View Poll Results: Do you support this legislation?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, saying the pledge should be a priority

    3 11.54%
  • Yes, but let's tackle more important issues first

    8 30.77%
  • Doesn't matter to me one way or the other

    2 7.69%
  • No, I don't want my child to be programmed

    8 30.77%
  • There are schools that don't already recite the pledge???

    5 19.23%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 68
  1. #46
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by nuke
    Aren't Americans the minority in Florida, Texas, and Kalifornia now?
    Mmm... I love racism.

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGDADDY51
    I am not saying they have to ABANDON thier culture, just not expect US to adopt thiers, simply because they want us to. What would happen ,if say ,you moved to (pick a foreign country) and said, that because your kids are American, you don't want them to have to participate in the holy Kresh hour or whatever? I'm thinking you would be shown the door. Corporate America, has enslaved the poor ,with thier 95% efficiency quotas, out of minimum wage workers,while by, juggling the laws ,get away without paying any benefits while the CEO takes home a 7 figure yearly salary.Any big name store come to mind? There are lots of foreign folks who do LOVE America, and prove it. They are the ones who proudly display an American flag, and are not trying to cause troubles from within.They are willing to share thier culture with us, not impose it on us. GOD BLESS AMERICA, AGAIN If I offended anybody, TOUGH, get over it. BD51
    Don't forget to include the references to 9/11 and terrorism in there. I'm sure Jesus feels left out, too. I'd like to see you provide evidence for your xenophobic rantings. It's really difficult to follow your train of logic in that block of text, by the way. Could you start separating your thoughts into paragraphs or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by nuke
    Which then makes your statement "unless you are 100% Amerind, you are bred from "FOREIGNER" stock" false!
    Everyone is a foreigner, though.

    Art galleries are patronized by essentially the same ppl, yet are publicly funded. Thus, ppl are forced to "do something" (pay for art galleries) against their will. You say you are for "women's health", which implies that somehow that has a special priority over, or is somehow unique, to other ppls health................hypocrisy, when compared to what you espouse.
    Women and minorities have found it more difficult to find equitable health care historically. However, that is not to what I was referring. Rather, I said "women's health" in place of birth control and abortion.

    Now, I do agree with you (once again) that the size of gov't is too large, although, I don't think its power is necessarily too large. Oppress minorites? From my POV, it is the majority who is being "oppressed as of late".

    So yes, you may rail to preserve the "good of society", but you do so as selectively as anyone else.
    My selectivity applies to the oppression of some by the majority. You have no evidence that the majority is somehow oppressed by minorities.

    Well, in Orangian fashion, I DIDN'T say science has to prove. I simply said there is no proof. Is there? No, of course there isn't.
    ...Interesting logic, to be sure. If that is your logic, then your statement is simply banal.

    But let me rephrase...............evolution is a debateable theory based on highly debateable evidence, that is defended with a near religious zealotry..............hardly any more suitable than creationism, from even your perspective, imho.
    Except experts in the fields of geology, biology, physics, and such put zero credence in creationism. It's only debatable by those ignorant of it, which is why you don't hear of professional scientists espousing creationist views. You might as well say that it's debatable that the sun is a large ball of plasma millions of miles from Earth.

    Amazing, idn't it? Interestingly, though, the end of hell is NOT a freezing over, but ironically, thermal destruction!
    If you believe in such a place and if you think that the Christian book of Revelation applies to such a place and is not metaphorically referring to Rome. I was actually referring to Hell, Michigan.

    I didn't say culture. America has NO culture. But it does have a strong national identity, and identity of purpose. Steeped with some traditions that for the most part give it that unique identity, traditions which harm no one, are in the favour of the majority, and yet it is the minority that seeks to impose it's will, all for the sake of offended sensibilities.

    Now we have agreed that forced recital of the pledge is wrong, but that is as far as it goes, imho.
    And "traditions" that either were invented during the 20th century or blatantly violate the Constitution.

    You claim you don't hate Christianity, but your posts paint a very different story.
    No they don't. My posts reflect my views rather well. I fight against intolerant, ignorant, bigoted Christianity. I don't fight or hate Christianity, just those who pervert it for their own twisted purposes.

    Your opinion. The rise of "minority" rights lays evidence otherwise.
    Provide such evidence then.

    You are adding words. I never said the constitution. I said removing references to God. You implied I meant constitution, when I certainly did not.

    And, you CAN endorse something be exclusion. It may be passive, but it is still endorsing. Failing to endorse religion, or purposely trying not to, in fact, endorses atheism by default, despite a country where atheists are a minority..................oh, LOL, now I see.............minority rights........
    Define for me why you think minorities ought to be over simply because you feel like it. More than that, you reference "constitutional" sensibilities.

    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is experienced observation.
    From someone who hasn't experienced college in how many years?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  2. #47
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,900

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    I should have included 911, for it's our lax INF system, that allowed THOSE foreigners in the country in the first place. They should make EVERY foreigner ,submit a dna sample, in order to gain access to the USA, along with a picture and fingerprints.If they have nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother them. This states DMV ,has tightened security at thier local offices, requiring more documentation before issuing any drivers licenses. Maybe they should make them recite the pledge,too. BD51
    http://forums.pcper.com/trading.php TRADING RULEZ!! BIGDADDY51 I've joined the QUAD CROWD! ASUS M3A78 & a 9850

  3. #48
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan

    Such a thing is quite strange. I would never have guessed that they exist in this day and age. I'll take your word for it.
    It is, a few of them are here in NY.

