try it sometime.
The pledge..uhm yea...seperation of church and state. No under god.
-
the institution of marrige? where is that anyway? really, got an address? i wanna drive there and propose a change.
The lesser of 2 evils IMO is Bush. I would hardly call him a "fantatic" as well. Conservative yes, fanatic no. Listening to too much of that liberal media have we?
The ones who perform gay marriages with no legal authority to do so are symptoms of the what is wrong with the left wing in this country. I am not going to debate gay marriage, but a mayor certainly has no right to "interpret" the law to fit his own agenda.
It is good that someone has the courage to break laws that are unfair, I wish we could all have that courage.
Anyways, if Marriage creates changes legally and is recognized by the sate, then it is NOT 100% religious.
Also, minoritys ALWAYS get ****ed over by the majority untill by one way or another the majority graduates out of their own mental pre school.
That is why democracy sucks ass.
-
We already had a long assed thread on gay marriage a couple months ago. I propose that if you want to discuss it, post in that thread. The issues are connected as far as the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE goes, but I think you\'re not going to have much luck changing Giga\'s mind on either one.
He believes (and I\'m sure other people do too) that two men getting married somewhere else on US soil somehow weakens his own marriage. I don\'t understand that, but that\'s the way he wants to portray it, so you\'ve got to leave it at that.
-
Exactly what Core said... we had a very long discussion about gay marriage in an earlier thread. I am sorry I even used it as an example in this thread. If you want to discuss it any further, please open a new thread.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
It is good that someone has the courage to break laws that are unfair, I wish we could all have that courage.
Also, minoritys ALWAYS get ****ed over by the majority untill by one way or another the majority graduates out of their own mental pre school.
That is why democracy sucks ass.
Courage to break laws..............wow thats one of the most ignorant comments I\'ve ever heard.
Also, what you\'re proposing is rediculous. Why should the minority get the say, just because you feel it\'s right??? Also....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by TSina
Damn that\'s sad that he is turning 18.
It\'s not that I am Mother *-Teresa-* or anything as I do think violence is acceptable at many times, but just because you dont like what someone said...or in this case, didnt say. That is just flat out retardly stupid. He has alot to learn before he goes off to college, if he does.
University of Notre Dame to be exact. I think you obviously took my "punch in the face" comment dead serious, however you are forgiven because you are a new member, everybody knows that I often exagerrate to get my points across.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Also, minoritys ALWAYS get ****ed over by the majority untill by one way or another the majority graduates out of their own mental pre school.
That is why democracy sucks ass.
I dunno what country you\'ve been living in, but over here in America the only thing we do is directly cater to the minority, more now than ever.
And my final point (hopefully), is that despite being a Christian, I believe that separation of church and state is fair for those who have no association with any particular religion.
My point in creating this thread, and my disappointment was with the manner in which this politician took with reciting something that is only comprised of the greatest respect towards our country. The fact that he \'made it his own, because of something he didn\'t like\', and he is there in Congress representing people from a state, is wrong.
-
He was only abiding to the constitution ya know.
And, we do not abide to the minority. You know why? because if I wanted to get married to another guy, I cant, if i want to do drugs, I cant, If i wanted to watch porn on normal TV, i cant...
You may not understand what I mean, but it is 100% true. All of those things I mentioned are completley moral issues, and yet all of them are against the law. Therefore the majority is acting as my father, and all i have to say about that is: ****. that.
-
Drugs are not a moral issue. How does Church and State play a part in drugs being illegal? Isn\'t that basically what this thread is about? God and the government.
Taking God out of the pledge is such a minor issue and Swif does have a very valid point. The House Rep who decided to omit "under God" from the pledge only did so to further his own personal agenda. As a House Representative he should know better than to make use of a routine daily event to make his point. If he is against the "under God" phrase there are other avenues to get his message across. This is the same type of thinking liberal Democrats have when it comes to laws - they feel they are above them and they themselves have the ability to interpret them. I thought that is what we had the Supreme Court for. This is a clear case of the Legislative Branch (one House Rep in particular) who has overstepped his bounds.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This is the same type of thinking liberal Democrats have when it comes to laws - they feel they are above them and they themselves have the ability to interpret them.
