quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: Has anyone actually asked their kids or someone elses what they honestly think? I recited the Pledge every morning in school all the way through 8th grade, and at no point did I ever care whether it was said or not. In fact, I was usually happy we said it cause it was that much more time we didn't have to spend learning anything, especially in middle school when we had class periods that were only an hour, hour and a half long or so anyway. Actually, I started to dislike it in 8th grade, cause I had woodshop 2nd period and it was cutting into my class time. So I challenge every one of you: Go ask your kids, your neighbors kids, whoever's kids if they honestly care whether or not they say the Pledge every morning. No pressuring them, just ask if they would miss it. I'll bet dimes to dollars that most really don't care either way. This isn't the 50s, patriotism isn't running rampant like back then. Most kids just say the Pledge cause thats what you do. They don't get all warm and fuzzy inside, they just say it. So if they don't care about it and don't mean it, why are you forcing them to say it everyday?

I'm still waiting.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Understood, thanks. It still didn't help them not to fall, though.

True. that would qualify as bad leadership but a rogue band of huns pretty much did them in.

About the only difference (and a very critical one at that) between the Roman empire and the US government is the Constitution.

Alittle OT but....
If you compair the US to Rome you will begin to see an interesting pattern of history being replayed. In short the huns (much like al-quiedas) method of terrorism was very simple. The Huns demanded tribute, Rome usually paid but when Rome refused or fell short (because they simply didn't have it even after raising taxes on it's citizens) the huns sacked a few cities and took it. Eventually it blead the empire to death financially.

200billion dollars...... thats alot of money.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: If you compair the US to Rome you will begin to see an interesting pattern of history being replayed. In short the huns (much like al-quiedas) method of terrorism was very simple. The Huns demanded tribute, Rome usually paid but when Rome refused or fell short (because they simply didn't have it even after raising taxes on it's citizens) the huns sacked a few cities and took it. Eventually it blead the empire to death financially. 200billion dollars...... thats alot of money.

I've heard that a major factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire was out of control taxation. They bled the populace to death, financially.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I've heard that a major factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire was out of control taxation. They bled the populace to death, financially.

They had to in order to pay the tribute to the huns. The empire could no longer pay their conscripts to defend the empire. Eventually those armys turned and marched on Rome. I'm not trying to say the Iraqi army / police or al-quieda for that matter will march on DC but without American influence (money training, money, weapons, money, etc.) in the region they will eventually turn on the Iraqi government and overthorw it. Those people are muslim before anything else, the different religious factions will never go away and therefore will always fight eachother for power.

So as long as we are in the region "occupying it" we will forever be fighting "al-quieda". Though we don't pay a tribute to them directly, we do pay a hell of alot of money to fight them and it's very similar to what Rome went through trying to keep the huns from invaiding.

In short, our "resolve" will have to span several generations and the check will have many commas and zeros. Wheres that mony going to come from?? Raise taxes maybe? ........... Bled to death.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I've heard that a major factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire was out of control taxation. They bled the populace to death, financially.

major factor in the end of the empire was the christians
pagon rome did fine
once the christians took over it quickly fell
most of the christians refused to fight or even join the army
source Gibbon's "decline and fall of the roman empire"

it wasnot so much the taxes as how they were spent to hire outside warrors
who learned the roman battle teck and later used it against them

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Found those posts of mine where I say I'm a communist or socialist yet there, Fierobear? Or some other factual evidence to sustain your continual assertations that I'm one or the other? JazzMan

I doing research, I came across some material from David Horowitz, who is a former Leftist and Communist. This article that he wrote gives a good insight into why I say that the Democratic party has communist/Marxist underpinnings. I consider him to be a reliable source, since he was on the inside, with Americans who, at the very least, embrace communist ideals.