    And those shouldn't exist either. You'll note that the "In God We Trust" is a relatively recent addition. All are violations of the letter of the law. Your argument would seem to be circular. Your link even demonstrates why they should be prohibited.
    The Union added it to the currency during slavery, as far as the link demonstrating why they should be prohibited- your convoluted opinion.

    Using that logic, you also fund terrorism, rape, child pornography, and sweatshops.
    Really???

    Anyway, it's tough shit that people want creationism to be taught in schools. There's no sound scientific basis for it, which is why it's not presented.
    Anyway, it's tough shit to people (including yourself) the Bill passed. As for evolution, using it's THEORY (which means it isn't exactly supported scientifically), we are related to a sort of tape worm that swam the oceans hundreds of millions of years ago, because their DNA is very close to our DNA (ie like a chimp is to ours).

    I could care less what the zealots want to be imposed in schools. As I said some time ago, the pledge violates the spirit and letter of the law. I don't agree with most compulsory things when it comes to the government. As long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, you should be pretty much free to do as you so choose.
    Wrong, because if what your saying is true those who simply refuse to learn (or have their children learn) evolution wouldn't have too, but they MUST, same goes for someone paying taxes having tax money support programs and entitlements they don't want too. I guess your "free to do as you choose" really means your as free to do as I choose.

    (I'm still making up my mind on whether classroom attendance should be mandatory.) I think every citizen should have to pay taxes and abstain from violating the rights and property of others, but beyond that, I really don't think much else should be forced. I don't want to pay taxes, that's for certain, but I think it's necessary to maintain the country. What the government does with that money later is another matter.
    But here we seem to agree to an extent (maybe more than I think, you'd have to elaborate). I feel the Government should have an income tax to maintain this country's infrastructure and defense, beyond that should be funded privately.

    I was wondering when that argument would show up. I'm a "liberal", therefore not only do I hate my country but I am also a coward. Outstanding. I'd love to see you provide some backing for that. Of course you can't because it's as hollow the Tin Man.
    It's not a tin man arguement, I base my opinion (and that is all it is) on your responses here in TLR, no doubt you've also formulated opinions on everyone (including myself) as well.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 03-16-2005 at 08:53 PM.




  4. #49
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    11 Dimensional Space-Time
    Posts
    7,808

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Mmm... I love racism.
    How is that racist? With the flood of immigrants from Cuba and Mexico who aren't "legally" US citizens, I don't doubt in some areas "Americans" are the minority.

    You implied the racism where I did not!

    Everyone is a foreigner, though.
    Including the Amerinds, yes! Ty for agreeing with me.

    Women and minorities have found it more difficult to find equitable health care historically. However, that is not to what I was referring. Rather, I said "women's health" in place of birth control and abortion.
    Ah yes, abortion, championed baby killing. Good choice.

    My selectivity applies to the oppression of some by the majority. You have no evidence that the majority is somehow oppressed by minorities.
    Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "oppression". But if by having there "will" forced onto the majority can be defined as oppression, than yes.

    ...Interesting logic, to be sure. If that is your logic, then your statement is simply banal.
    Well, I am sure you meant banal as an insult, but since it implies a predictable [conclusion], I'll take that as a compliment, and that you have no proof, or evidence, or whatever you like whatsoever that God does not exist.

    Except experts in the fields of geology, biology, physics, and such put zero credence in creationism. It's only debatable by those ignorant of it, which is why you don't hear of professional scientists espousing creationist views. You might as well say that it's debatable that the sun is a large ball of plasma millions of miles from Earth.
    Yes, because as experts, only they are "qualified" to make such interpretations, and us hicks should just believe them..................I suspect the reason most scientists DON'T discuss or consider creationism is because they are not religious, and thus, do not believe in God. Kinda of hard to believe the former w/o believing the latter, now, idn't it? I would constitute that as ignorant bias. I'm sure you have your pedantic spin for it though.

    If you believe in such a place and if you think that the Christian book of Revelation applies to such a place and is not metaphorically referring to Rome. I was actually referring to Hell, Michigan.
    My, aren't we just a ball of whiticism tonight! At least it won't be cold where you are going! If that is any solice.

    And "traditions" that either were invented during the 20th century or blatantly violate the Constitution.
    Yada, yada. Constitutionalists scare me more than the Bin Ladens of the world................at least with Bin Laden, you know what to expect............constitutionalists you never know what they are gonna bitch about and sue you over next.............

    No they don't. My posts reflect my views rather well. I fight against intolerant, ignorant, bigoted Christianity. I don't fight or hate Christianity, just those who pervert it for their own twisted purposes.
    If you choose to believe that...................

    Define for me why you think minorities ought to be over simply because you feel like it. More than that, you reference "constitutional" sensibilities.
    I don't think they should be ****** over. But neither do I think they deserve special dispensation.



    From someone who hasn't experienced college in how many years?
    Yes, play the "age" card. Didn't see that coming. Again, if you wish to believe that..............I do wish you well, though, I'd hate to think that ALB has to pay for you to sit on your ass all day like most college grads like you I know..................

  5. #50
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    The Union added it to the currency during slavery, as far as the link demonstrating why they should be prohibited- your convoluted opinion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

    Really???
    You buy clothes, don't you? Clothes that tend to be made in Third World countries, where coporations pay next to nil wages. You buy gas, don't you? That money goes to oil companies, who buy it from oil sellers in OPEC, many of whom are in the Middle East and some of whom may or may not give money to terrorists.