Please don\'t make it sound like only liberals do this. As I recall, a state judge in Alabama took it upon himself to ignore a federal court order to remove a ten commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
Republican-dominated state legislatures have been wasting taxpayer dollars by passing laws they knew were unconstitutional, just to "send a message." For example, Jeb Bush and the Florida state legislature passed a law to prevent a brain-damaged woman from being taken off life support, right after her relatives won that right in a six year court case.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Please don\'t make it sound like only liberals do this. As I recall, a state judge in Alabama took it upon himself to ignore a federal court order to remove a ten commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
Republican-dominated state legislatures have been wasting taxpayer dollars by passing laws they knew were unconstitutional, just to "send a message." For example, Jeb Bush and the Florida state legislature passed a law to prevent a brain-damaged woman from being taken off life support, right after her relatives won that right in a six year court case.
Judge Myron Thompson invoked his own agenda by ruling the commandments had to be removed. The Alabama decision is "states rights" issue. We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. By saying that the state of Alabama can\'t acknowledge God, Judge Myron Thompson single handedly dismanted our state judicial system.
This so-called wall of separation was meant to accomplish one thing, not to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government.
Wasn\'t the brain damaged woman\'s husband behind taking her off of life support and the biological relatives were against it? I think there was more to it than how you are portraying it. How is that unconstitutional anyway?
-
This is exactly what I\'m talking about. When a duly authorized Federal Court renders a decision and issues an order which conservatives disagree with, then the federal judge must have exceeded his authority. However, the Alabama State Justice who ignored the order is blameless for upholding "State\'s rights?" If you want to split hairs regarding what is legal and what is not with regard to the actions of liberals, then you need to apply the same level of scrutiny to the Conservative side as well.
Regarding the other question: The argument goes that the Florida life support law was unconstitutional because it was intended to circumvent the constitutionally defined separation of powers between the Judicial and the Executive branches. The brain damaged woman\'s husband was acting on instructions she gave him verbally before her injury. He was trying to respect her wishes by allowing her to die.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This so-called wall of separation was meant to accomplish one thing, not to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government.
BTW, you didn\'t mention anything about The People in that statement. What about allowing human beings a freedom FROM religion if they so choose?
-
As you know Core, I am not religious at all and being as such I have yet to encounter anything in my adult life that would qualify the need of something in addition to what we have now as law in order to give me "additional" freedom from religion. It seems though that religion is in ever increasing need of protection from government considering what laws are being passed.
There are those that want to abolish religion - here is a quote that will make you happy. ;)
"The first requisite for the people’s happiness is the abolition of religion." - Karl Marx
As far as the "liberal" debate is concerned, the effect that a simple statue would have had on the rest of the country would have been negligible. Tell me where any of the latest Federal Court decisions (marriage and the pledge) are upholding any States rights? California has a law defining marriage - is that not once again overturning a State\'s right? The main difference between liberals and conservatives regarding the Constitution is in our interpretations - I like a strict interpretation, whereas liberals like broad interpretations.
As I have said before our founding fathers were way too ambigious to say which line of thinking is right or wrong. There is no precedence.
I am going to stay away from the whole Florida case, because if I am not mistaken I recall there being something scandalous regarding the motives behind the husbands request to remove the life support - something about he had a girlfriend and wanted to marry her.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
He was only abiding to the constitution ya know.
And, we do not abide to the minority. You know why? because if I wanted to get married to another guy, I cant, if i want to do drugs, I cant, If i wanted to watch porn on normal TV, i cant...
You may not understand what I mean, but it is 100% true. All of those things I mentioned are completley moral issues, and yet all of them are against the law. Therefore the majority is acting as my father, and all i have to say about that is: ****. that.
Sorry about your luck but more are against gay marriage than for it, so thats how it should be ruled. Until your views are the majority it\'ll be this way.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It seems though that religion is in ever increasing need of protection from government considering what laws are being passed.