There is more material out there that I'm checking, but it's really depressing. I expect you to deny and dismiss all this, because you wouldn't admit that you have philosophical leanings in that direction, no matter what proof I'd post. I'll just have to be content to counter your political postings with an opposing viewpoint.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I doing research, I came across some material from David Horowitz, who is a former Leftist and Communist. This article that he wrote gives a good insight into why I say that the Democratic party has communist/Marxist underpinnings. I consider him to be a reliable source, since he was on the inside, with Americans who, at the very least, embrace communist ideals. There is more material out there that I'm checking, but it's really depressing. I expect you to deny and dismiss all this, because you wouldn't admit that you have philosophical leanings in that direction, no matter what proof I'd post. I'll just have to be content to counter your political postings with an opposing viewpoint.

Wow, he ignores all the basic fact and twists arguements there. A former communist turned right winger. After reading what he wrote I wouldn't call him a reliable source. Interesting that while there was the mandate for Saddam to disarm and we invaded to enforce that... he already had and was telling the truth. If this isn't true show me the WMDs. The people welcomed us with open arms and dancing... in some areas, the rest are still fighting a guerilla war utilizing suicide bombers and roadside bombs along with small arms fire. The Republican Guard didn't defend him.... I don't think I believe that actually. We wiped out something like 3-5 Battalions at the airport outside Bagdad according to the news at the time before even putting troops in there. Hard to fight with dead people, no numbers given as to if we killed thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of troops.

Oh, then he makes a grand sweeping statement that not one person on the left disagrees with a statement that he takes as wanting US troops dead. Partisan? You decide...

But back to Jazzman's question, what does this have to do with HIS views?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Wow, he ignores all the basic fact and twists arguements there. A former communist turned right winger. After reading what he wrote I wouldn't call him a reliable source.

Well, since, I'm guessing, that you disagree with his basic premise, then of course you'd dismiss what he says.

quote Interesting that while there was the mandate for Saddam to disarm and we invaded to enforce that... he already had and was telling the truth. If this isn't true show me the WMDs. The people welcomed us with open arms and dancing... in some areas, the rest are still fighting a guerilla war utilizing suicide bombers and roadside bombs along with small arms fire. The Republican Guard didn't defend him.... I don't think I believe that actually. We wiped out something like 3-5 Battalions at the airport outside Bagdad according to the news at the time before even putting troops in there. Hard to fight with dead people, no numbers given as to if we killed thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of troops.

The article was written in 2003, before the insurgency. Iraq wasn't the subject I was most interested in, it was the communist influence into the Democratic party. That's why the Democrats have been losing elections, especially Kerry. They've gotten too far left and too extreme for most voters. Don't believe me? Just look at recent election results.

quote Oh, then he makes a grand sweeping statement that not one person on the left disagrees with a statement that he takes as wanting US troops dead. Partisan? You decide...

It still doesn't invalidate the basic idea of communist and/or socialist ideals being pushed by Democrats. Stop nitpicking, and look at the big picture.

quote But back to Jazzman's question, what does this have to do with HIS views?

Because when I was reading this stuff, the puzzle pieces began falling into place. I'd heard about Horowitz' writing, but hadn't read any yet. The more I read from him, the more the Democrats actions make sense (in the context of their underlying influences). JazzMan's political ideology, reflected in his posts, fall right in line with what Horowitz is saying. It's like being in a dark room, feeling what you think might be an elephant. You're pretty sure you are standing next to an elephant, then someone turns the light on.

I think this idea can be applied to the Pledge.