    Anyway, it's tough shit to people (including yourself) if this Bill passes. As for evolution, using it's THEORY (which means it isn't exactly supported scientifically), we are related to a sort of tape worm that swam the oceans hundreds of millions of years ago, because their DNA is very close to our DNA (ie like a chimp is to ours).
    You could do with some background on science, evidence, and theory. And genetic studies show that we are related to all the other creatures on Earth. That's not evolution, but biology and chemistry right there. Creationism is a religious institution, just like the "Under God" part of the pledge, swearing on the Bible, praying to God before work, and all sorts of other asinine things that malevolent Christians have wrought upon this country. Thanks for providing yet another example of why I don't get along with so many so-called "Christians".

    Wrong, because if what your saying is true those who simply refuse to learn (or have their children learn) evolution wouldn't have too, but they MUST, same goes for someone paying taxes having tax money support programs and entitlements they don't want too. I guess your "free to do as you choose" really means your as free to do as I choose.
    If you don't want your child to learn, you are free to remove them from school. Recitation of the pledge has zero to do with education. Analysis and historical perspective? Absolutely. Recitation? Not one bit. Evolution by means of natural and sexual selection is the accepted method for the speciation of life in the universe. You don't like that? Too bad. It doesn't violate the Constitution and it directly applies to education. People can choose not to send their children to school if they object to what is being taught. However, what is taught should be what is generally accepted by the professionals in the field, not laypeople who either have no formal education or no formal education in the field and who base their opinions on religious viewpoints that seek to discriminate and convert.

    But here we seem to agree to an extent (maybe more than I think, you'd have to elaborate). I feel the Government should have an income tax to maintain this country's infrastructure and defense, beyond that should be funded privately.
    Well, that's where I disagree with the Libertarians. Private donations seem like a splendid idea, but reality demonstrates that it's not feasible to rely upon them. If we had such a government, we certainly could not be an empire like we currently are. More than that, the private contributors would have incredible sway upon politics. The government exists to serve and protect the people, from outside forces and from each other. No one group should have power to dominate and persecute others. That is why I object to the pledge being mandated, to banning homosexual marriage, to including God in innumerable offices, and to dozens of other things that are the result of one group gaining power and wanting to tyrannize those it feels unworthy or inimical.

    It's not a tin man arguement, I base my opinion (and that is all it is) on your responses here in TLR, no doubt you've also formulated opinions on everyone (including myself) as well.
    Well naturally I have. I don't see how you could reach such a conclusion from my responses here, however, beyond simply knee-jerking the typical labels out because I am "liberal".
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  6. #51
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by nuke
    How is that racist? With the flood of immigrants from Cuba and Mexico who aren't "legally" US citizens, I don't doubt in some areas "Americans" are the minority.

    You implied the racism where I did not!
    In small, rural places perhaps, but not entire states as you seemed to have stated earlier.

    Including the Amerinds, yes! Ty for agreeing with me.
    They tend to have a stronger claim to aboriginality, though.

    Ah yes, abortion, championed baby killing. Good choice.
    Right. In any case, you should really read up on the history of abortion. It's not exactly a new thing. It's been practiced for the whole of recorded history, even in God-fearing Christian Europe. It wasn't stigamized as it is now, either. They had these concept of insoulment and self-regulation. It proves to be an interesting read.

    Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "oppression". But if by having there "will" forced onto the majority can be defined as oppression, than yes.
    You didn't answer my challenge.

    Well, I am sure you meant banal as an insult, but since it implies a predictable [conclusion], I'll take that as a compliment, and that you have no proof, or evidence, or whatever you like whatsoever that God does not exist.
    I've never claimed that "God" doesn't exist. Banal for reference.

    Yes, because as experts, only they are "qualified" to make such interpretations, and us hicks should just believe them..................I suspect the reason most scientists DON'T discuss or consider creationism is because they are not religious, and thus, do not believe in God. Kinda of hard to believe the former w/o believing the latter, now, idn't it? I would constitute that as ignorant bias. I'm sure you have your pedantic spin for it though.
    What was your major? Engineering of some type? I don't recall the subfield specifically. (Mech?) We'll just draft an example here. Would you want a person who has been heavily trained in sociology, with no experience in engineering, physics, or architectural design, to be given the job of desiging the newest skyscraper downtown? No? If you are not qualified for the task, it is not for you. Contrary to what you believe, many scientists are religious. The two evolution professors here at my university are both regular attendees of their respective religions, Judaism and Methodist Christianity. Science seeks answers, as does religion. The difference is that science uses empiricism to reach conclusions about the "truth" that exists. If there were any solid scientific ground on which Creationism stood, it would be looked at differently by the scientific community. As it stands, though, Creationism is a jumble of half-truths, misdirection, and outright lies.

    My, aren't we just a ball of whiticism tonight! At least it won't be cold where you are going! If that is any solice.
    "uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum"

    Yada, yada. Constitutionalists scare me more than the Bin Ladens of the world................at least with Bin Laden, you know what to expect............constitutionalists you never know what they are gonna bitch about and sue you over next.............
    Lovely response. Thanks for conceding that you have no ground upon which to stand.

    If you choose to believe that...................
    I very much do.

    I don't think they should be ****** over. But neither do I think they deserve special dispensation.
    Nor do most of them. Rather, they seek equality with you or me.