There are those that want to abolish religion - here is a quote that will make you happy. ;)
"The first requisite for the people’s happiness is the abolition of religion." - Karl Marx
One characteristic that seems to unite all conservatives is a bizarre paranoid hatred of communism. I can quote Daffy Duck on the same subject if you wish, but neither Duck nor Marx is a relevant authority.
I\'m not seeking to abolish religion. :laughing: BUT... as far as I\'m concerned: The day that the US goverment passes a law restricting the ability of US citizens to practice their religion in their own homes, or Churches... THAT is the day when religion will need protection from government. Not before.
Why do individuals who are devout in any religion need to have symbols and language of that religion posted on every visible surface of their environment? Having the ten commandments tablets posted in front of a courthouse implies that those who are of that religion will likely be receiving a higher quality of justice than those who are not. Likewise with the pledge. Children are required to pledge to "One Nation Under God" You don\'t believe in God? Maybe it\'s really OUR nation, and not YOUR nation! What are you doing in our nation? We\'re not used to thinking about it that way because we grew up with it and we were programmed by it. However, an immigrant child coming to the US school system at age 14 might well consider such logic.
BTW, could you rephrase your paragraph that started with "As far as the "liberal" debate is concerned," I didn\'t understand what you meant by that. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
[BWhy do individuals who are devout in any religion need to have symbols and language of that religion posted on every visible surface of their environment? Having the ten commandments tablets posted in front of a courthouse implies that those who are of that religion will likely be receiving a higher quality of justice than those who are not. Likewise with the pledge. Children are required to pledge to "Our Nation Under God" You don\'t believe in God? Maybe it\'s really OUR nation, and not YOUR nation! What are you doing in our nation? We\'re not used to thinking about it that way because we grew up with it and we were programmed by it. However, an immigrant child coming to the US school system at age 14 might well consider such logic.
BTW, could you rephrase your paragraph that started with "As far as the "liberal" debate is concerned," I didn\'t understand what you meant by that. Thanks. [/B]
You know what I meant :D
I have a great disdain for religious zealots... there are way too many of them here in the South, but our country was founded upon Christian ideals and to reject them rejecting our history.
The only reason I am really against removing the words is because I am a sucker for tradition and it seems our country loses a little more of it in each passing year regarding holidays and anything that has to do with God.
Example of Christianity used in the forming of our nation.
"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
Which comes from here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Why do most atheists feel that Christians are attempting to make our government a theocracy? :bs:
Nobody is attempting to make this a country run by a single church. People are attempting to recognize our heritage, and prevent religious tests for offices within the government.
-
Ten commandments in the court house is okay, IF AND ONLY IF you go and get every other recognized religion and represent it in the same court house.
Same with the pledge, same with everything. Might as well put some aethism in the court house too.
Oh, and drugs can be viewed as a moral issue. But your right they are more so a health issue, which raises a whole new argument that ends up at the same point:
My body is my own, if i want to **** it up, let me be.
I am in full support of throwing all of our tradition and history in the shitter if it helps bring us equality.
Sorry about your luck but more are against gay marriage than for it, so thats how it should be ruled. Until your views are the majority it\'ll be this way.
Yes, same can be said for every minority that was the target of genocide, but hey, they are the minority, they had it comming!!!
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Ten commandments in the court house is okay, IF AND ONLY IF you go and get every other recognized religion and represent it in the same court house.
Same with the pledge, same with everything. Might as well put some aethism in the court house too.
Oh, and drugs can be viewed as a moral issue. But your right they are more so a health issue, which raises a whole new argument that ends up at the same point:
My body is my own, if i want to **** it up, let me be.
I am in full support of throwing all of our tradition and history in the shitter if it helps bring us equality.
Yes, same can be said for every minority that was the target of genocide, but hey, they are the minority, they had it comming!!!
:rolleyes: You obviously didn\'t read anything in the previous posts. Every other religion doesn\'t have to be represented because:
Buddhists did not found this nation and our founding fathers were not atheists.
Yes you can do whatever you want to your body, but at what point do you endanger others? You shouldn\'t even be talking about drugs as you can\'t even drink yet. :rolleyes: I can just imagine what a productive adult you will become.