I happened to agree with Mr. Paul on this--

>> Paul Harvey says:
>
> I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue
> somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I
> don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a
> lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory
> of evolution.
>
> Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be
> endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer
> before a football game.
>
> So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
> reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a
> God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the
> players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
>
> "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
>
> Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country
> founded on Christian principles. According to our very
> own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others
> better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody
> chanting Hare Krishna?
>
> If I went to a football game in Jerusalem,
> I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
>
>
> If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
> I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
>
>
> If I went to a ping pong match in China,
> I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
>
>
> And I wouldn't be offended.
> It wouldn't bother me one bit.
> When in Rome ..
>
> "But what about the atheists?" is another argument.
>
> What about them?
> Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to
> pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If
> that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear
> plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand.
> Call your lawyer!
>
> Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or
> two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
> I don't think a short prayer at a football game is
> going to shake the world's foundations.
>
> Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other
> cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our
> parents and grandparents taught us to pray before
> eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
>
> Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
> handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
> to cease praying.
>
> God, help us.
> And if that last sentence offe nds you,
> well ... just sue me.
>
> The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that
>one or two who scream loud enough to be heard
> .... that the vast majority don't care what they want. It
> is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't
> have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance;
> you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
> honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your
> right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our
> rights away. We are fighting back ..
> and we WILL WIN!
>
> God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce
> Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still
> the greatest nation of all.
>
> God bless our service men who are fighting to protect
> our right to pray a nd worship God.
>
>
> May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard
> and we put God back as the foundation of our
> families and institutions.

quote Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Wrong, wrong-wrong wrong-wrong. They are telling you to quit using a government institution to pray out loud. Pray silently as much as you want, whenever and wherever you want. Pray out loud in church, your home, or in public. Just don't use government-sponsered events or places as your pulpit.

IOW, Shut Up.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Wrong, wrong-wrong wrong-wrong. They are telling you to quit using a government institution to pray out loud. Pray silently as much as you want, whenever and wherever you want. Pray out loud in church, your home, or in public. Just don't use government-sponsered events or places as your pulpit.

Along the same lines, I never could understand the reason for the national anthem to be played before a sporting event. (Yes, we do this in Canada as well.) Let's just get the game going, drop that puck!

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Wrong, wrong-wrong wrong-wrong. They are telling you to quit using a government institution to pray out loud. Pray silently as much as you want, whenever and wherever you want. Pray out loud in church, your home, or in public. Just don't use government-sponsered events or places as your pulpit.

I think Paul addressed your "Wrong, wrong-wrong wrong-wrong" below--

quote Originally posted by Butter: > > Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be > endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer > before a football game. > > So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there > reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a > God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the > players on the field and the fans going home from the game. > > "But what about the atheists?" is another argument. > > What about them? > Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to > pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If > that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear > plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. > Call your lawyer!

I did not post this to argue a point of law but rather to make a point of reason. The point is "are you gonna keep letting the minority make the rules for the majority".

Are you gonna let the one person rock the boat till it capsizes and we all drown?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: IOW, Shut Up. John Stricker

Thank you.
(won't happen, unfortunately.)

quote Originally posted by Butter: I did not post this to argue a point of law but rather to make a point of reason. The point is "are you gonna keep letting the minority make the rules for the majority".

If the minority is wanting to infringe upon the rights of the majority, no I would not. Just like I won't let the majority make rules that infringe upon the rights of the majority. If the minority is wanting the majority to quit shoving the majority's beliefs down the minorities throat, then yes, I will let the minority "make the rules".

Just to forstall a possible argument, the minority is not infringing on your rights. You have the right to pray in public, in private, in church, at home, silently or out loud. But you do not have the right to use government sponsered places or things to make others listen to your prayers.

quote Are you gonna let the one person rock the boat till it capsizes and we all drown?

How does this relate to the use of "under God" in the Pledge? Are you saying that not officially sponsering God is going to be the downfall of the US?

Edit: Regarding the "It is only 30 seconds" argument. Why should someone who doesn't believe in your religion be required to listen to any of it? What is the time limit where it becomes unacceptable? And does a Wiccan get the same 30 seconds to expound her beliefs?

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 09-19-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Butter: I did not post this to argue a point of law but rather to make a point of reason. The point is "are you gonna keep letting the minority make the rules for the majority". Are you gonna let the one person rock the boat till it capsizes and we all drown?

Your argument is apples to oranges. BTW the following comment cuts both ways"Are you gonna let the one person rock the boat till it capsizes and we all drown?"

quote Originally posted by Butter: >> Paul Harvey says: > Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be > endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer > before a football game.

The reverse is also true.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because you DON'T say a 30 second prayer before a football game.