    Yes, play the "age" card. Didn't see that coming. Again, if you wish to believe that..............I do wish you well, though, I'd hate to think that ALB has to pay for you to sit on your ass all day like most college grads like you I know..................
    It's not the "age card", but the experience card. You put it into play, and I'm hitting it right back at you.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  7. #52
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Not bad off the top of my head, so paper money didn't have the motto, but the coin in 1864 (at a time when slavery split the country) did, the union surely put the motto on the coin for a reason, do you know why??? --- My guess was those bigoted christians wanted to send a message to the Confederacy about how slavery wasn't exactly Godly. But you seem to like the encyclopedia alot - go ahead and check the reason why.

    You buy clothes, don't you? Clothes that tend to be made in Third World countries, where coporations pay next to nil wages. You buy gas, don't you? That money goes to oil companies, who buy it from oil sellers in OPEC, many of whom are in the Middle East and some of whom may or may not give money to terrorists.
    And I drive, fly heat my home with oil, etc.... I guess you say I'm also responsible for cancer, hell why stop there think of other things people do in the everyday lives and draw up some more asinine connections, your reasoning is adolescent at best.

    You could do with some background on science, evidence, and theory. And genetic studies show that we are related to all the other creatures on Earth. That's not evolution, but biology and chemistry right there. Creationism is a religious institution, just like the "Under God" part of the pledge, swearing on the Bible, praying to God before work, and all sorts of other asinine things that malevolent Christians have wrought upon this country. Thanks for providing yet another example of why I don't get along with so many so-called "Christians".
    OK, great scientist. Tell me how did we all get here? Before you tell me about the Big bang theory, matter and anti-matter - tell me how it existed. You can't, the best scientific minds throughout history couldn't and still can't. So much for science when the are hit with the big question.


    If you don't want your child to learn, you are free to remove them from school. Recitation of the pledge has zero to do with education. Analysis and historical perspective? Absolutely. Recitation? Not one bit. Evolution by means of natural and sexual selection is the accepted method for the speciation of life in the universe. You don't like that? Too bad. It doesn't violate the Constitution and it directly applies to education. People can choose not to send their children to school if they object to what is being taught. However, what is taught should be what is generally accepted by the professionals in the field, not laypeople who either have no formal education or no formal education in the field and who base their opinions on religious viewpoints that seek to discriminate and convert.
    Why would anyone want to remove the children from an education system THEY are paying for? Evolution and sexual selection are the "accepted" methods for speculation of life? - No. Evolution is a change from simple to complex, Sexual selection is merely making a choice on a mate - usually one of physical attraction - NEITHER have anything to do with the beginnings of life in the universe, thus far only here on Earth, because we can not prove it elsewhere. So tell me how did life begin? And how did all the precursors for it come about? And where did all those atoms and sub-atomic particles come from? - Science has never had an answer for those.


    Well, that's where I disagree with the Libertarians. Private donations seem like a splendid idea, but reality demonstrates that it's not feasible to rely upon them. If we had such a government, we certainly could not be an empire like we currently are. More than that, the private contributors would have incredible sway upon politics. The government exists to serve and protect the people, from outside forces and from each other.
    Ummm. how would the government be swayed by private donors of programs the government has no involvement in? - You seem to have lost me there, maybe because it's just not logical. The government does serve and protect the people.

    No one group should have power to dominate and persecute others. That is why I object to the pledge being mandated, to banning homosexual marriage, to including God in innumerable offices, and to dozens of other things that are the result of one group gaining power and wanting to tyrannize those it feels unworthy or inimical.
    But it's ok for a group to force taxpayer money for abortions even from those who don't want their monies spent that way, demand entitlement programs, and what can and can not be taught - regardless of the choice one may have? Sounds like one group already gained power and are tyrannizing those it feels unworthy or inimical already exists, your being hypocritical.

    Well naturally I have. I don't see how you could reach such a conclusion from my responses here, however, beyond simply knee-jerking the typical labels out because I am "liberal".
    I'm sure I'm not the only who sees you that way, and I'm certain you already have made a judgement on me based on my repsonses, and others have as well. But if you want to call it a knee jerk reaction, go ahead it doesn't bother me, nor has it belittled me as intended.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 03-17-2005 at 02:26 AM.




  8. #53
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    49
    Posts
    205

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Some of the "arguments" AGAINST this bill are based on the fact that some people can't read the article....re-read it and you'll see it said in the very beginning:

    The legislation says students couldn't be forced to say the pledge if they or their parents objected.
    No one is being FORCED to do or say anything, but legislature simply allows for the time to recite *IF* people choose to do so.... if I wanted my kids the allowance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the way things are NOW, that "right" has been taken away from me and my kids due to a minority view.....since when does the MINORITY rule what the MAJORITY does? I didn't think that was a tenant of DEMOCRACY....irregardless of political affiliation....

    Many are putting up a big stink over misreading this article and misconstruing the intent behind it......it forces nothing, other than the time for those who WANT to recite the pledge. No where do I read anyone is forced to do ANYTHING.....

    So where's the fault?

  9. #54
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    ot bad off the top of my head, so paper money didn't have the motto, but the coin in 1864 (at a time when slavery split the country) did, the union surely put the motto on the coin for a reason, do you know why??? --- My guess was those bigoted christians wanted to send a message to the Confederacy about how slavery wasn't exactly Godly. But you seem to like the encyclopedia alot - go ahead and check the reason why.
    I've done my research, thank you.

    And I drive, fly heat my home with oil, etc.... I guess you say I'm also responsible for cancer, hell why stop there think of other things people do in the everyday lives and draw up some more asinine connections, your reasoning is adolescent at best.
    I never said that I believe it, just that you could use that reasoning. See, above you said that your money pays for abortions. No, your money goes to the government, which then doles it out to various places. Indirectly, someone's money pays for abortion, just like indirectly you may fund terrorism. It's fun logic.

