quote Originally posted by fierobear: Show us where in the constitution it says that (hint...it is NOT in the first amendment).

No , but the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The original wording "Sepeartion of Church and State" came from T. Jefferson in the early 1800s, and it was repeatedly attempted to make an amendment to the constitution, as Jefferson's words were referred to several times in judicial cases. in the late 1800s. t never became an amendment, but enforced only later as a judicial fiat in the mid 20th century, the spirit of which DOES reside in the First Amendment.

Splitting hairs, is what I call it. There shall be no law respecting and establishment of religion.. thus the state and church are seperated.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: No , but the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Right. There's no "but" about it. If the government is forcing people to remove religious symbols, that is prohibiting the "free exercise thereof". It does NOT prohibit people from religious displays, and it DOES prevent Congress from interfering with those rights.

Establishment Clause

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Right. There's no "but" about it. If the government is forcing people to remove religious symbols, that is prohibiting the "free exercise thereof". It does NOT prohibit people from religious displays, and it DOES prevent Congress from interfering with those rights.

I dont think we disagree on this. Thats why the "ground zero mosque" has every right to exist, regardless of what every bigot says about it. The governement shall not adopt a state religion, nor stop others from privately practicing theirs.

I have no problem with religious displays, provided its on private property. If tax dollars are involved in its creation, or if its on public property, that does not jive with the 1st ammendment. At least by my interpretation.

I'm not worried about Perry or Bachman's supposed secret religious agendas, the 1st ammendment will nip that in the bud, but its a shame the courts will have to "sort it out" on taxpayer money because some religious extremist will try to push the envelope once in office.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I dont think we disagree on this. Thats why the "ground zero mosque" has every right to exist, regardless of what every bigot says about it. The governement shall not adopt a state religion, nor stop others from privately practicing theirs.

There is no question that Muslims have a *right* to build a Mosque wherever they'd like. That's not the issue. It's a matter of good taste. Putting one there could be considered *insulting* to the community.

quote I have no problem with religious displays, provided its on private property. If tax dollars are involved in its creation, or if its on public property, that does not jive with the 1st ammendment. At least by my interpretation.

Tax dollars, no. Public property, questionable. The question is simply - is the Congress establishing religion? Remember, the First Amendment restriction is on CONGRESS (and, by extension, the federal government) establishing religion and/or creating a "state religion", in that case?

quote I'm not worried about Perry or Bachman's supposed secret religious agendas, the 1st ammendment will nip that in the bud, but its a shame the courts will have to "sort it out" on taxpayer money because some religious extremist will try to push the envelope once in office.

There may be the general concept of "separation of church and state" (which is a general principle, NOT any Constitutional right or restriction), but what about the "separation of church and *person*"? To a religious person, their beliefs are a part of who they are, just like any principle you feel strongly about is part of *your* person. How far must a public servant go in removing their personal views from policy, when we elect people to represent us?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There may be the general concept of "separation of church and state" (which is a general principle, NOT any Constitutional right or restriction), but what about the "separation of church and *person*"? To a religious person, their beliefs are a part of who they are, just like any principle you feel strongly about is part of *your* person. How far must a public servant go in removing their personal views from policy, when we elect people to represent us?

Ooooh... you really DO want to talk.

Ok.. now this is only opinion, mind you, but it is my belief when you are the leader of a country, that your responsibilty to self is going to have to be set on the backburner. You do not remove your beliefs in religion, but you also certainly dont pursue a religious agenda that does not gel with constitutional rights.

For example, Bachman is anti gay and anti gay marriage , anti p0rn. Thats fine for her personal beliefs, but it is not illegal to be gay, and gay marriage is a threat to noone but the most insecure and religiously intolerant.. Its also not a crime to view or create p0rn, provided it is consenting adult p0rn. She wants to outlaw all forms of p0rn, even thought it is protected as freedom of expression under the first ammendment. I think anything like that would never wash in the courts anyhow, but she is taking her religious beliefs and tryin to effect law with them. That is wandering into the realm of adopting at least elements of state sponsored religious beliefs.As well as making taxpayer dollars sort it out in the courts.

I already believe the "marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman" to be too firmly seated in religious tradition enforced by Congress , and not based on intellectual reason, and as such, already a violation of the first ammendment.

I have said it many times, we dont NEED new laws, we have a ton. Every time a politician says they are gonna outlaw this or that as a campaign promise, I groan.