But that's not the argument here. The only reason the pledge is an issue here is because Congress passed a law adding the "under God" reference and that reciting the pledge is being led in our public schools.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: And I think you don't have the slightest idea about me or my beliefs and should try to crawl down off that cross you seem to think everyone that doesn't think exactly like you is trying to crucify you on. With you, any disagreement whatsoever is "tearing you down". I debate using logic and reason, which you have no answer for since your liberalism is based on emotion and feelings. Sometimes the logical thing, and even the practical thing, doesn't make you feel very good. Welcome to being an adult. John Stricker

Oh, your excellent writing skills have wounded me again.... wait... no, just gas.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Better no government than a secular government that respects all religions by not imposing any religion, eh? JazzMan

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. I think a secular government is a good idea. I'm not a fan of anarchy or theocracies.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: How does this relate to the use of "under God" in the Pledge? Are you saying that not officially sponsering God is going to be the downfall of the US? Edit: Regarding the "It is only 30 seconds" argument. Why should someone who doesn't believe in your religion be required to listen to any of it? What is the time limit where it becomes unacceptable? And does a Wiccan get the same 30 seconds to expound her beliefs?

I think Shiite and Sunni Islamists should have the right to lead prayers at federal taxpayer expense myself. Equal time, 50-50.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Oh, so all this time that you've been calling me a communist was based on an article of someone else who claims that Democrats are communists? Just because I vote Democrat (BTW, not now nor ever have been the member of any Democratic party, not local, not state, not any) that's all that's needed for you to continue calling me a communist?

Nope. I'm just looking for the supporting data, and that was one piece to the puzzle. It doesn't matter to me what party you belong to, your politics falls in line with Socialist and Communist ideals, at least in part.

quote Man, that is so stupid, even for you fierobear.

Only if you employ and narrow-minded, absolute interpretation. It's what I've come to expect from you.

quote In your shrunken, warped little world everything is reduced to "Democrat=Communist", that's all life is for you.

Nope. But, if you do the research, and stop expecting the government to be your savior, you might learn something.

quote I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or be disappointed in you. JazzMan

I really don't care either way. You're the one that has bought into this "nanny state" crap. I can only hope, for your sake, that you don't get all the government that you're wishing for. You may end up being surprised.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I think Shiite and Sunni Islamists should have the right to lead prayers at federal taxpayer expense myself. Equal time, 50-50. JazzMan

Allah Bless America

I got no problems with that statement, Bill. We can use all the blessings we can get.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Allah Bless America

quote Originally posted by jstricker: When did the US become 50-50 Shiite and Sunni? Here's a thought, we all just take turns. Everyone gets a night and a game. See, now everyone's happy. Oh, wait, no, that won't shut up the whiney minority now will it? John Stricker

Actually, that wouldn't shut up the Christian majority. In cases where other religions have asked for equal time, the Christians have consistantly balked about why THEY should have to allow it. Christians, as a group, consider it a taking away of their rights if any non-Christian group is allowed equal time.

IMO, the only fair system, and the one the fouding fathers intended, is a secular government.

I didn't say equal, I said take turns, as in proportional. For instance, there was an example given in one of these posts where a Wiccan believer wanted to say a Wiccan prayer before a town council meeting. Cool by me. Each meeting, a different member gets to give the invocation. If they don't want any invocation, then straight to business (in the case of an atheist). If a satanist wants to pray to the dark lord, hey, it's their turn.

But you know what will happen? The atheists will scream bloody murder that they HAVE to listen to a prayer. The christians will be outraged. It will go to court. There will be no invocation. More's the pity.

Is this too simple a solution for people to grasp?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Actually, that wouldn't shut up the Christian majority. In cases where other religions have asked for equal time, the Christians have consistantly balked about why THEY should have to allow it. Christians, as a group, consider it a taking away of their rights if any non-Christian group is allowed equal time. IMO, the only fair system, and the one the fouding fathers intended, is a secular government.