    OK, great scientist. Tell me how did we all get here? Before you tell me about the Big bang theory, matter and anti-matter - tell me how it existed. You can't, the best scientific minds throughout history couldn't and still can't. So much for science when the are hit with the big question.
    That's interesting. So, because science can't answer everything, it answers nothing? Tell me why an apple falls to the ground off a tree, then.

    Why would anyone want to remove the children from an education system THEY are paying for?
    If it's crappy?

    Evolution and sexual selection are the "accepted" methods for speculation of life? - No. Evolution is a change from simple to complex, Sexual selection is merely making a choice on a mate - usually one of physical attraction - NEITHER have anything to do with the beginnings of life in the universe, thus far only here on Earth, because we can not prove it elsewhere. So tell me how did life begin? And how did all the precursors for it come about? And where did all those atoms and sub-atomic particles come from? - Science has never had an answer for those.
    You haven't studied this much, have you? I'm guessing that you don't have much of a background in either the arts or the sciences. In biology, evolution is simply a change from one state to another state. You are an evolutionary step past your parents, just as all children. You are a hybrid from two genetic masses, unique in your own way. I'm not sure how many times it must be stated here, but evolution doesn't seek to explain the fundamental origin of life or the creation of the universe. You don't "disprove science" by attacking one theory as not being able to explain a phenomenon it never attempted to explain. You don't accuse the theory of gravity of being incapable of explaining why bonobos like to have wild, orgiastic sex with each other, do you?

    Ummm. how would the government be swayed by private donors of programs the government has no involvement in? - You seem to have lost me there, maybe because it's just not logical. The government does serve and protect the people.
    You never said that people would donate to programs specifically. Even then, why would it not be swayed by those donors? If you want or need the money, and they have specific demands, you're pretty likely to do what they ask/require in order to receive said money.

    But it's ok for a group to force taxpayer money for abortions even from those who don't want their monies spent that way, demand entitlement programs, and what can and can not be taught - regardless of the choice one may have? Sounds like one group already gained power and are tyrannizing those it feels unworthy or inimical already exists, your being hypocritical.
    None of those are violations of the Constitution or of anyone's rights and privileges. I'm not all that knowledgable about tax money going to abortions, though. Can you enlighten me?

    I'm sure I'm not the only who sees you that way, and I'm certain you already have made a judgement on me based on my repsonses, and others have as well. But if you want to call it a knee jerk reaction, go ahead it doesn't bother me, nor has it belittled me as intended.
    Except that it wasn't intended as a pejoratival phrase. What evidence do you have to support your claim, anyway? If so many people are of like minds, where is the damnation? Where be the incontrovertible evidence against me? I'm glad that your argument has degenerated to the point of needing to rely on personal attacks and mudslinging, though; it truly makes for a better debate.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  10. #55
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by pctoolbin
    Some of the "arguments" AGAINST this bill are based on the fact that some people can't read the article....re-read it and you'll see it said in the very beginning:

    No one is being FORCED to do or say anything, but legislature simply allows for the time to recite *IF* people choose to do so.... if I wanted my kids the allowance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the way things are NOW, that "right" has been taken away from me and my kids due to a minority view.....since when does the MINORITY rule what the MAJORITY does? I didn't think that was a tenant of DEMOCRACY....irregardless of political affiliation....

    Many are putting up a big stink over misreading this article and misconstruing the intent behind it......it forces nothing, other than the time for those who WANT to recite the pledge. No where do I read anyone is forced to do ANYTHING.....

    So where's the fault?
    (Irregardless isn't a word; just a heads-up.)

    We kind of have this thing called the "Constitution" that sort of guarantees that the minority cannot be trampled upon by the majority. Perhaps you've heard of it? I don't recall anyone saying that you should be prohibited from reciting the pledge if you so choose, so you can drop the fallacious argument unless you can provide evidence otherwise. I'm also tired of this so-called "minority oppression of the majority". It's a load of crap, where people in the majority feel the need to paint themselves as victims of the other that is needing to be controlled. I have yet to see any evidence provided for such a claim. And as I said earlier, it's foolish to think that setting aside time so that children can "voluntarily" recite the pledge is not somehow coercive (as if children in elementary school can decide upon such a course of action). You might as well legislate a time period set aside every day to give thanks to the Lord Jesus God Almighty. Hey, it'd be "voluntary" to participate, so it'd obviously not be a problem at all.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  11. #56
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,701

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Over the years when I think about my experiences while attending grade school, reciting the pledge hasn't come to mind until this discussion. But, having thought of it, and attempting to find something positive about it, the only thing I found was a psychological aspect. It wasn't that we were finding ourselves filled with patriotic fervor. None of us ever communicated about the pledge, or any other aspect of patriotism unless it was part of the lesson for a particular class, either verbally or non-verbally.
    The one benefit that I recall, and that's from the perspective of an adult, is that it provided a moment of synchronization. Whatever we'd been doing prior to the beginning of the school day, we got into our seats, then stood and recited the pledge, and then again took our seats. It set a certain tone, a group mindset if you will, that we were getting down to school work and doing it together.
    However, my recounting this to you should in no way be taken as intent to convey my having any sense of the pledge recital being necessary. As with any other spiritual experience, the essential elements are not in the performance of the function but, rather, in the results arising fom the subjective appreciation. And, the thing about those results is that autonomously achieving them is within the grasp of the average individual if they but learn.
    What the genteel demand is something of themselves. What the vulgar demand is something of others.
    The true church is one's own heart.
    It has been my experience that those who proclaim the world is going to hell in a handbasket are the same ones who are leading the way there with their grip fixed firmly on the handle.
    Why can't you find god? Everyone knows he lives in a little black box.
    A carp who deals in red herrings is a traitor to his species.