I am actually pro-p0rno. I dont watch it all day, but its my right to do so. Now, a person comes along and tells me they are going to try hard to make it illegal...well, that is pushing the envelope as I define it. There are no victims, those people are volunteers and get paid. Its not a crime, but she wants to make it one. Thats going too far into the realm of making your religious beliefs law, and trying to get congress to establish religious rules as law. So, IMHO, very close to congress establishing at least elements of a religion, yes. She would do great in the middle east where theocracies are more prevalent, but here, p0rno is constitutionally protected, as long as it is not kiddie p0rn.

Religious belief is up to an individual to adhere to or not... but not to be forced on anyone else to observe or practice. Thats when we stop being a "free country"... hell, we aren't already, but her agenda certainly won't make it any free-er.

On top of that, outlawing these two things will have an economic impact. Are we not supposed to be growing our economy, is that not the complaint about the other guy right now? P0rn is a thriving business, that tax revenue would disappear if made illegal.. worse, there owuld be a black market and no tax revenue on it at all. That wont help pay off the deficit or the debt. Likewise with Gay Marriage, that is actually exploding, business wise, in the place it is now legal. Do we remove the ability to earn tax dollars on wedding services because of one small group's moral objection? And I am willing to bet the same group of people are all too willing to make any kind of ecological/environmental mess in the name of industry. Its ok to turn our planet into a dump, but not okay to marry the person you love? Or record a biological function that stimulates arousal, and can even be a marital aid?

Ehh thats all I got.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Ok.. now this is only opinion, mind you, but it is my belief when you are the leader of a country, that your responsibilty to self is going to have to be set on the backburner. You do not remove your beliefs in religion, but you also certainly dont pursue a religious agenda that does not gel with constitutional rights. [quote]For example, Bachman is anti gay and anti gay marriage , anti p0rn. Thats fine for her personal beliefs, but it is not illegal to be gay, and gay marriage is a threat to noone but the most insecure and religiously intolerant.. Its also not a crime to view or create p0rn, provided it is consenting adult p0rn. She wants to outlaw all forms of p0rn, even thought it is protected as freedom of expression under the first ammendment. I think anything like that would never wash in the courts anyhow, but she is taking her religious beliefs and tryin to effect law with them. That is wandering into the realm of adopting at least elements of state sponsored religious beliefs.As well as making taxpayer dollars sort it out in the courts.

For the Bachmann example, it depends on the extent of "anti-gay". It is only an issue if she wants to pass a law making being gay illegal. I disagree with a law that would ban "gay marriage", or at least a "civil union" ("marriage" being possibly defined as a religious term).

As far as pr0n, when has she said she wants to pass a law making pr0n illegal?

quote I already believe the "marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman" to be too firmly seated in religious tradition enforced by Congress , and not based on intellectual reason, and as such, already a violation of the first ammendment.

That might be solved by making "civil unions", which would carry the same rights as "marriage", in U.S. law regarding marriages/unions.

I don't see how this falls under the First Amendment, however. Defining marriage may or may not be considered in violation of the Establishment Clause, because marriage is not necessarily a religious thing (as of now). It might be, if we split the issue into marriage versus civil unions.

quote I am actually pro-p0rno. I dont watch it all day, but its my right to do so. Now, a person comes along and tells me they are going to try hard to make it illegal...well, that is pushing the envelope as I define it. There are no victims, those people are volunteers and get paid. Its not a crime, but she wants to make it one. Thats going too far into the realm of making your religious beliefs law, and trying to get congress to establish religious rules as law. So, IMHO, very close to congress establishing at least elements of a religion, yes. She would do great in the middle east where theocracies are more prevalent, but here, p0rno is constitutionally protected, as long as it is not kiddie p0rn.

Again, show me a statement where Bachmann would make pr0n illegal. I haven't heard or read that. And you are correct, politicians don't have a right to make it illegal (adult pr0n).

quote Religious belief is up to an individual to adhere to or not... but not to be forced on anyone else to observe or practice. Thats when we stop being a "free country"... hell, we aren't already, but her agenda certainly won't make it any free-er.

If Bachmann or anyone else were to force people to church, or pass very religious-specific laws, then yes. But wanting to pass laws that are based on a person's ideology is done all the time.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Again, show me a statement where Bachmann would make pr0n illegal. I haven't heard or read that. And you are correct, politicians don't have a right to make it illegal (adult pr0n).

Yeah tbone, show us that statement...or any maybe any statement about a controversial subject (like say Gay Marriage) that tea party politicians will answer directly.

Anyone esle see O'Donnell walk off the set of Piers Morgan the other night when asked a tough question?

quote Newf asked Yeah tbone, show us that statement...or any maybe any statement about a controversial subject (like say Gay Marriage) that tea party politicians will answer directly.

Actions, not words.

quote ..Michele Bachmann's 'disturbing' anti-**** pledge The GOP presidential hopeful is the first candidate to sign an Iowa group's controversial "Marriage Vow" The Family Leader, one of Iowa's most influential social conservative organizations, says that in order to receive the group's endorsement, GOP presidential candidates must sign a 14-point pledge affirming a commitment to traditional marriage. By signing the pledge, called The Marriage Vow, a candidate agrees to remain faithful to his or her partner, oppose gay marriage, reject pornography, reject Islamic Sharia law, and uphold the assertion that married couples have better sex, among other things. Michele Bachmann has already signed it. How will this affect her campaign? Here, a brief guide: Bachmann is banning **** ? Well, not exactly. According to Vow 9, the Minnesota congresswoman is pledging to protect women and children from "all forms of pornography." As Justin Elliott at Salon notes, this could certainly be read as effectively being "a **** ban." And that's problematic, says Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, because **** is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and only the most "patently offensive" material may be banned outright. "Our Constitution does not leave this choice up to the whims of government officials." What does the pledge say about homosexuality? According to the pledge, homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. Same-sex marriage is classified alongside polygamy and adultery as a threat to the institution of marriage. That stance is quite "disturbing," says Instinct. What's the most controversial aspect of the pledge? The anti-**** language may be winning the most headlines, but perhaps the biggest outcry is over an aspect of the pledge that states a child born into slavery was "more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household" than one born after the election of President Obama. The anti-Sharia language is also being met with howls of outrage on the Left. Will this hurt her campaign? While it might hurt her in a general election, it could actually help in Iowa. Some of the basic themes in The Marriage Vow may ring true to many Bachmann supporters, and the social conservatives who will decide the critical first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, says Ron Chusid at Liberal Values. Indeed, many on the Right are already applauding the Tea Party favorite. "Bachmann nails it" with this anti-Sharia pledge, says Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs. "Finally, a candidate who isn't afraid to say A is A." Certainly, the congresswoman "had no qualms" about signing the pledge, says Bachmann aide Alice Stewart. Will anyone else sign? Republican candidates are in a tough spot, says Alex Roarty at National Journal. The pledge is rife with widely "unpopular stands on cultural issues," but a failure to sign would potentially anger a "still-important bloc of social conservatives in Iowa." The tough anti-Sharia language may be too much for Mitt Romney, says Tim Murphy at Mother Jones, especially after he defended American Muslims at June's New Hampshire debate. The pledge also creates an "acute dilemma" for Tim Pawlenty, says Roarty at National Journal, since he's pledged to make campaigning in Iowa a major part of his strategy. But he risks angering the establishment if he signs this pledge, and grassroots activists in Iowa if he fails to sign. A spokesman for moderate Jon Hunstman says the candidate will not sign this — or any — pledge. Rick Santorum signed the pledge late Friday afternoon.

http://news.yahoo.com/miche...disturbing-anti-**** -pledge-165500169.html

quote Bachmann Signs Anti-**** Pledge Saying Blacks Were Better Off During Slavery Michele Bachmann, it will not shock you to learn, is the first Republican candidate to sign a pledge to be the most socially conservative candidate to walk the plains of Iowa. The document itself is a thing of beauty. As an artifact of the current socially conservative philosophy, the tenets are nothing new — anti-gay, anti-choice, obsessed with sexual mores — but it's notable in its pseudo-feminist language and bizarre references to science. A casual observer might accidentally mistake it for something other than bigotry. Think Progress points out that the pledge includes an anti-pornography call; we'd add that it lumps it in with sex slavery, trafficking, and abortion under "humane protection for women and the innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy." With this, and all the talk of "stolen innocence," and the conflation of women in combat roles with sexual exploitation and sexual harassment with Don't Ask Don't Tell (really), women are given roughly the same amount of agency as embryos. Speaking of biology, look who's anti-science now! You are, gays who were born this way. Jack and Jill Politics also points out the creepy and racist language about African American families: Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President. "Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive," writes Cheryl Contee. Surely we can blame this on the gays.

http://jezebel.com/5819322/...mann-signs-anti+**** -pledge-saying-blacks-were-better-off-during-slavery

Not exactly SAID, but, the ban is just the next logical step in her signing the 14 point commitment to traditional marriage. She wants to protect children from viewing, I am ALL FOR THAT. Unfortunately, there are already laws on the books for that. She will want to take it a step further, and just because her utterances never said "I want to ban p0rn" it is not hard to folow the bouncing ball on that.

quote Bear asked There is no question that Muslims have a *right* to build a Mosque wherever they'd like. That's not the issue. It's a matter of good taste. Putting one there could be considered *insulting* to the community.

quote That might be solved by making "civil unions", which would carry the same rights as "marriage", in U.S. law regarding marriages/unions.

Good points Bear... I agree that it could be construed by some as disrespectful, but it IS 6 blocks away. So as I said, its completely protected by the first ammendment, if some want to get panties bunched about it, they need to change the law. Otherwise, complaint is futile.

I like your idea about making Civil Unions the term for non-traditional marriages, but the only problem I see there is the unwillingness of hospitals, insurance companies, etc. to accept and extend the same proveldges extended to a man and woman who are married, such as visitation of a sick "spouse" or insurance coverage.

Sharia Law, eh? niiiice.....

------------------

1985 Fiero SE - Plain Red 3.1 V6 Coupe
Engle18Cam DIS 4.10-4spd 7730 WCF Long Tubes Borla
D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

An email I received. I figured this was as good a place as any to post it.

quote "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. 'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?' 'Yes sir,' the student says. 'So you believe in God?' 'Absolutely ' 'Is God good?' 'Sure! God's good.' 'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?' 'Yes' 'Are you good or evil?' 'The Bible says I'm evil.' The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?' 'Yes sir, I would.' 'So you're good...!' 'I wouldn't say that.' 'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.' The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?' The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?' 'Er..yes,' the student says. 'Is Satan good?' The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.' 'Then where does Satan come from?' The student falters. 'From God' 'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?' 'Yes' 'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.' Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?' The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.' 'So who created them?' The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?' The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do..' The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?' 'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?' 'No, sir, I have not.' 'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?' 'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.' 'Yet you still believe in him?' 'Yes' 'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?' 'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.' 'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.' The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? ' 'Yes. 'And is there such a thing as cold?' 'Yes, son, there's cold too.' 'No sir, there isn't.' The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.' Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. 'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?' 'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?' 'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?' The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?' 'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.' The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?' 'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains... 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?' 'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.' 'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?' The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed. 'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?' The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?' Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.' 'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.' To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.' The professor sat down.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: Any "church" having a direct and profound influence of governance makes me very, very nervous. Even if it's the "church" I affiliate with.

I agree, but as somebody else pointed out, those "deep" connections have yet to be proven. Either way, I'm not impressed with either of these two candidates. Who else do the Republicans have besides a lady that thinks Elvis was born on August 16th and a guy who received a bunch of C's and D's in college?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Bachmann is banning **** ? Well, not exactly. According to Vow 9, the Minnesota congresswoman is pledging to protect women and children from "all forms of pornography." As Justin Elliott at Salon notes, this could certainly be read as effectively being "a **** ban." And that's problematic, says Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, because **** is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and only the most "patently offensive" material may be banned outright. "Our Constitution does not leave this choice up to the whims of government officials."

"Not exactly". Yup. Plus, the analysis being done on this is by Salon and Think Progress, both leftist sites. It is at least *possible* they are taking the interpretation to the extreme, and/or are looking through the lens of partisanship.

I appreciate you posting the source material. I think they are stretching it for partisan purposes.

quote Good points Bear... I agree that it could be construed by some as disrespectful, but it IS 6 blocks away. So as I said, its completely protected by the first ammendment, if some want to get panties bunched about it, they need to change the law. Otherwise, complaint is futile.

I disagree that complaint is futile. Just people protesting and stating their opinion.

quote I like your idea about making Civil Unions the term for non-traditional marriages, but the only problem I see there is the unwillingness of hospitals, insurance companies, etc. to accept and extend the same proveldges extended to a man and woman who are married, such as visitation of a sick "spouse" or insurance coverage.

Well, I left out the other part of my idea. Make two different ways for a couple to be "joined" - Marriage, which is for the religious/churches, and "civil unions", which are secular-justice of the peace unions. Pass a federal law that says both are to have EQUAL rights in all cases, including visitation and insurance (and so on). That might be a states rights issue, but my thinking is that with our mobile, nation-wide society, what happens to a couple in a union that is from California or New York, but they get a transfer to a state without civil unions? Do they lose the rights just mentioned?

A Christian Plot for Domination?
A Communist Plot for Domination?
A Nazi Plot for Domination?
A Japanese Plot for Domination?
A Muslim Plot for Domination?
A Roman Plot for Domination?
A Carthagenean Plot for Domination?
A Egyptian Plot for Domination?
A Aztec Plot for Domination?
A PFF Plot for Domination?
yada yada yada

quote Originally posted by Toddster: A PFF Plot for Domination?

Blast foiled again!!