I was into the whole "anarchy is cool" thing when I was your age too and "thought" I knew everything.
-
Oooo, putting many words in my mouth there my friend! a few things:
I do not drink, I do not do drugs, And i do not want to do either. I do NOT believe in anarchy, and I do not think I know everything. kthx.
Buddhists did not found this nation and our founding fathers were not atheists.
Nice observation watson. Do I really have to point out that although our country was founded by christians they believed in equality for ALL religions?
And yes, our laws are based on christian ideals, why? because our society is made up of mostly christians. And those who value christian ideas.
Now a long comes a group of "religion y" as we shall call it for arguments sake. Religion Y has beliefes that they are to be nude in public.
They go about nude, and are arrested. Brought to court, hey, whats here? the ten ****in commandments!!! And the irony is, whether you remove the ten commandments (the noun version) they still exist within our judicial system!!!
And I know you people out there would ****in melt if for just once you were forced to allow other people to think for themsleves, but please, give it a chance, its rewarding!!!
Oh and if you would Like to insult me, please argue my opinion, not my age. Your attack on my credibility would only disprove me, not the opinion/idea.
-
Your age does figure into your little rants that you post, not that all your age post such mindless babble. Try taking some lessons from Coredweller in the "How to debate and sound intelligent while doing so" handbook.
Bozco posted it once, but here is a credibility reminder anyway:
"Also, minoritys ALWAYS get ****ed over by the majority untill by one way or another the majority graduates out of their own mental pre school. That is why democracy sucks ass."
I am still curious as to what form of government you would like that would allow the minority to rule over the majority.
-
Well, democracy itself doesn\'t suck... Our democracy does though. Please pay no attention to my contradiction, it is not important now...
Anyways, democracy can work if the majority are intelligent and set up restrictions on what they can and can not change. For instance: limiting freedoms is bad.
So I guess the answer to your question is "Limited Democracy" Yet unfortunatly the majority would still hold the power of numbers, so perhaps mass re-education is the first step, teaching a completley different view on life.
The first change must be in society, a government doesn\'t mean anything if the people are all against it.
-
No form of government is perfect. Look at communism. It was "perfect" but it collapsed. Democracy was stable but who knows, maybe in 100 years, it will collapse and a new government will take form and that will collapse and etc, etc. The best we can do is to just enjoy what government we have and just look at it for what it is and not worry about the details.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Yes, same can be said for every minority that was the target of genocide, but hey, they are the minority, they had it comming!!!
Were the governments in those situations democracies? Thats apples and oranges.
-
May I have a hand at summing this up? Most our laws are based off tradional Christain values, which are based off the bible. Seperation from church and state is impossible, without a complete reinvention of the US Govement and we all know that will not happen. At most we can hope for is the removal of any religious reference in our American money / pledge and so on. It serves no purpose, other than to keep the bind of church and state.
-
Yes you may, and thankyou LIC for making that into a nice short version. :)
I do indeed know that the social/political change that I want is near impossible, but such a large change must elvove slowly, so we might as well start now.... But yep, LIC has it right, most our social and polticial values are traditional and based off religious values.
-
Ahh back to the topic finally... yes our values are based on Christian values and ideals... though drugs aren\'t a religious issue.
On that note our law which is based on English Common Law is derived from Saxon law which was not Christian.
-
Isn\'t it amazing how I took four pages and condensed it to one paragraph? :)
Seriously though, as someone who is not religious, I do see the need to seperate the chuch from the state. Do we honestly need the ten commandements in our Courts? No, we don\'t. Do we need \'In God we Trust\' on our money? No. It serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to keep that bind secure , someting that doesn\'t need to be binded together. As the so called "land of the free", I see the binding of such as more a forced religious aspect on those who are not Christain or may be Athiest.
As for the drugs, I agree that is not religious, I do however think they should be legal. It should be legal for anyone of the age to drink or smoke, that they can put whatever they want in their bodies, as long as they are not solicting it to a minor. If that person who is on drugs hurts someone, then we have laws in place to deal with that. There is no reason for drugs to be illegal. It\'s an oppression f a person\'s right to do what they will with their body. Not only that, it is hypocritical due to the fact you can smoke and drink, which are equally bad for someone\'s health.
I don\'t care if you want to see it or not, but as American\'s we are losing our rights every day. We are becoming more and more a communist based society, in my humble opinion.
-
I wouldn\'t go so far as to say becomming a more commie society everyday since communism isn\'t that bad in theory but more a communistic dictatorship. Kinda like Cuba.
-
I see a big contradiction here... in one breath some are saying we don\'t have enough separation between church and state and in the next "we are becoming more communist every day"?
Communism supports the absence of God in everything - so how could this be? If we are becoming more like a "communist dictatorship" than surely God would have been striken from the pledge and money long ago.
Please know your "ism\'s" before making blanket statements that are blatantly incorrect.
-
What\'s going on? I think L-I-Cs post is missing...\\
WTF? A few posts just disappeared? :eek:
-
Well it might be a VBB glitch after talking to LIC. I will have to ask mm or Ryu about it. In any case only a few posts are missing and those are the ones that went OT... I was trying to create a State and Religion turned Personal Freedoms thread and move all of the related posts over there while trying to preserve this threads original topic. Sorry :(
EDIT: Ryu found it. It has its own thread. ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I see a big contradiction here... in one breath some are saying we don\'t have enough separation between church and state and in the next "we are becoming more communist every day"?
Communism supports the absence of God in everything - so how could this be? If we are becoming more like a "communist dictatorship" than surely God would have been striken from the pledge and money long ago.
Please know your "ism\'s" before making blanket statements that are blatantly incorrect.
I know my ism\'s quite well thank you anyway though sir smug-alot
I made a comparison of things I feel are slowly headed one way or another.
It doesn\'t seem communistic to you that we are told in instances what is good for us to do, watch, or say in instances?
It wouldn\'t have been stricken if we weren\'t that far no? Just like now we aren\'t that far. As soon as we are told this or that and are screened from this or that...it\'s a step..albeit a small one, but it is.
For gods sake, they don\'t even show clothed tits jiggle on TV anymore!!!!! (some blind date I caught today :) )
-
Originally posted by TSina
I know my ism\'s quite well thank you anyway though sir smug-alot
I made a comparison of things I feel are slowly headed one way or another.
It doesn\'t seem communistic to you that we are told in instances what is good for us to do, watch, or say in instances?
It wouldn\'t have been stricken if we weren\'t that far no? Just like now we aren\'t that far. As soon as we are told this or that and are screened from this or that...it\'s a step..albeit a small one, but it is.
For gods sake, they don\'t even show clothed tits jiggle on TV anymore!!!!! (some blind date I caught today :) )
You are way out of your league PMSina :rolleyes:
I still haven\'t seen you base one opinion of yours on fact. If we were anywhere near being a communist regime, there would be no private business. The state would own everything including property. There would be no churches, there would be no abundance of food, there would be no television or freedom of the press... are you getting my point yet?
I have sat back and given you enough rope to hang yourself in this thread - anyone who knows anything about politics and types of government knows that the US is far from Communist. That has to be one of the stupidest things I have read in this forum. :laughing:
Every government has rules and laws - which for the most part are there to protect its citizens. You only think laws are necessary when they don\'t interfere with your "fun". :rolleyes: It really does help to think before you type. Instead of watching Blind Date - read some books. ;)
-
You just don\'t get it do you.
Just because I make a comparisson about something you always jump to conclude that I mean an exact comparison.
It doesn\'t seem communistic to you that we are told in instances what is good for us to do, watch, or say in instances?
^^^^that is what I asked you and my only comparison.
Probably need to explain this to you as well.
When I said dictator, it was meant in the way a dictator tells you what you should do and is good for you. Before you start jumping to conclusions about what exactly I meant again.
-
Giga is right, we are not near communism.
Perhaps you mean we are closer to totalitarianism? that would be more valid I think.
-
Originally posted by TSina
I wouldn\'t go so far as to say becomming a more commie society everyday since communism isn\'t that bad in theory but more a communistic dictatorship. Kinda like Cuba.
Did you not say the word communism? Twice even! Well three times if you count the word commie. Please don\'t respond - I didn\'t think you could make yourself look worse, but I suppose I was wrong.
Go look up the word totalitarianism.
EDIT: Good one Hamster - you at least know what it is.
-
I know what I said. I do know the difference. I may speak loosely, but I think you are still missing what I have exactly explained to you.
No more, no less.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Wasn\'t the brain damaged woman\'s husband behind taking her off of life support and the biological relatives were against it? I think there was more to it than how you are portraying it. How is that unconstitutional anyway?
A few days later, the answer comes... :)
Judge Voids Law Keeping Fla. Woman Alive (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_5)
TAMPA, Fla. - A law pushed through by Gov. Jeb Bush to keep a severely brain-damaged woman alive was struck down by a Florida judge Thursday in the latest turn in one of the nation\'s longest and bitterest right-to-die cases.
The governor\'s office filed an immediate appeal.
Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled that Terri\'s Law, named after Terri Schiavo, is unconstitutional because it violates the disabled woman\'s right to privacy and delegates legislative power to the governor.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
A few days later, the answer comes... :)
Judge Voids Law Keeping Fla. Woman Alive (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_5)
TAMPA, Fla. - A law pushed through by Gov. Jeb Bush to keep a severely brain-damaged woman alive was struck down by a Florida judge Thursday in the latest turn in one of the nation\'s longest and bitterest right-to-die cases.
The governor\'s office filed an immediate appeal.
Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled that Terri\'s Law, named after Terri Schiavo, is unconstitutional because it violates the disabled woman\'s right to privacy and delegates legislative power to the governor.
I knew it! You didn\'t mention this from the article!
Michael Schiavo is engaged to another woman with whom he has two children. At one point in the case, he stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars from a medical trust fund that paid for his wife\'s care; the money has largely been depleted through legal bills.
I knew there was something not quite normal about this case - this isn\'t a simple right to life case because she left no written instructions AND the guy wants to remarry - not to mention he was going to inherit a ton of money if this all went "smoothly".
-
Originally posted by TSina
I know what I said. I do know the difference. I may speak loosely, but I think you are still missing what I have exactly explained to you.
No more, no less.
Tsina... your village is calling, they want their idiot back. ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I knew there was something not quite normal about this case - this isn\'t a simple right to life case because she left no written instructions AND the guy wants to remarry - not to mention he was going to inherit a ton of money if this all went "smoothly".
I\'ve considered this, and I don\'t think you can really hold the circumstances against him. Everything didn\'t go smoothly, thanks to the woman\'s other relatives who wanted to keep her alive. The medical trust fund was spent on the legal proceedings instead, but that was a private fund, not borne by the state. The only way you could blame the husband is if he was lying when he said his wife had expressed a desire to be taken off life support. We will never know, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the living, not the brain dead.
The real issue is Jeb Bush\'s efforts to block the court decision with this last minute legislative attack. Many people commented that the law was unconstitutional and would probably be overturned. However, he pushed it through to "send a message" of some sort... What the message was, I have no idea, BUT it cost the Florida taxpayers a considerable amount for the constitutional challenge. Now Jeb says he\'s going to appeal, which will cost yet more. What is the point of all this?
Conservatives are supposed to be interesting in "shrinking government" and keeping the government out of individuals lives, right? Wouldn\'t you say Jeb is meddling just a little to much, at the taxpayers\' expense? Let the original court decision stand; don\'t change the rules with a new law when you don\'t like the outcome!
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Tsina... your village is calling, they want their idiot back. ;)
Don\'t say a thing to me about keeping things on topic or insulting others.
Even if I would have made the more correct association, what would you have had to say?
-
He has a smily, its considered either a joke or sarcasm :)
-
The Bible predicted this to happen. Startling but not surprising.
-
Originally posted by Titan
He has a smily, its considered either a joke or sarcasm :)
It might also be considered passive-aggressive. ;)
-
I just consider it a way to "politely" insult someone. I might be new here, but I am not new to message forums. Espescially considering we haven\'t been friendly with each other at all in here.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
The Bible predicted this to happen. Startling but not surprising.
Whoa! the Bible predicted Tsina and I would argue in this forum! Amazing can you please post a link? :rolleyes:
Tsina - the major issue I have with you and your posts is that they try to present your opinion as fact - when nothing could be further from the truth. Your arguements are weak and you have no credible references to back them up. You will learn that in this forum it is wise to back up your statements with links from "credible" websites to support your arguments.
I also find it amusing that you get so easily rattled when faced with a logical opposing view - like the other night for example when you said:
"I\'m simply posting something to spark discussion/debate. Once again, if you don\'t like it, keep your mouth shut untill your moderator duties require you to do so."
AND
"BTW, I\'m not trying to be a bitch now, I\'m just plainly and simply fed up with you."
Which was in response to my post about Reuters not being a great source of unbiased news.
That being said, if you have any further problems with me - PM me and don\'t take a grevience with me onto the forums. I am sure no one else likes to read this sort of nonsense in the middle of a thread.
Core! Back to your last post buddy. Putting the suspicious circumstances aside. There was no written instructions regarding being taken off of life support. I also know if I had a daughter and she was married and in the same situation, the husband wanted to take her off of life support - I would have done everything in my power to prevent it. After all, she would be my child biologically. In a case like this I think the biologicial relative should have a say in what happens to their child. Do you not agree?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Core! Back to your last post buddy. Putting the suspicious circumstances aside. There was no written instructions regarding being taken off of life support. I also know if I had a daughter and she was married and in the same situation, the husband wanted to take her off of life support - I would have done everything in my power to prevent it. After all, she would be my child biologically. In a case like this I think the biologicial relative should have a say in what happens to their child. Do you not agree?
I think it\'s hard for any of us to answer that question if we don\'t have children. (I don\'t). I do know that I would work toward pulling someone off life support if they were brain dead. If it were my child, then yes I might hesitate... but maybe just for selfish reasons. Perhaps then a more impartial person should have the responsibility of the decision. I do believe that when your CPU is cooked, there isn\'t any worthwhile life or recovery beyond that.
Hey this reminds me of that argument over the burn victim! :p But this girl is BRAIN DEAD, not burned! That goes out to the othe party in that thread, I think it was Unicron?
-
I agree if someone is brain dead - why keep them alive, but the parents say they have seen signs of improvement. Whether that is true or just a tactic to keep her "alive" for their own selfish reasons, I do not know.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Whoa! the Bible predicted Tsina and I would argue in this forum! Amazing can you please post a link? :rolleyes:
How do you think I was able to predict the current situation of U.S. in Iraq?
It wasn\'t of my own insight, but from what the Bible says.
Rumsfeld said that he doubts anyone predicted that they would be in the situation they are in today.
The Bible predicted it, and I told everyone what has and will happen. (in the war in Iraq)
Originally posted by Luke
Clowd you still never answered my question.
You talk alot of shit about "whats going to happen next".
when I ask you what your talking about all you say is "You will see".
You do realize that just makes it look even more like you have no idea what your talking about right?
I know, I know, your gonna post something after me with a whole lotta words that really don\'t say much except for "I\'m smart and I know whats going on"
You guy\'s wanna know the truth?
well... None of us really have ANY clue as to whats really going on. Think about what you hear on the news, or read in the newspaper and then realize that there is probably sooooo much stuff being kept from us that we can ramble and ramble and ramble on and if someone were to come in here and read this shit and ACTUALLY KNOW what\'s going on they would laugh and say we have no clue what were talking about... It\'s still good fun though.
Clowd... As much as you THINK you know what\'s going on, you don\'t. But that holds true to everybody.
Give me something other than "I\'ll kick all your asses"
or
"you will see"
Maybe then I\'ll take you a little more seriously... Then again maybe not.
Man, nevermind... I don\'t even care anymore.
Too much coffee this morning.[/i]
Luke your answer is that I have found that all this was in the Bible and I simply stated it to you.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
The Bible predicted this to happen. Startling but not surprising.
And how do you figure this happened?