  12. #57
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    I've done my research, thank you.
    And I knew why, thank you.

    I never said that I believe it, just that you could use that reasoning. See, above you said that your money pays for abortions. No, your money goes to the government, which then doles it out to various places. Indirectly, someone's money pays for abortion, just like indirectly you may fund terrorism. It's fun logic.
    Except it's my government that is spending my monies on something - and tying your premise of being "forced" to do something I don't want too, filling my car with gas is a choice I make, the government taking my monies and funding abortions, and varies entitlement programs is not my choice. - So much for fun logic.

    That's interesting. So, because science can't answer everything, it answers nothing? Tell me why an apple falls to the ground off a tree, then.
    And your arguement against creationism is what???

    If it's crappy?
    Ah, but that is a circumstance, quite different from one having the ability of choice on subject matter.

    You haven't studied this much, have you? I'm guessing that you don't have much of a background in either the arts or the sciences. In biology, evolution is simply a change from one state to another state
    Would that change involve going from simple to complex? Afterall a important basis of evolution is survival of the fittest, ie adaptation, ie going from a simple state to a more complex one. I'm guessing your trying to twist the actual meaning of evolution to suit your debate.

    You are an evolutionary step past your parents, just as all children. You are a hybrid from two genetic masses, unique in your own way. I'm not sure how many times it must be stated here, but evolution doesn't seek to explain the fundamental origin of life or the creation of the universe.
    Yes that's the modern take on it (alleles) , however, evolution is based on changes to species over a long period of time - which is based on a theory that all modern species are derived from a process that started with single cell organisms billions of years ago. I didn't say it it seeked to explain life, you implied it.


    You don't "disprove science" by attacking one theory as not being able to explain a phenomenon it never attempted to explain. You don't accuse the theory of gravity of being incapable of explaining why bonobos like to have wild, orgiastic sex with each other, do you?
    Science has always tried to explain life - they push their theory on primordial soup under certain conditions becoming single cell life evolving to all species present today - of course they can not reproduce "primordial soup" to single cell at all (which basically makes their conclusions unscientific), they also cannot explain how it all began (ie down to the first atom).

    But it's ok to attack anything that doesn't conform to the THEORY of evolution, you do know what theory means, don't you?

    You never said that people would donate to programs specifically. Even then, why would it not be swayed by those donors? If you want or need the money, and they have specific demands, you're pretty likely to do what they ask/require in order to receive said money.
    The private sector has always shown itself to be better than the government, and how is what you describe any different from what the government sees on a daily basis (ie lobbyists).

    None of those are violations of the Constitution or of anyone's rights and privileges. I'm not all that knowledgable about tax money going to abortions, though. Can you enlighten me?
    Where do you think a 15 yr Jane Doe gets the money for one when she is trying not to let her parents know of her circumstance as she walks into a Planned Parenthood office? Do you think the kind Dr. is doing it for free?

    Except that it wasn't intended as a pejoratival phrase. What evidence do you have to support your claim, anyway? If so many people are of like minds, where is the damnation? Where be the incontrovertible evidence against me? I'm glad that your argument has degenerated to the point of needing to rely on personal attacks and mudslinging, though; it truly makes for a better debate.
    Formulating an opinion is an attack akin o mudslinging??? There are many instances where you and I, you and someone else, or myself and someone else are debating where others agree with one side of the debate or the other. Want evidence? just read every post here some agree with eachother over particular debate and some don't, it's just that simple.




  13. #58
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    49
    Posts
    205

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    (Irregardless isn't a word; just a heads-up.)

    We kind of have this thing called the "Constitution" that sort of guarantees that the minority cannot be trampled upon by the majority. Perhaps you've heard of it? I don't recall anyone saying that you should be prohibited from reciting the pledge if you so choose, so you can drop the fallacious argument unless you can provide evidence otherwise. I'm also tired of this so-called "minority oppression of the majority". It's a load of crap, where people in the majority feel the need to paint themselves as victims of the other that is needing to be controlled. I have yet to see any evidence provided for such a claim. And as I said earlier, it's foolish to think that setting aside time so that children can "voluntarily" recite the pledge is not somehow coercive (as if children in elementary school can decide upon such a course of action). You might as well legislate a time period set aside every day to give thanks to the Lord Jesus God Almighty. Hey, it'd be "voluntary" to participate, so it'd obviously not be a problem at all.
    Thanks for the grammatical lesson....but ask me if I care and what it has to do with the argument other than showing your arrogance? Nothing. As for your facetious question about the Constitution, yes I know of it.....so you can drop the facetious tone with me, I have put my life on the line in the US military to help defend this Constitution you want to so flippantly and arrogantly speak of. Don't try and "school me", m'kay?

    In no way does this bill "trample" on the minority, it just provides the majority time to something they have been wanting to do since the minority had it banned from public schools because of their complete and utter disdain for the word "God"...or "Christian" things....neither of which I have given any indication as to where I stand so please do me a favor and don't assume too much, m'kay?