Well way back in highschool, we wanted a satanist club, you know, to see if we could.. Yup, guess who was screaming bloody murder that we couldn't do that, as they weren't down with it?

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: Well way back in highschool, we wanted a satanist club, you know, to see if we could.. Yup, guess who was screaming bloody murder that we couldn't do that, as they weren't down with it?

Even better. When I was in High School, there was a blacks only group called "Ebony Unique." (back then you could still say the word "black"). A group of white students started a group called "Ivory Unique."

Guess how long THAT lasted before the school board told them their racist group had to be disbanded.

Meanwhile, Ebony Unique was sponsored by the school system to "promote ethnic pride."

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: You have the right to pray in public, in private, in church, at home, silently or out loud. But you do not have the right to use government sponsered places or things to make others listen to your prayers.

"government sponsered places or things " Isn't that a public place or thing? Sounds contradictory to me!

"make others listen to your prayers" Sure you may hear it but NO ONE is MAKING you LISTEN or abide by what was said!!

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: How does this relate to the use of "under God" in the Pledge? Are you saying that not officially sponsering God is going to be the downfall of the US? Edit: Regarding the "It is only 30 seconds" argument. Why should someone who doesn't believe in your religion be required to listen to any of it? What is the time limit where it becomes unacceptable? And does a Wiccan get the same 30 seconds to expound her beliefs?

The country was founded on Christian beliefs and this "under God" was an addition by Congress as I understand it. I'm not saying it, you did, but many believe that. For the record I do believe it too.

Why?? The coutry was founded on Christian beliefs. The atheist that I know don't want their children getting hurt in any sporting events just like the Christian.

Most folks don't want to hear a sermon inplace of a prayer.

The country wasn't founded on Wiccan beliefs. But they are still afforded the oppurtunity to pray just as I am. Yes I have seen 2 different prayers take place (by different denominations) at one sporting event.

Now for some other beliefs of mine on the subject.
Since this country was founded on Christian beliefs I believe the interpreters of our laws should take a view from that point. It appears the least group of all kicks up the most over our laws concerning Christian practices around government property. The atheist! Its no wonder why they don't understand. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and they don't believe there is a God. We have already started down the Christian path as a nation and our laws reflect that to date. I love my brother and I believe he loves me but being the atheist that he is at least he understands the jest of what Paul said "When in Rome...." Many atheist do not and you see them making waves. Now I don't think we should just throw them all over board. They just need to calm down have some tolerence and we can and will accomodate for them too.

quote Originally posted by Butter: "government sponsered places or things " Isn't that a public place or thing? Sounds contradictory to me! "make others listen to your prayers" Sure you may hear it but NO ONE is MAKING you LISTEN or abide by what was said!!

I should have said government sponsered events. And the public places I meant were things like parks, streets, and other places (as long as you follow the other rules in place for all people, like not blocking traffic).

quote Why?? The coutry was founded on Christian beliefs. The atheist that I know don't want their children getting hurt in any sporting events just like the Christian. Most folks don't want to hear a sermon inplace of a prayer. The country wasn't founded on Wiccan beliefs. But they are still afforded the oppurtunity to pray just as I am. Yes I have seen 2 different prayers take place (by different denominations) at one sporting event. Now for some other beliefs of mine on the subject. Since this country was founded on Christian beliefs I believe the interpreters of our laws should take a view from that point. It appears the least group of all kicks up the most over our laws concerning Christian practices around government property. The atheist! Its no wonder why they don't understand. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and they don't believe there is a God. We have already started down the Christian path as a nation and our laws reflect that to date. I love my brother and I believe he loves me but being the atheist that he is at least he understands the jest of what Paul said "When in Rome...." Many atheist do not and you see them making waves. Now I don't think we should just throw them all over board. They just need to calm down have some tolerence and we can and will accomodate for them too.

That is the whole problem right there. "We have already started down the Christian path as a nation and our laws reflect that to date." The laws are not supposed to reflect any particular religion. But they have for a long time, so when people try to finally make the laws do what they've always supposed to do, the Christians are offended.

So nice of you to accomodate the atheists as long as they let you use the government to support your religion.

PS. Why is it that some Christians think that God will only answer a prayer when it is spoken aloud before a group. If you were to silently pray, "God, please keep all of our atheletes and fans safe.", would God ignore that prayer since you didn't pray aloud?

PPS. If God would answer your prayer whether it was silent or aloud, you need to ask yourself why you need to pray aloud. IMS, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they would pray aloud to show others how devoted they were to God.

PPPS. Yes, God refers to many religions. But what of Wiccians who belive in a Goddess (IMS)? Or atheists? Or polydeists?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I doing research, I came across some material from David Horowitz, who is a former Leftist and Communist. This article that he wrote gives a good insight into why I say that the Democratic party has communist/Marxist underpinnings. I consider him to be a reliable source, since he was on the inside, with Americans who, at the very least, embrace communist ideals. There is more material out there that I'm checking, but it's really depressing. I expect you to deny and dismiss all this, because you wouldn't admit that you have philosophical leanings in that direction, no matter what proof I'd post. I'll just have to be content to counter your political postings with an opposing viewpoint.

I don't understand how anyone could doubt the Democrats are closet Communists. Ginmme a break. Their whole platform is based on taking away from people who earn wealth and giving it to people who do not earn it. Just look at their constituency., Labor unions, government employees, welfare freeloaders, out of the closet socialists, race baiters,-have I left any freeloaders out? Just open your eyes; everything they stand for is Karl Marx light. Oh yes, the Republicans are not much better.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I don't understand how anyone could doubt the Democrats are closet Communists. Ginmme a break. Their whole platform is based on taking away from people who earn wealth and giving it to people who do not earn it. Just look at their constituency., Labor unions, government employees, welfare freeloaders, out of the closet socialists, race baiters,-have I left any freeloaders out? Just open your eyes; everything they stand for is Karl Marx light. Oh yes, the Republicans are not much better.

But at least the Republicans tend to leave you with more of your own money. That works for me. Otherwise, all politicians SUCK.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Even better. When I was in High School, there was a blacks only group called "Ebony Unique." (back then you could still say the word "black"). A group of white students started a group called "Ivory Unique." Guess how long THAT lasted before the school board told them their racist group had to be disbanded. Meanwhile, Ebony Unique was sponsored by the school system to "promote ethnic pride."

Your comment is ahistorical and assumes Blacks and Whites have been treated the same in America. The reality is they have not.

quote Originally posted by Unrivaled: Your comment is ahistorical and assumes Blacks and Whites have been treated the same in America. The reality is they have not.

Actually, it IS historical. I was a witness to those events and they are germain to the discussion of rights being unequally applied in the past. My comment assumes nothing. I simply states what happened.

But if it will make you happy, I'll go free all my slaves.

quote Originally posted by Butter: The country was founded on Christian beliefs. The coutry was founded on Christian beliefs. Since this country was founded on Christian beliefs .

It was not. You, like many people, have been misinformed.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I really don't care either way. You're the one that has bought into this "nanny state" crap. I can only hope, for your sake, that you don't get all the government that you're wishing for. You may end up being surprised.

and just who wants a "nanny state" by their actions
it sure looks to me to be the rightwing and the thumper christians who do that
the ones who scream about a tit on TV
the same ones who want laws to control the actions of people , that are none of the goverments biz
who want to bann abortion, censor books, movies and even music
denigh gays the right to marry, or adopt kids
so just who is pushing a "nanny state"

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: and just who wants a "nanny state" by their actions it sure looks to me to be the rightwing and the thumper christians who do that the ones who scream about a tit on TV the same ones who want laws to control the actions of people , that are none of the goverments biz who want to bann abortion, censor books, movies and even music denigh gays the right to marry, or adopt kids so just who is pushing a "nanny state"

Very well said.. Whine about how people "need the government to babysit them" but they want the government to impose rules (abortion of course) that they agree with.