    Please tell me how putting quotes around the word "voluntary" makes this issue coercive? Shall we break out the dictionary? Don't mind if I do....

    Coercive \Co*er"cive\, a. Serving or intended to coerce; having power to constrain. -- Co*er"cive*ly, adv. -- Co*er"cive*ness, n. [1913 Webster]

    As you put it, people not wanting to recite the Pledge are being put under force or duress (synonyms for "coerce") is just as ludacris and a load of "crap" as you put it since now you are making the "minority" sound as if they are the victims. You want to paint my argument as crap, yet you are using the same argument in a circular and non-direct fashion. Very hipocritical, but I guess that's a normal liberal tactic so I shouldn't be too surprised....

    I haven't painted my point as religious by any means, it's you who brings that up.....my point was that the bill forces no one to do anything they don't want to do.....so why is that so threatening to you? Do you have kids? How does that matter? If you don't have kids, then what concern do you have for this issue? Due to the hostile nature of your reply/replies, it sure sounds like your vendetta is more against Christians rather than my ability to have my children recite the pledge I was able to and did recite in school....I'm not saying it's the school's place to legislate or dictate moral standing or teaching, but allowing this time really is not invasive and doesn't trample on your "rights" whatsoever. Not allowing "time" for reciting the pledge is no different than prohibiting the saying of the pledge....so which of the two ways is more "coercion" to the other? Prohibiting the time to say the pledge or allowing for the time and not requiring anyone to participate if they choose not to? Hmmmm.....like I said, your argument is more against the Religious Right than it is against the idea that some people have a patriotic bone in their body and would like to see this put back in school....

    My point was (and is) that people are arguing against this bill saying it's forcing something on them, when, the FACT of the matter is that no one would be forced to do anything....are they?

    Your words in response to someone else:

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    I'm glad that your argument has degenerated to the point of needing to rely on personal attacks and mudslinging, though; it truly makes for a better debate.
    Yet you want to dilute an argument by correcting someone's grammar/spelling especially when you KNOW what was being said? Talk about being a hipocrite....so we'll just agree to disagree since you make too many assumptions and begun your reply by "attacking" my spelling and/or grammar....very mature. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, your arguments or whatever, then feel free to attack all you want, hide behind your perceived "perfection"....if it helps you sleep at night, then whatever.....but your "emotional" bias AGAINST this bill doesn't change the FACT that it doesn't force anything upon anyone....
    Last edited by pctoolbin; 03-17-2005 at 05:46 AM.

  14. #59
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    Except it's my government that is spending my monies on something - and tying your premise of being "forced" to do something I don't want too, filling my car with gas is a choice I make, the government taking my monies and funding abortions, and varies entitlement programs is not my choice. - So much for fun logic.
    It's fun logic, but I don't agree with it.

    And your arguement against creationism is what???
    That it's not scientific? That there is no evidence in support of it? That the supposed "science" behind it is a mixture of lies and slights of hand? That it's a poor excuse at an attempt to reconcile science and religion?

    Ah, but that is a circumstance, quite different from one having the ability of choice on subject matter.
    Perhaps, but you might also say that choices of subject matter are crappy.

    Would that change involve going from simple to complex? Afterall a important basis of evolution is survival of the fittest, ie adaptation, ie going from a simple state to a more complex one. I'm guessing your trying to twist the actual meaning of evolution to suit your debate.
    No, that's not the case. Evolution is not directed. If evolution meant going from simple to complex, why do we have still have single-celled organisms? You haven't studied this much, have you? Well guess what, I have studied it quite a bit. From what I have observed, only Vihsadas rivals me in terms of background in this sort of material. Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time. There is no direction, no progression, no simple toward complex.

    Yes that's the modern take on it (alleles) , however, evolution is based on changes to species over a long period of time - which is based on a theory that all modern species are derived from a process that started with single cell organisms billions of years ago. I didn't say it it seeked to explain life, you implied it.
    The changes need not be over long periods of time, really. Indeed, you can see how little time it takes to create something very different from the progenitor by looking at dogs. And I quote what you asked concerning the origin of life:

    Evolution and sexual selection are the "accepted" methods for speculation of life? - No. Evolution is a change from simple to complex, Sexual selection is merely making a choice on a mate - usually one of physical attraction - NEITHER have anything to do with the beginnings of life in the universe, thus far only here on Earth, because we can not prove it elsewhere. So tell me how did life begin? And how did all the precursors for it come about? And where did all those atoms and sub-atomic particles come from? - Science has never had an answer for those.
    Science has always tried to explain life - they push their theory on primordial soup under certain conditions becoming single cell life evolving to all species present today - of course they can not reproduce "primordial soup" to single cell at all (which basically makes their conclusions unscientific), they also cannot explain how it all began (ie down to the first atom).
    Religion explains things, but very little of those explanations have evidence in favor of them. Science observes, drafts an explanation, and attempts to find evidence for and against that observation. You find evidence against your supposition? Then you discard it and form a new one based on what you have found.
    But it's ok to attack anything that doesn't conform to the THEORY of evolution, you do know what theory means, don't you?
    You don't seem to know what it means. Enlighten yourself as to the scientific method.

    The private sector has always shown itself to be better than the government, and how is what you describe any different from what the government sees on a daily basis (ie lobbyists).
    It's not much different, but it would increase the power they wield. And as to your first statement, what kind of evidence do you have to support such a claim?

    Where do you think a 15 yr Jane Doe gets the money for one when she is trying not to let her parents know of her circumstance as she walks into a Planned Parenthood office? Do you think the kind Dr. is doing it for free?
    I wasn't sure if PP was governmental or private. Anyway, PP is a social program designed to ensure the health of the population in spite of what some people feel should be done. It wouldn't be needed if people would keep to themselves and not attempt to tell others how to live their lives "morally" via legislation.

    Formulating an opinion is an attack akin o mudslinging??? There are many instances where you and I, you and someone else, or myself and someone else are debating where others agree with one side of the debate or the other. Want evidence? just read every post here some agree with eachother over particular debate and some don't, it's just that simple.
    I was asking for evidence that others think I am a coward, and what evidence they use to formulate that opinion.

    (Response continued in next post...)
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  15. #60
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by pctoolbin
    Thanks for the grammatical lesson....but ask me if I care and what it has to do with the argument other than showing your arrogance? Nothing. As for your facetious question about the Constitution, yes I know of it.....so you can drop the facetious tone with me, I have put my life on the line in the US military to help defend this Constitution you want to so flippantly and arrogantly speak of. Don't try and "school me", m'kay?
    I do believe you mean condescending and not facetious. Sure, I'm arrogant, but that's nothing new and it's not really applicable here. The same goes for your military service. If that service meant that you were somehow more qualified to speak on political matters, then it would be required for full citizenship. As it's not, it really doesn't matter in these discussions. Now, if we were having a debate on the particular venue in which you served, it would be more than appropriate to bring up.

    In no way does this bill "trample" on the minority, it just provides the majority time to something they have been wanting to do since the minority had it banned from public schools because of their complete and utter disdain for the word "God"...or "Christian" things....neither of which I have given any indication as to where I stand so please do me a favor and don't assume too much, m'kay?
    Except that God and Christ have no place in the political sphere in this country. I'm no Christian, nor are the other 64,466,065 non-Christians in the United States. That doesn't include the liberal or moderate Christians who feel that "God" has no place in the government. Now, like I said earlier, this is little different from a bill to mandate time out of the school day for students to pray to their Lord God Jesus the Christ. If people want to do it on their own time, let them do so.

    As you put it, people not wanting to recite the Pledge are being put under force or duress (synonyms for "coerce") is just as ludacris and a load of "crap" as you put it since now you are making the "minority" sound as if they are the victims. You want to paint my argument as crap, yet you are using the same argument in a circular and non-direct fashion. Very hipocritical, but I guess that's a normal liberal tactic so I shouldn't be too surprised....
    Ooh, fun times; thanks for breaking out the "liberal" label. Tell me, the state has mandated that every classroom take time out of their day to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. People can abstain if they so choose, but everyone else will participate. Do you really think a child can realize what is going on if everyone else is participating in something? Do you think they have the ability to discern the meanings in that Pledge or to come to their own conclusions about it? No, they're going to participate so that they do not become pariahs. People generally don't like to be portrayed as outcasts. You're not going to instill any critical thought in these children concerning the government, the country, its history, or the pledge itself with this law.

    I haven't painted my point as religious by any means, it's you who brings that up.....my point was that the bill forces no one to do anything they don't want to do.....so why is that so threatening to you? Do you have kids? How does that matter? If you don't have kids, then what concern do you have for this issue? Due to the hostile nature of your reply/replies, it sure sounds like your vendetta is more against Christians rather than my ability to have my children recite the pledge I was able to and did recite in school....I'm not saying it's the school's place to legislate or dictate moral standing or teaching, but allowing this time really is not invasive and doesn't trample on your "rights" whatsoever. Not allowing "time" for reciting the pledge is no different than prohibiting the saying of the pledge....so which of the two ways is more "coercion" to the other? Prohibiting the time to say the pledge or allowing for the time and not requiring anyone to participate if they choose not to? Hmmmm.....like I said, your argument is more against the Religious Right than it is against the idea that some people have a patriotic bone in their body and would like to see this put back in school....
    Your argument here is pretty fallacious. No one has said that you should be prohibited from reciting the pledge if you so choose. Can you show me where that has been said? Also, I'm a citizen, therefore my opinion matters. The fact that I am childless is moot since I am a citizen. If you really think that pledging your allegiance to a symbol is patriotic, I think you should reconsider your beliefs. What exactly is patriotism, anyway?

    My point was (and is) that people are arguing against this bill saying it's forcing something on them, when, the FACT of the matter is that no one would be forced to do anything....are they?
    Actually, people are being forced to observe the time for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine if people were forced to take time out of their day to observe Islamic prayer time? It wouldn't be a pretty picture (though it would do wonders for my position). School is for education, and the recitation of the pledge serves no part in that.


    Yet you want to dilute an argument by correcting someone's grammar/spelling especially when you KNOW what was being said? Talk about being a hipocrite....so we'll just agree to disagree since you make too many assumptions and begun your reply by "attacking" my spelling and/or grammar....very mature. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, your arguments or whatever, then feel free to attack all you want, hide behind your perceived "perfection"....if it helps you sleep at night, then whatever.....but your "emotional" bias AGAINST this bill doesn't change the FACT that it doesn't force anything upon anyone....
    See, that short parenthetical remark was what is known as an "aside". It bore no weight on my argument whatsoever, but you choose to see it as somehow diluting that argument. Trust me, I could focus very much on the way in which people structure their sentences and arguments here. However, I don't do that because it serves no purpose. Your mistake was glaring and I pointed it out so that you wouldn't have it happen again. It was in no way said pejoratively, so I'm sorry you misconstrued it. By the way, I've never claimed perfection.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •