NationStates Jolt Archive

And here we have a violation of the law. Giving misleading or false statements is a violation of the law. They have opened themselves up to a lawsuit by doing what they did. You have a full legal case right here. Under law, they can only tell a perspective employer that you actually worked there. If they say anything more than that, they have opened themselves up to be sued.

Sick a lawyer on them and they'll quickly back down.

I didn't even bother to go after them under that aspect of law. But that WAS what motivated me to finally go after them for violation of the other aspect.

I was fully prepared to just leave with my tail between my legs, and get another job. But they saw fit to pee down my well after I was gone. so I sued their ass. And won, as far as I am concerned, because, though I ended up settling in the end...I did get virtually everything I was going after.

Nice fucking try, Corny. The Republican Party of Abe Lincoln bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the Republican Party of today, and you damn well know it. Hell, Lincoln himself would turn over in his grave if he knew what had been made of the Party he effectively started.

In 1948, you might recall that a man named Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, ran for President as an independent, because he was against Civil Rights. Later, the same trick was tried in 1968 by George Wallace...also a Democrat. Both of these men were a part of a faction of the Democrats known as the "Dixiecrats." Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and even Phil Gramm were once Democrats. They all became Republicans, because the Republican Party better agreed with their own personal beliefs. And we all know how much Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms just loved any minority!!

You are trying to demonize Democrats for things in their past done by men who later turned REPUBLICAN...because the Republican Party platform better suited their ideals. And you are trying to sanctify Republicans by bringing up honorable men like Abe Lincoln...whom I have no doubt, if he were around today...he would be a DEMOCRAT.

Right there with former clansman, Robert "KKK" Byrd.

Nice fucking try, Corny. The Republican Party of Abe Lincoln bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the Republican Party of today, and you damn well know it. Hell, Lincoln himself would turn over in his grave if he knew what had been made of the Party he effectively started.

And the Democratic Party isn't the same as it was under JFK. I'm sure he's spinning in his grave knowing that his party got highjacked by the left just like the founders of the Republican Party are spinning in their graves knowing that their party is semi-highjacked by conservative extremists.

In 1948, you might recall that a man named Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, ran for President as an independent, because he was against Civil Rights. Later, the same trick was tried in 1968 by George Wallace...also a Democrat. Both of these men were a part of a faction of the Democrats known as the "Dixiecrats." Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and even Phil Gramm were once Democrats. They all became Republicans, because the Republican Party better agreed with their own personal beliefs. And we all know how much Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms just loved any minority!!

Thanks for telling me something that I already know. However, nearly every republican in both house and Senate voted FOR the legislation. Figure that one out! If we weren't for civil rights then why the hell did the Republican Party VOTE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT?

Thanks for telling me something that I already know. However, nearly every republican in both house and Senate voted FOR the legislation. Figure that one out! If we weren't for civil rights then why the hell did the Republican Party VOTE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT?
I think the point is that while your party may once have had a reason to claim the mantle of the civil rights party, it no longer has that right.

And Mauiwowee, I find it fascinating that the right, when challenged on this, always manages to pull out Byrd, but only Byrd, and always neglects to mention that Byrd left the Klan long ago, apologized multiple times for having been a part of it, and has been one of the leaders in the Democratic party for the last 30 years on civil rights legislation.

What's next--a Chappaquiddick reference?

And the Democratic Party isn't the same as it was under JFK. I'm sure he's spinning in his grave knowing that his party got highjacked by the left just like the founders of the Republican Party are spinning in their graves knowing that their party is semi-highjacked by conservative extremists.



Thanks for telling me something that I already know. However, nearly every republican in both house and Senate voted FOR the legislation. Figure that one out! If we weren't for civil rights then why the hell did the Republican Party VOTE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT?

Yup, and Strom Thurmond (he who ran on a Presidential ticket of segregation and who had an illegitimate bi-racial daughter,) was once a Democrat (Dixiecrat) who changed parties (as did many others) because of the Civil rights movement. I think it was Johnson who noted that the Democrats had lost the south because of the civil rights movement...looks like he was right.

I'm actually old enough to remember when there were "liberal" Republicans and "Conservative" democrats. I think the change came with Reagan's style of not (publicly) compromising. That was followed by the emergance of FM radio that left the AM stations with nothing to do. So, the AM's went to talk. At the same time the FCC under "deregulation" removed the "fairness doctrine" and "equal time" this happened when conservatives just gained the majority. Since station owners wanted the most listeners they put on talkers that apealed to that majority. With no balance, and to attract listeners they found the more reactionary the hosts the more listeners found it entertaining. What they didn't consider, because it didn't have an immediate economic impact, was that this talk became "educational". People started thinking this was "news". So to keep the audience they hired even more reactionary hosts. Someone in the Republican Party noticed this and started sending out daily "talking points". This saved the hosts time and money because they no longer had to do reseach. Notice that in three days every talk radio host had the same line---"It wasn't Bush, it was the mayor and governor"---I think there's something wrong when getting out the "spin" is efficient but getting people help isn't.

All of this didn't destroy the far Left. It destroyed the middle. Suddenly there were no liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Suddenly, congress didn't operate on compromise as it had for 200 years regardless of which party as in power. There is no compromise without that middle. In the past, either party (even if it was the majority) had to get some votes from the other party, because they were going to lose some of those middle votes of their own. Without compromise, it's like a rival football game. Growing up in Nebraska our slogan was "I'm for Nebraska and whoever is playing Oklahoma". Good for state loyalty, but no way to run a Federal Government.

We are being reminded in the SC hearings how far this noncompromise has gone. In the past, justices like Bork were told they were going to lose big because their own party was going to lose votes. At the same time, any reasonable nominee was approved by votes in the 90's. I really can't see an end to this because the left will someday become the majority--yes these things swing---and they are ready for revenge.

And the Democratic Party isn't the same as it was under JFK. I'm sure he's spinning in his grave knowing that his party got highjacked by the left just like the founders of the Republican Party are spinning in their graves knowing that their party is semi-highjacked by conservative extremists.



Thanks for telling me something that I already know. However, nearly every republican in both house and Senate voted FOR the legislation. Figure that one out! If we weren't for civil rights then why the hell did the Republican Party VOTE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT?
Because the Republicans of the 1960's bear no resemblance to the Republicans of today. And two of the Democrats who voted against it that I can name...both later became Republicans...namely, the aforementioned Helms and Thurmond. So you may as well count them as Republicans who voted against it...because they were Democrats In Name Only...as were most of the Dixiecrats...most of whom later turned to Republicans. The Dixiecrats were a shame on our Party, and we're glad to be shed of them. you guys took them in gladly...because their ideals and the modern-day Republican's ideals....match.

Because the Republicans of the 1960's bear no resemblance to the Republicans of today. And two of the Democrats who voted against it that I can name...both later became Republicans...namely, the aforementioned Helms and Thurmond. So you may as well count them as Republicans who voted against it...because they were Democrats In Name Only...as were most of the Dixiecrats...most of whom later turned to Republicans. The Dixiecrats were a shame on our Party, and we're glad to be shed of them. you guys took them in gladly...because their ideals and the modern-day Republican's ideals....match.

Lyric, I honestly don't care what happened in the 1960s however, I do know that neither party is upholding to their founding principles.

Everyone needs to stop with the political hackery if we're ever going to fix our country. Only together can we fix it for the better. Until that happens, nothing will get fixed.

Our nation was founded on Compromise. The Declaration of Independence was a compromise. Something things were taken out of it. The Constitution itself was a compromise. Without the compromise, there wouldn't be a US Constitution.

So why don't we get back on the topic at hand and that being the pledge and have an actual debate on it without the partisan hackery from both sides of the aisle?

Lyric, I honestly don't care what happened in the 1960s however, I do know that neither party is upholding to their founding principles.

Everyone needs to stop with the political hackery if we're ever going to fix our country. Only together can we fix it for the better. Until that happens, nothing will get fixed.

Our nation was founded on Compromise. The Declaration of Independence was a compromise. Something things were taken out of it. The Constitution itself was a compromise. Without the compromise, there wouldn't be a US Constitution.

So why don't we get back on the topic at hand and that being the pledge and have an actual debate on it without the partisan hackery from both sides of the aisle?

The parties have packaged everything together now and the most contentious issues are also the ones least prone to compromise.

How do you compromise on a basic principle of church-state separation?
How do you compromise on abortion?

These are all-or-nothing propositions, the alternatives are entirely mutually exclusive.

As long as religious mania informs one side of any debate, there can be no compromise, because religious mania is unreasonable.

The parties have packaged everything together now and the most contentious issues are also the ones least prone to compromise.

How do you compromise on a basic principle of church-state separation?
How do you compromise on abortion?

These are all-or-nothing propositions, the alternatives are entirely mutually exclusive.

As long as religious mania informs one side of any debate, there can be no compromise, because religious mania is unreasonable.

I hope you are including "aetheistic mania" in your claim. If so, I think I agree on the general idea.

I'm actually old enough to remember when there were "liberal" Republicans and "Conservative" democrats. I think the change came with Reagan's style of not (publicly) compromising. That was followed by the emergance of FM radio that left the AM stations with nothing to do. So, the AM's went to talk. At the same time the FCC under "deregulation" removed the "fairness doctrine" and "equal time" this happened when conservatives just gained the majority. Since station owners wanted the most listeners they put on talkers that apealed to that majority. With no balance, and to attract listeners they found the more reactionary the hosts the more listeners found it entertaining. What they didn't consider, because it didn't have an immediate economic impact, was that this talk became "educational". People started thinking this was "news". So to keep the audience they hired even more reactionary hosts. Someone in the Republican Party noticed this and started sending out daily "talking points". This saved the hosts time and money because they no longer had to do reseach. Notice that in three days every talk radio host had the same line---"It wasn't Bush, it was the mayor and governor"---I think there's something wrong when getting out the "spin" is efficient but getting people help isn't.

All of this didn't destroy the far Left. It destroyed the middle. Suddenly there were no liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Suddenly, congress didn't operate on compromise as it had for 200 years regardless of which party as in power. There is no compromise without that middle. In the past, either party (even if it was the majority) had to get some votes from the other party, because they were going to lose some of those middle votes of their own. Without compromise, it's like a rival football game. Growing up in Nebraska our slogan was "I'm for Nebraska and whoever is playing Oklahoma". Good for state loyalty, but no way to run a Federal Government.

We are being reminded in the SC hearings how far this noncompromise has gone. In the past, justices like Bork were told they were going to lose big because their own party was going to lose votes. At the same time, any reasonable nominee was approved by votes in the 90's. I really can't see an end to this because the left will someday become the majority--yes these things swing---and they are ready for revenge.
Absolutely the best post of the day. Thank you, o voice of reason! (I quote it in its entirety, hoping people will read it again.)

PS: I'm not a Christian and I curse up a storm. I just don't do it AT people. Is that the difference? ;)

And we all know how much Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms just loved any minority!!
Actually, Strom Thurmond loved minorities quite well. Have you seen his daughter? ;) :p

I hope you are including "aetheistic mania" in your claim. If so, I think I agree on the general idea.


What is "atheistic mania?"

By "religious mania" i mean a world-view in which a fundementalist notion about religion informs every decision.

I fail to see how one could be an atheist fundementalist, as there is no "atheist religion" with a specific set of values, rules, &c.

You may be confusing atheism with secularism (something which does not exclude the religious), and some people are indeed very strong secularists, but this is based on the establishment and free excercize clauses of the first amendment.

They could be called constitutional fundementalists, I suppose, or, "constitutional maniacs."

Lyric, I honestly don't care what happened in the 1960s however, I do know that neither party is upholding to their founding principles.

Everyone needs to stop with the political hackery if we're ever going to fix our country. Only together can we fix it for the better. Until that happens, nothing will get fixed.

Our nation was founded on Compromise. The Declaration of Independence was a compromise. Something things were taken out of it. The Constitution itself was a compromise. Without the compromise, there wouldn't be a US Constitution.

So why don't we get back on the topic at hand and that being the pledge and have an actual debate on it without the partisan hackery from both sides of the aisle?

The only problem with that, Corny...is I suspect that YOUR definition of "better" and MY definition of "better" are probably close to diametrically opposed. Likewise, our definitions of "fixing the country" are probably also diametically opposed.

How about you define your idea of "better" and your idea of "fixing the country" and then I'll post mine, because I am going to bed now, been up nearly 24 hours solid now, and I need some horizontal time.

Incidentally, I am not a party hack, or even a partisan hack...there is much about the Democrats that pisses me off, too...because they are too often caving to the Republicans, to the point where sometimes ya can't tell 'em apart! The Democrats are even further to the right than I would like. But, pragmatically, I know that only the Democrats have a chance at beating the Republicans...and, while the Democrats leave much to be desired, according to me...they are at least a far cry better than the Republicans, whom I absolutely despise, on general principles...and on the fact that they are against everything I'm for.
So I end up supporting the lesser of two evils. If I had MY way, this would be a Socialistic Democracy, sorta like the government of, say, Sweden. The idea being that basic needs are fulfilled for everyone...yet everyone still maintains their personal freedoms.

I'm actually old enough to remember when there were "liberal" Republicans and "Conservative" democrats. I think the change came with Reagan's style of not (publicly) compromising. That was followed by the emergance of FM radio that left the AM stations with nothing to do. So, the AM's went to talk. At the same time the FCC under "deregulation" removed the "fairness doctrine" and "equal time" this happened when conservatives just gained the majority. Since station owners wanted the most listeners they put on talkers that apealed to that majority. With no balance, and to attract listeners they found the more reactionary the hosts the more listeners found it entertaining. What they didn't consider, because it didn't have an immediate economic impact, was that this talk became "educational". People started thinking this was "news". So to keep the audience they hired even more reactionary hosts. Someone in the Republican Party noticed this and started sending out daily "talking points". This saved the hosts time and money because they no longer had to do reseach. Notice that in three days every talk radio host had the same line---"It wasn't Bush, it was the mayor and governor"---I think there's something wrong when getting out the "spin" is efficient but getting people help isn't.

All of this didn't destroy the far Left. It destroyed the middle. Suddenly there were no liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Suddenly, congress didn't operate on compromise as it had for 200 years regardless of which party as in power. There is no compromise without that middle. In the past, either party (even if it was the majority) had to get some votes from the other party, because they were going to lose some of those middle votes of their own. Without compromise, it's like a rival football game. Growing up in Nebraska our slogan was "I'm for Nebraska and whoever is playing Oklahoma". Good for state loyalty, but no way to run a Federal Government.

We are being reminded in the SC hearings how far this noncompromise has gone. In the past, justices like Bork were told they were going to lose big because their own party was going to lose votes. At the same time, any reasonable nominee was approved by votes in the 90's. I really can't see an end to this because the left will someday become the majority--yes these things swing---and they are ready for revenge.

Bet your sweet ASS we on the left are ready for revenge!! Can't WAIT till the day we get it on those scumbags on the far right, too!! They will PAY for the years of misery they have put us through...so help me, they will pay! I only hope I'm still around to enjoy it and gloat, and rub it in their faces...just like they do to US right now.

Bet your sweet ASS we on the left are ready for revenge!! Can't WAIT till the day we get it on those scumbags on the far right, too!! They will PAY for the years of misery they have put us through...so help me, they will pay! I only hope I'm still around to enjoy it and gloat, and rub it in their faces...just like they do to US right now.

This post makes moderates :headbang:

This post makes moderates :headbang:

It does that to everyone, regardless of political persuasion.

The only problem with that, Corny...is I suspect that YOUR definition of "better" and MY definition of "better" are probably close to diametrically opposed. Likewise, our definitions of "fixing the country" are probably also diametically opposed.

So much for compromising and working together. When people work together, you listen to everyone. That includes ideas you may not like. I would be willing to work with you to help fix our beloved Country. I would be willing to listen to you. You may have some great ideas that could actually work.

How about you define your idea of "better" and your idea of "fixing the country" and then I'll post mine, because I am going to bed now, been up nearly 24 hours solid now, and I need some horizontal time.

I'm sorry but I post them, you will blast them with an angry retort has you often do when logic and rationality are both used.

Incidentally, I am not a party hack, or even a partisan hack...there is much about the Democrats that pisses me off, too...because they are too often caving to the Republicans, to the point where sometimes ya can't tell 'em apart! The Democrats are even further to the right than I would like. But, pragmatically, I know that only the Democrats have a chance at beating the Republicans...and, while the Democrats leave much to be desired, according to me...they are at least a far cry better than the Republicans, whom I absolutely despise, on general principles...and on the fact that they are against everything I'm for.

I will challenge this based on the merits that you have done nothing but blast the republican party. You haven't said a word in regards to the Democratic Party. So yes, until you can prove to me that you are not a partisan hack then I'll take back the statement, otherwise, I'll continue to call you a partisan hack.

It is partisan hackery that is ruining our nation. People need to listen to eachother! don' you understand that?

So I end up supporting the lesser of two evils. If I had MY way, this would be a Socialistic Democracy, sorta like the government of, say, Sweden. The idea being that basic needs are fulfilled for everyone...yet everyone still maintains their personal freedoms.

God help us all! I don't want to live in a welfare state.

Bet your sweet ASS we on the left are ready for revenge!! Can't WAIT till the day we get it on those scumbags on the far right, too!! They will PAY for the years of misery they have put us through...so help me, they will pay! I only hope I'm still around to enjoy it and gloat, and rub it in their faces...just like they do to US right now.

With this Post Lyric, you just proved yourself a partisan hack. It is little wonder you don't have a job.

Kill the damn attitude and people might actually hire you.

*goes off and buys a gun to defend the land he loves from liberals* <--Sarcasm

One of the basic principles of communication is listening. The old saying is "you have two ears and only one mouth". Going back at least as for as Aristole, those that controlled the government should listen to the ideas of the opposition. In a democracy, such as ancient Greece, Aristotle recognized that even the most hated of opposition could have a good idea. In modern history, Hitler asked his engineers to build a car that would be long lasting, run as efficiently as possible, that would be simple enough for even the least mechanic to repair. He said that transportation of the masses would be the economic engine of the future. That idea became the original VW Beetle. The VW was the one item that pulled Germany out of the WW2 loss. Ike recognized the wisdom of his enemy and built the Interstate Highway System.

Today, I don't see anyone listening. All I hear are memorized arguements. I drive a rural mail route every Saturday. With a choise between country music and talk radio, I tend to listen to talk. I like to hear other views, but it gets a little boring when every host has exactly the same views and profess that the other side has nothing of value. It is absolutely insane when Sean Henedy (sp?) says "the left are trying to use the disaster for political gain----and everyone knows it was the democratic mayor and democratic governor that caused the problem".

I really long for the days of a "middle".

God help us all! I don't want to live in a welfare state.


Most people who do seem to like it.

It isnt for nothing the "welfare states" are repeatedly ranked as the best places in the world to live, you know.

I imagine its because they dont let wacko ideological hackery get in the way of enjoying life.

One of the basic principles of communication is listening. The old saying is "you have two ears and only one mouth". Going back at least as for as Aristole, those that controlled the government should listen to the ideas of the opposition. In a democracy, such as ancient Greece, Aristotle recognized that even the most hated of opposition could have a good idea. In modern history, Hitler asked his engineers to build a car that would be long lasting, run as efficiently as possible, that would be simple enough for even the least mechanic to repair. He said that transportation of the masses would be the economic engine of the future. That idea became the original VW Beetle. The VW was the one item that pulled Germany out of the WW2 loss. Ike recognized the wisdom of his enemy and built the Interstate Highway System.

Today, I don't see anyone listening. All I hear are memorized arguements. I drive a rural mail route every Saturday. With a choise between country music and talk radio, I tend to listen to talk. I like to hear other views, but it gets a little boring when every host has exactly the same views and profess that the other side has nothing of value. It is absolutely insane when Sean Henedy (sp?) says "the left are trying to use the disaster for political gain----and everyone knows it was the democratic mayor and democratic governor that caused the problem".

I really long for the days of a "middle".to get 'Middle' both sides need to compromise. Today there is no Compromises anymore.


and that is what make it so sad.

Most people who do seem to like it.

It isnt for nothing the "welfare states" are repeatedly ranked as the best places in the world to live, you know.

I imagine its because they dont let wacko ideological hackery get in the way of enjoying life.

I'm one of those that you don't rely on governments to provide for you if you are fully capable of doing it on your own.

to get 'Middle' both sides need to compromise. Today there is no Compromises anymore.


and that is what make it so sad.

I couldn't agree more JuNii

I'm one of those that you don't rely on governments to provide for you if you are fully capable of doing it on your own.


Ideology before enjoying life, indeed.

I couldn't agree more JuNii
You do realize that the collective reaction to any remark from you that has to do with compromise or moderation is this: :rolleyes: , right?

Ideology before enjoying life, indeed.

Who said anything about Ideology? Not me.

I just don't trust the government to support me. If I do have to live off the government, it would only be for a short time till I'm able to get back on my feet and get off of welfare.

You do realize that the collective reaction to any remark from you that has to do with compromise or moderation is this: :rolleyes: , right?

I'm all for Compromise The Nazz. Don't start making assumptions that I don't.

I'm all for Compromise The Nazz. Don't start making assumptions that I don't.
Dude--I've got history with you. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you will stubbornly stick to what you believe. Rather than come to an agreement, you will continue to attack, putting forward your memorized talking points in lieu of any real discussion. So when I say that you do not compromise, I'm not making assumptions--I'm reporting my experience with you.

You do realize that the collective reaction to any remark from you that has to do with compromise or moderation is this: :rolleyes: , right?you realize that most Compromises are nothing more but one side asking the other to give up while that side keeps right?

Dude--I've got history with you. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you will stubbornly stick to what you believe. Rather than come to an agreement, you will continue to attack, putting forward your memorized talking points in lieu of any real discussion. So when I say that you do not compromise, I'm not making assumptions--I'm reporting my experience with you.

You are making assumptions unfortunately. I've compromised before. I will continue to compromise too.

So why don't we put this aside and actually talk about what needs to be fixed in this nation?

you realize that most Compromises are nothing more but one side asking the other to give up while that side keeps right?
I realize that's the case when one side is dictating from a position of power, as is the case in the US right now. But in a case where one party controls the House and another controls the Senate, the ability to compromise is a necessity, and it involves good faith bargaining.

I realize that's the case when one side is dictating from a position of power, as is the case in the US right now. But in a case where one party controls the House and another controls the Senate, the ability to compromise is a necessity, and it involves good faith bargaining.

Your absolutely right The Nazz. However, there should still be compromise even if one party occupies both the Congress and the Presidency.

Your absolutely right The Nazz. However, there should still be compromise even if one party occupies both the Congress and the Presidency.
I agree--tell that to your congressional leadership and see how hard they laugh at you.

Who said anything about Ideology? Not me.

I just don't trust the government to support me. If I do have to live off the government, it would only be for a short time till I'm able to get back on my feet and get off of welfare.

What you just posted there is strongly, strongly ideological.

I agree--tell that to your congressional leadership and see how hard they laugh at you.

Both sides are guilty of it not just the Republicans so why don't we tell both of our leaderships and begin to actually exort some pressure on them.

What you just posted there is strongly, strongly ideological.

New Granada,

Sorry but no I am not. I don't believe that people should be living off of the government. If they do then it should only be for a short time but it shouldn't be over an extended period of time.

That is not ideological reasoning.

New Granada,

Sorry but no I am not. I don't believe that people should be living off of the government. If they do then it should only be for a short time but it shouldn't be over an extended period of time.

That is not ideological reasoning.


What sort of reasoning is it, then?

What sort of reasoning is it, then?

My own.

Both sides are guilty of it not just the Republicans so why don't we tell both of our leaderships and begin to actually exort some pressure on them.
When you have no power to stop the opposition, which is where the Democrats find themselves right now, then there can be no real compromise. You obviously don't understand this, or you wouldn't type stuff like you did above. So read this carefully.

There is no compromise going on in US government for one reason--the Republicans don't want it or need it. That's the situation. The Republicans don't need the Democrats for anything unless the Senate Dems filibuster, and even then, what changes they force on rare occasions wind up getting ripped out in the conference committee. Your rhetoric on the need for Dems to compromise nationally is intellectually empty. It's nonsense.

It's quite terrifying to read posts by people who barely seem to have grasped the concept of a "welfare state" saying they do not wish to live in one. But understandable. If you haven't actually lived in one, you're not really expected to know what the fuzz is all about.

The common (?) perception is that you are free to quit your work and spend your entire life on the sofa, watching TV. This leading to some sort of brain drain, causing the GDP of the nation to plummet.
This is not the case.
It is indeed a right you have, but very few decide to excersise it.

Ironically, the "welfare states" are the highest ranked nations in the world when it comes to standards of living. Why isn't this desired by every human being on the planet?

My own.


One shared by a great many people who share your ideology, Corneliu.

It's quite terrifying to read posts by people who barely seem to have grasped the concept of a "welfare state" saying they do not wish to live in one. But understandable. If you haven't actually lived in one, you're not really expected to know what the fuzz is all about.

The common (?) perception is that you are free to quit your work and spend your entire life on the sofa, watching TV. This leading to some sort of brain drain, causing the GDP of the nation to plummet.
This is not the case.
It is indeed a right you have, but very few decide to excersise it.

Ironically, the "welfare states" are the highest ranked nations in the world when it comes to standards of living. Why isn't this desired by every human being on the planet?


Because of ideologues, really.

Because of ideologues, really.

Alright..
So what's the problem with having more people content?

Alright..
So what's the problem with having more people content?

Nono, it is ideologues who *have* the problem.

I don't care if they take out the Under God part of the pledge, I'm still saying it. I don't want some small minority controlling every little thing I do. This is how the pledge goes:

I pledge allegiance,
to the Flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the Republic,
for which it stands,
one nation,
under God ,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

And this is how it shall remain.

When you have no power to stop the opposition, which is where the Democrats find themselves right now, then there can be no real compromise. You obviously don't understand this, or you wouldn't type stuff like you did above. So read this carefully.

Don't talk to me like a child Nazz. I am fully aware just what the balance of power in the House and Senate is.

I do understand the fact that the dems can't do much but they can filibuster to force compromise. They haven't done this. If they felt strongly on something (short of presidential nominations (don't care what party it is either, it is the President's choice)) then they should filibuster. They haven't done that at all.

Next time don't talk down to me. I am fairly intelligent.

So why don't we put this aside and actually talk about what needs to be fixed in this nation?
1. I thought we were supposed to be talking about the pledge, not how to fix the country.

2. I can't believe we're still talking about the pledge -- how many days is it now? The Katrina story isn't over. There are historic elections in Afghanistan, Germany and Saudi Arabia. Fighting is hot again in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the most exciting topic for Americans is that stupid pledge?

3. Nobody has responded to my last post about discrimination (originally directed to Mauiwowee but open to anybody), and nobody has responded meaningfully to Goodlifes' posts about compromise and listening to each other (irony), both of which are ways the country might be fixed.

4. Based on the endless argument of this thread, the country can't be fixed. We're all doomed to talk ourselves to death.

I've had it.

Don't talk to me like a child Nazz. I am fully aware just what the balance of power in the House and Senate is.

I do understand the fact that the dems can't do much but they can filibuster to force compromise. They haven't done this. If they felt strongly on something (short of presidential nominations (don't care what party it is either, it is the President's choice)) then they should filibuster. They haven't done that at all.

Next time don't talk down to me. I am fairly intelligent.


It's never been "the president's choice" before.
This is a republic, Corneliu, not a dictatorship. As little as possible is left to the sole discretion of one man. The congress is supposed to serve the country, not the president.

It's never been "the president's choice" before.
This is a republic, Corneliu, not a dictatorship. As little as possible is left to the sole discretion of one man. The congress is supposed to serve the country, not the president.

Huhhhh presidential nominees is the President's Choice.

Huhhhh presidential nominees is the President's Choice.


It is his choice who he nominates, it is not his choice whether or not the nominee is confirmed.

You do realize that the collective reaction to any remark from you that has to do with compromise or moderation is this: :rolleyes: , right?
I'm all for Compromise The Nazz. Don't start making assumptions that I don't.


Don't feel left out, Corneliu, he accuses me of the same thing.

Perhaps one reason so few are willing to compromise: they are constantly accused of being unwilling to do so. :(

<snip>I don't believe in blaming victims for the actions of bigots as a general proposition. I do place some blame with victims of bigots when they needlessly subject themselves to the bigotry. A black man who decides he wants to go to a KKK meeting "just to see what would happen" bears some blame for whatever does happen (depending on what does happen, he doesn't bear all the blame - for example: if he were lynched, but he would bear some blame for his lynching due to his idiotic choice to go where he knew bigotry against him would be prevalent, but not all the blame since there is no valid reason, bigot or not, to lynch anyone. On the other hand if they called him a N*****r and spit on him and ran him off, I'd say he bore all the blame if his only injury is to his "feelings").
All right, let's follow this reasoning:

Rosa Parks knew full well that she would offend white people by sitting in the front of the bus. So did she deserve to be arrested, called names? And was it wrong to launch the civil rights movement in response to that, since she just brought it on herself through her own actions?

Once again, you put the onus on the victim not to incite the bigot. Well, how are we to persuade society that discrimination is wrong, if we never stand up to it, if we never challenge people's prejudices? If gay/transgendered people keep their orientation secret, how will they ever gain equal rights, and how will they ever be able to overcome the fears of a society that doesn't understand them? Nothing bad can be changed until it is confronted by both its victims and by outsiders who see the victimization and stand up with the victims to say it's wrong.

Putting this in the context of this pledge debate: Many here are insisting that, if you're not forced to say the pledge, there is no foul. But I say that those 2 little words, "under god," are creating a situation in which some people are inevitably forced to either display or hide a difference from their schoolmates and colleagues. They have no choice but to risk social backlash or violate their own consciences. It's like a set-up, and it's not fair.

Your reply fails to note the word needlessly in my post. Rosa Parks did not needlessly subject herself to the bigots - she was making a statement to advance a case and a cause she was committed on following through with. I agree that bigots should be challenged and their bigotry opposed. The only onus I put on the victim is not to incite the bigot needlessly. It serves no purpose. If you incite the bigot to make a point and so you can file a lawsuit or something similar, then you have not incited them needlessly and I don't blame you for anything. It's when you know you'll be exposed to bigotry and you subject yourself to it anyway for no worthwhile purpose that I feel some blame belongs with you. A black going to a KKK meeting "just to see what's up" bears some blame for whatever happens. One going to a KKK meeting in an effort to expose that the town's mayor is the grand wizard of the local chapter is another story.

Incidentally, I am not a party hack, or even a partisan hack...there is much about the Democrats that pisses me off, too...because they are too often caving to the Republicans, to the point where sometimes ya can't tell 'em apart! The Democrats are even further to the right than I would like. But, pragmatically, I know that only the Democrats have a chance at beating the Republicans...and, while the Democrats leave much to be desired, according to me...they are at least a far cry better than the Republicans, whom I absolutely despise, on general principles...and on the fact that they are against everything I'm for.
So I end up supporting the lesser of two evils. If I had MY way, this would be a Socialistic Democracy, sorta like the government of, say, Sweden. The idea being that basic needs are fulfilled for everyone...yet everyone still maintains their personal freedoms.

So your only beef with the Democrats is that they sometimes do what Republicans want? isn't that a part of compromise? Republicans sometimes do what the Democrats want as well. That's politics.

thanks for being honest enough to say you wish the U.S. was socialist. Having lived in a socialist country (I grew up in Britain), I much prefer the U.S. free enterprise system that demands you take responsibility for yourself if you want to suceed and offers some limited assistance if you fall on hard times through no fault of your own. In a socialist country, you can make bad choices and the government will bail you out. In the U.S. you have to pay the consequences of those bad choices (well, more of them anyway). I wonder, do all Democrats wish for socialism?

Don't feel left out, Corneliu, he accuses me of the same thing.

Perhaps one reason so few are willing to compromise: they are constantly accused of being unwilling to do so. :(
Wrong--I've accused you of acting like something you aren't--namely, a centrist--Eutrusca, but you've proven yourself willing to not only compromise, but change your views when presented with enough evidence as to why you should do so. And on one or two occasions, you've gotten me to moderate my views as well. Not so with Corneliu, because he refuses to look at opposing evidence and argues that all opinions are created equal, when they aren't. Informed opinions are of more value than gut instinct or talking points.

EDIT: I should add, in all fairness, Eutrusca, that you've knocked off the centrist claim recently, so I shouldn't continue to give you crap for that. I'll stop.

Wrong--I've accused you of acting like something you aren't--namely, a centrist--Eutrusca, but you've proven yourself willing to not only compromise, but change your views when presented with enough evidence as to why you should do so. And on one or two occasions, you've gotten me to moderate my views as well. Not so with Corneliu, because he refuses to look at opposing evidence and argues that all opinions are created equal, when they aren't. Informed opinions are of more value than gut instinct or talking points.

EDIT: I should add, in all fairness, Eutrusca, that you've knocked off the centrist claim recently, so I shouldn't continue to give you crap for that. I'll stop.

The Nazz:

I do change my position when presented with enough FACTS to warrent it. I am also willing to compromise. As for my opinions, they are informed. I'm going by what 3 well 2 now justices have said on this issue. They have stated that the words "under God" DO NOT constitute a violation of the establishment Clause!

The 4th Circuit and the 7th Circuit Courts have said the same thing. So I am informed on this subject.

I'm 17 and I currently go to a high school in West Virginia. I've been to approximately 8 different schools... and for each school I've been to there has been AT LEAST 1 person at each place who did not want to say the pledge for whatever reason... I've yet to see anyone be forced to say it, or to appear unfavorable before anyone because of it. We're told by each of our teachers that it's not neccessary for us to do it unless we so choose to. On the otherhand, they do ask for us to stand in recognition of the lives lost and sacrifices made by soldiers, but we don't have to do that either. It's a respect issue on the latter.

Your reply fails to note the word needlessly in my post. Rosa Parks did not needlessly subject herself to the bigots - she was making a statement to advance a case and a cause she was committed on following through with. I agree that bigots should be challenged and their bigotry opposed. The only onus I put on the victim is not to incite the bigot needlessly. It serves no purpose. If you incite the bigot to make a point and so you can file a lawsuit or something similar, then you have not incited them needlessly and I don't blame you for anything. It's when you know you'll be exposed to bigotry and you subject yourself to it anyway for no worthwhile purpose that I feel some blame belongs with you. A black going to a KKK meeting "just to see what's up" bears some blame for whatever happens. One going to a KKK meeting in an effort to expose that the town's mayor is the grand wizard of the local chapter is another story.
Sorry, Mauiwowee, but if you split those hairs any finer, you'll end up bald. You never address the issue squarely. I've asked you several times what should be done if a person cannot avoid inciting bigots needlessly, if just the sight of the target person walking down the street is enough to set a bigot off. I've given you realistic scenarios: a black person facing discrimination in a job application; a woman facing sexual discrimination walking down the street. You ignore those and instead come up with some fantasy about a black person attending a KKK meeting "just to see what will happen." Well, M, you better have been that black person, because otherwise, I'm going to say that never happens. But my scenarios do happen. So address them.

Is it inciting discrimination for a black person to apply for a job at a white-owned company? Is it inciting discrimination for a woman to go out by herself? Neither of them can hide what makes them targets of bigotry to some people. If they are not "inciting" by doing regular things, then transsexuals also cannot be said to be "inciting" by doing the same regular things.

You just keep shrugging this off, saying, in essence, oh, well, if they *can't* hide, then they have a complaint, but if they can hide it, they really should to avoid inciting the bigot. Can't you see what's wrong with that phrase, "inciting the bigot"? Whether you want to admit it or not, you are telling people that they should hide themselves to avoid annoying bigots. That is the reasoning of a bigot!! The bigots are the bad guys, M. We shouldn't be required to bend our lives around them.

You can't have it both ways. Either bigots are bad and should be restrained legally and encouraged to change their ways socially, or being different is a provocation and people who don't conform should keep a low profile or be prepared to take a beating.

I have a follow up in connection with the pledge which I'll post separately to avoid confusing issues.

This is a follow-up to post #808:

Mauiwowee:

On the subject of the pledge:

1. For the record, I want to state that I think the pledge is way too trivial a topic for such a long, heated thread (two threads, in fact). If I had to take a stand on it, then, if we keep the pledge at all, I'd like "under god" out, restoring the original content. But I'd rather discontinue using the pledge altogether -- except maybe for new citizens, new soldiers, and how about starting sessions of Congress with the pledge instead of a prayer? :D But in practical terms, I can't believe we're still beating this dead horse.

2. That said, in an earlier post, I stated that, to me, being asked to recite the pledge in school, even if it's not *required*, creates a situation in which some people -- dissenters -- will be forced to display a difference, which otherwise might not be obvious, and thus be put at risk of inciting bigots. I described this as an unfair set-up. It creates a pressure to conform under an implied duress. Admittedly, it is very mild, but it is the principle of the situation that matters to me. I believe it mattered to various courts as well and that is why they issued decisions banning mandatory recitation of the pledge.

3. If we follow your argument about minorities or dissenters being responsible for not inciting bigotry, then we are left with no option for dissenters but to go against their consciences or else risk retaliation with no hope of protection before or justice after.

4. My question to you is: If dissenters who refuse to recite the pledge do become the victims of discrimination -- if a student gets roughed up in the schoolyard or if a teacher gets fired -- do they deserve it? Have they brought it on themselves by displaying a difference publicly?

Or do they have the right to demand rules to protect them against such retaliation and to demand enforcement if those rules are broken (i.e., should the bully be suspended and can the fired teacher sue)?

5. And finally, how about if that dissenter is a transsexual? :p

This is a follow-up to post #808:

Mauiwowee:

On the subject of the pledge:

1. For the record, I want to state that I think the pledge is way too trivial a topic for such a long, heated thread (two threads, in fact). If I had to take a stand on it, then, if we keep the pledge at all, I'd like "under god" out, restoring the original content. But I'd rather discontinue using the pledge altogether -- except maybe for new citizens, new soldiers, and how about starting sessions of Congress with the pledge instead of a prayer? :D But in practical terms, I can't believe we're still beating this dead horse.

Actually, they say the Pledge as well as have a prayer (wait? They say a prayer in Congress but yet we can't do it in school! something wrong here?)

Actually, they say the Pledge as well as have a prayer (wait? They say a prayer in Congress but yet we can't do it in school! something wrong here?)
On the contrary! There's something wrong in Congress!! :p

Thanks for the info.

On the contrary! There's something wrong in Congress!! :p

Thanks for the info.

Oh we already know that something is wrong in Congress! :p

And your welcome for the info.

Actually, they say the Pledge as well as have a prayer (wait? They say a prayer in Congress but yet we can't do it in school! something wrong here?)check your state legislature, ours also opens with a prayer. Does yours?

check your state legislature, ours also opens with a prayer. Does yours?

I wouldn't know but I am willing to bet good money that they do open with prayer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Bet your sweet ASS we on the left are ready for revenge!! Can't WAIT till the day we get it on those scumbags on the far right, too!! They will PAY for the years of misery they have put us through...so help me, they will pay! I only hope I'm still around to enjoy it and gloat, and rub it in their faces...just like they do to US right now.


This post makes moderates :headbang:

Maybe so. But we didn't start the fire. They did. And until I have been a part of giving them the kind of misery and hell they have put US through for the last twelve years...I am not ready or willing to be at all civil about it.

They invented "smashmouth politics." The day will come where we give it back to them. And I, for one, can't wait!! I'm gonna make their lives HELL the way they have made mine HELL. Once I have been a part of making their lives hell for as long as they have done to me, then maybe I'll be in a mood to compromise and be civil. But not until we settle the score. Not until we GET EVEN!!!

It is partisan hackery that is ruining our nation. People need to listen to eachother! don' you understand that?


It's THEIR side of the aissle that isn't listening to us, or compromising to US in any way, shape or form. And they have a comeuppance coming to them first, before I am willing to again be civil and maybe even compromise. They've had things all their own way for the last twelve years. Once the score is settled, THEN, maybe I'll be more in a mood. Until then, far as I am concerned....it's war! We didn't start the fire!

It's THEIR side of the aissle that isn't listening to us, or compromising to US in any way, shape or form. And they have a comeuppance coming to them first, before I am willing to again be civil and maybe even compromise. They've had things all their own way for the last twelve years. Once the score is settled, THEN, maybe I'll be more in a mood. Until then, far as I am concerned....it's war! We didn't start the fire!

This post makes Jon Stewart cry.

It's THEIR side of the aissle that isn't listening to us, or compromising to US in any way, shape or form. And they have a comeuppance coming to them first, before I am willing to again be civil and maybe even compromise. They've had things all their own way for the last twelve years. Once the score is settled, THEN, maybe I'll be more in a mood. Until then, far as I am concerned....it's war! We didn't start the fire!

I hate to break this to you Lyric, but the Dems aren't exactly listening either. Both sides are NOT listening to eachother. In Politics, you have to learn how to listen to all sides of the issue in order to come up with a plan of action.

With this Post Lyric, you just proved yourself a partisan hack. It is little wonder you don't have a job.

Kill the damn attitude and people might actually hire you.


HOW ABOUT SOMEONE GIVE ME A REASON TO KILL THE ATTITUDE, FIRST??
We didn't start the fire! They declared me and my people, and my ideology enemies, first. They started playing "smashmouth politics." I will fight them to my last breath! From Hell's heart, I stab at thee...

Anyone ever hear the Klingon proverb that says revenge is a dish best served cold? Our day will come, and I intend on serving up the revenge with a hunk of dry ice!

They will be sorry for their actions then! Maybe THEN...after they have been subjected to a little suffering...maybe THEN...they will be willing to listen and compromise.

And, again, Corny...I'm not a partisan hack, because, quite frankly, the Democrats are too fucking far to the right for my liking. I'm just pragmatic enough to know that the only chance we have is to get the lesser of two evils in. and for me, that means the Democrats.

If I had my way, all the way, we'd have a socialist Party in this country, capable of gaining real power, and creating beneficial change for the most unfortunate among us.

I'm sick and tired of seeing those at the top of the heap get everything, while those of us on the bottom never even get a fucking chance!

HOW ABOUT SOMEONE GIVE ME A REASON TO KILL THE ATTITUDE, FIRST??
We didn't start the fire! They declared me and my people, and my ideology enemies, first. They started playing "smashmouth politics." I will fight them to my last breath! From Hell's heart, I stab at thee...

Anyone ever hear the Klingon proverb that says revenge is a dish best served cold? Our day will come, and I intend on serving up the revenge with a hunk of dry ice!

They will be sorry for their actions then! Maybe THEN...after they have been subjected to a little suffering...maybe THEN...they will be willing to listen and compromise.

And, again, Corny...I'm not a partisan hack, because, quite frankly, the Democrats are too fucking far to the right for my liking. I'm just pragmatic enough to know that the only chance we have is to get the lesser of two evils in. and for me, that means the Democrats.

If I had my way, all the way, we'd have a socialist Party in this country, capable of gaining real power, and creating beneficial change for the most unfortunate among us.

I'm sick and tired of seeing those at the top of the heap get everything, while those of us on the bottom never even get a fucking chance!

Well if the Democrats are too far to the right what exactly is your ideology?

HOW ABOUT SOMEONE GIVE ME A REASON TO KILL THE ATTITUDE, FIRST??

You want a job? Kill the attitude. With an attitude like that, it is little wonder you odn't have a job. Even I wouldn't hire you because of your attitude. Attitude is everything in the job market Lyric.

We didn't start the fire! They declared me and my people, and my ideology enemies, first. They started playing "smashmouth politics." I will fight them to my last breath! From Hell's heart, I stab at thee...

Actually... in reality, the dems really did start it back during the campaign of 1860. Actually, you can probably trace it past the beginnings of the Republican and Democratic Parties towards the federalist and anti-federalist parties.

Anyone ever hear the Klingon proverb that says revenge is a dish best served cold? Our day will come, and I intend on serving up the revenge with a hunk of dry ice!

Nothing is settled by revenge. Didn't your mother ever teach you that? SO much for being a christian. A christian doesn't take revenge.

They will be sorry for their actions then! Maybe THEN...after they have been subjected to a little suffering...maybe THEN...they will be willing to listen and compromise.

How unchristianlike. Are you sure your a christian because you sure aren't acting like one.

And, again, Corny...I'm not a partisan hack, because, quite frankly, the Democrats are too fucking far to the right for my liking. I'm just pragmatic enough to know that the only chance we have is to get the lesser of two evils in. and for me, that means the Democrats.

I honestly don't care about your politics. What I do care about is the fact that you have one unhealthy attitude that is going to drive you to a heart attack if your not careful. You have a type A personality don't you?

If I had my way, all the way, we'd have a socialist Party in this country, capable of gaining real power, and creating beneficial change for the most unfortunate among us.

I'm sure they are recruiting people. Why don't you try to find out and see what you can do with it. Maybe you can actually head it and actually do something instead of bitching about how cruel the world is! Guess what? It is a cruel world and it won't get better either.

I'm one of those that you don't rely on governments to provide for you if you are fully capable of doing it on your own.


No. More likely, you're one of those who never learned how to SHARE. Most capitalists do not want to share. I'm not saying everyone needs to be equal...I'm saying that some should not get fabulously wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF the working class and the poor folks.

It is appalling to me that we have people in this country without health insurance...who have to choose between food or medicine...who have to let health conditions deteriorate, for lack of health insurance or money to go to the doctor....so that, what could have been treated, and preventable, instead becomes worse, and eventually causes death or needless suffering. I find it appalling that some families have to choose between food, and heat in the wintertime.
I find it appaling that there are homeless people in our country...that there are sick and starving people in this country. It does not have to be that way.
I find it appaling that, in the midst of all the human suffering, that doesn't have to be...in this country....that the fucking Gates family...and the fucking Walton family...none of them will EVER have to work, for about five hundred generations...while others starve, go without medical treatment that eventually causes a minor problem to become major...while others choose between food and medicine, or food and heat...while some people cut pills in half in order to make ends meet, and thus do not get all the medication they need.

All that, while some people roll like filthy, greedy, pigs in troughs of money the size of the motherfucking Grand Canyon!

If the worst of suffering could be avoided, then it should be. And in this country IT CAN BE AVOIDED....if the greedy robber barons would only learn to SHARE a little bit. for Christ's sake, you would think they think it would KILL them to just fucking share a little.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuNii
to get 'Middle' both sides need to compromise. Today there is no Compromises anymore.


and that is what make it so sad.


I couldn't agree more JuNii

My ass, Corny. If you really believed that, you would not make your snarky comments about liberals. All we want is an end to human suffering in this country. we want the wealthy to pick up their share of the burden. We want the wealthy to STOP getting wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF the poor and the working class.

No. More likely, you're one of those who never learned how to SHARE. Most capitalists do not want to share. I'm not saying everyone needs to be equal...I'm saying that some should not get fabulously wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF the working class and the poor folks.

It is appalling to me that we have people in this country without health insurance...who have to choose between food or medicine...who have to let health conditions deteriorate, for lack of health insurance or money to go to the doctor....so that, what could have been treated, and preventable, instead becomes worse, and eventually causes death or needless suffering. I find it appalling that some families have to choose between food, and heat in the wintertime.
I find it appaling that there are homeless people in our country...that there are sick and starving people in this country. It does not have to be that way.
I find it appaling that, in the midst of all the human suffering, that doesn't have to be...in this country....that the fucking Gates family...and the fucking Walton family...none of them will EVER have to work, for about five hundred generations...while others starve, go without medical treatment that eventually causes a minor problem to become major...while others choose between food and medicine, or food and heat...while some people cut pills in half in order to make ends meet, and thus do not get all the medication they need.

All that, while some people roll like filthy, greedy, pigs in troughs of money the size of the motherfucking Grand Canyon!

If the worst of suffering could be avoided, then it should be. And in this country IT CAN BE AVOIDED....if the greedy robber barons would only learn to SHARE a little bit. for Christ's sake, you would think they think it would KILL them to just fucking share a little.

If this is your view point I'll ask you a question. Which is better to live life without coercion like for example slavery or to live life by say having your needs me like for example never being hungry?

Who said anything about Ideology? Not me.

I just don't trust the government to support me. If I do have to live off the government, it would only be for a short time till I'm able to get back on my feet and get off of welfare.

Who said anything about the government supporting anyone? All we want is an end to the worst of human suffering. Now if you wealthy capitalists and robber barons will not do it willingly...and quit getting filthier and filthier...at the expense of the poor and the working class...until their suffering becomes a permanent institution...then we do believe it is up to the government to MAKE you stop being so goddam greedy.

No. More likely, you're one of those who never learned how to SHARE. Most capitalists do not want to share. I'm not saying everyone needs to be equal...I'm saying that some should not get fabulously wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF the working class and the poor folks.

Actually, I learned to share but I would rather spend my money on things that matter like the military and security than on giving a bum who sits on his or her ass all day who is fully capable of working a free handout. I'm sorry but that is the cold hard truth. I have no tolerance for bums who can work but wont.

It is appalling to me that we have people in this country without health insurance...who have to choose between food or medicine...who have to let health conditions deteriorate, for lack of health insurance or money to go to the doctor....so that, what could have been treated, and preventable, instead becomes worse, and eventually causes death or needless suffering. I find it appalling that some families have to choose between food, and heat in the wintertime.

Your not the only one.

I find it appaling that there are homeless people in our country...that there are sick and starving people in this country. It does not have to be that way.

Your right!

If the worst of suffering could be avoided, then it should be. And in this country IT CAN BE AVOIDED....if the greedy robber barons would only learn to SHARE a little bit. for Christ's sake, you would think they think it would KILL them to just fucking share a little.

Or how about people to work for themselves? There is such a thing as self-employment. Many people are getting into it these days. Also, they are just like you. DOn't want to work in remedial jobs till they can get a better job. I'm seeing that more among teenagers. They take jobs at grocery stores then quit when they realize they aren't going to get rich. You want someone to blame? Blame society as a whole.

I wouldn't know but I am willing to bet good money that they do open with prayer.


The problem with prayer in school, as is evident to anyone who has ever read any of the court cases (which explain this) is that school is an inherantly coercive environment for children, who are especially impressionable.

It can be reasoned that in congress or a state legislature, saying a traditional prayer can be understood by different people to serve differnet purposes and is avowed not to establish a religion.

However, in a school setting, there is overwhelming danger that children will interpret the 'volunary' but school-led prayer as an endorsement of religion.

More importantly, the coercive aspect abridges the right to free excercize on behalf of the student.


This is why it is entirely plausible that the court would rule it unconstitutional to recite the pledge in school, but find the pledge itself to be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
I'm all for Compromise The Nazz. Don't start making assumptions that I don't.

Dude--I've got history with you. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you will stubbornly stick to what you believe. Rather than come to an agreement, you will continue to attack, putting forward your memorized talking points in lieu of any real discussion. So when I say that you do not compromise, I'm not making assumptions--I'm reporting my experience with you.

I'm afraid I must concur with The Nazz. I, too, have a history with you, Corny. And what The Nazz describes is also the history I have with you...which is why you were put on my ignore list. Because of your refusal to even debate, or concede any point, ever. You, corny...are not about compromise. Not even a little bit. And that is MY history with you, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuNii
to get 'Middle' both sides need to compromise. Today there is no Compromises anymore.


and that is what make it so sad.




My ass, Corny. If you really believed that, you would not make your snarky comments about liberals.

Oh so my comments renders what I say obsolete? Sorry but I do believe in the fine art of compromising and compromise as needed. I know what I need to compromise on! Do you?

All we want is an end to human suffering in this country. we want the wealthy to pick up their share of the burden. We want the wealthy to STOP getting wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF the poor and the working class.

Terrific Goal. now how are you going to go about it?

Your absolutely right The Nazz. However, there should still be compromise even if one party occupies both the Congress and the Presidency.

And therein lies the problem, Corny. One party currently DOES occupy the congress and the Presidency...and they are not willing to compromise jack shit.

then we do believe it is up to the government to MAKE you stop being so goddam greedy.

So now you want the government to control what we think? In any case, the only way to accomplish the coddling of the lower class is to tax the rich and then distribute it, through the government, to the poor. This means that the government now supports the poor, in direct opposition to what you said.

Who said anything about the government supporting anyone? All we want is an end to the worst of human suffering. Now if you wealthy capitalists and robber barons will not do it willingly...and quit getting filthier and filthier...at the expense of the poor and the working class...until their suffering becomes a permanent institution...then we do believe it is up to the government to MAKE you stop being so goddam greedy.

HAHAHA! I'm not wealthy at all. Neither is my family. So to say that I'm a wealthy capitalist is incorrect. I'm actually in the middle class and when the military screws up our pay, sometimes we wind up living paycheck to paycheck.

God! I remember when the Government shut down for awhile. My family was literally on pennies with barely enough to buy groceries.

And therein lies the problem, Corny. One party currently DOES occupy the congress and the Presidency...and they are not willing to compromise jack shit.

And neither did the Democrats when they held power. Its a vicious circle. One that must be broken.

You are making assumptions unfortunately. I've compromised before. I will continue to compromise too.

So why don't we put this aside and actually talk about what needs to be fixed in this nation?

So why don't we?
Let me start with my short list of things that need to be fixed in this country...

1. Discrimination - IN ALL FORMS - needs to be outlawed. Laws should be immediately passed to prohibit making employment decisions (hiring, firing, raises, promotions) on any non-bona-fide occupational qualification. And it will be up to the employer to prove, if challenged, that his decision was based solely on bona-fide occupational qualifications. Period.

2. The gap between the wealthy and the poor must be narrowed. It's time that the robber barons quit becoming wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF workers and the poor. It's time for a real living wage in this country.

3. It is time for universal health coverage for those who cannot afford it. So that, at the very least...a minor and treatable problem does not go untreated, thus making it a major, untreatable, or life-threatening condition. Private insurance should be available for those who want, and can afford it...and universal coverage for everyone else who can't.

I'll start with those three basic things I feel needs to be changed about this country. Now, watch, you'll hate every single one of those ideas, and be full of a thousand and one reasons why they suck, they are Commie, they won't work, they will suck off the wealthy...etc, etc, etc.

Hey Lyric could you answer this question for me? Which is better to live life without coercion like for example slavery or to live life by say having your needs me like for example never being hungry?

Both sides are guilty of it not just the Republicans so why don't we tell both of our leaderships and begin to actually exort some pressure on them.

Bullshit. The Democrats don't have any POWER to be that way. they just keep caving and caving and caving to the right wing. It's why I'm pissed off even with Democrats these days...but I still support them because they are at least marginally better than the Republicans on the issues I most deeply care about.

So why don't we?
Let me start with my short list of things that need to be fixed in this country...

Lets have a looksee!

1. Discrimination - IN ALL FORMS - needs to be outlawed. Laws should be immediately passed to prohibit making employment decisions (hiring, firing, raises, promotions) on any non-bona-fide occupational qualification. And it will be up to the employer to prove, if challenged, that his decision was based solely on bona-fide occupational qualifications. Period.

Actually, there should already be laws to this affect. However, the ideas are very sound. Maybe we should start an interest group and see what we can do about it.

2. The gap between the wealthy and the poor must be narrowed. It's time that the robber barons quit becoming wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF workers and the poor. It's time for a real living wage in this country.

Before I comment, just what do you propose?

3. It is time for universal health coverage for those who cannot afford it. So that, at the very least...a minor and treatable problem does not go untreated, thus making it a major, untreatable, or life-threatening condition. Private insurance should be available for those who want, and can afford it...and universal coverage for everyone else who can't.

I don't know. Sounds like temptation for abuse. I'm going to have see the checks and balances on this before I say one way or the other.

I'll start with those three basic things I feel needs to be changed about this country. Now, watch, you'll hate every single one of those ideas, and be full of a thousand and one reasons why they suck, they are Commie, they won't work, they will suck off the wealthy...etc, etc, etc.

I think you might be surprised.

It's quite terrifying to read posts by people who barely seem to have grasped the concept of a "welfare state" saying they do not wish to live in one. But understandable. If you haven't actually lived in one, you're not really expected to know what the fuzz is all about.

The common (?) perception is that you are free to quit your work and spend your entire life on the sofa, watching TV. This leading to some sort of brain drain, causing the GDP of the nation to plummet.
This is not the case.
It is indeed a right you have, but very few decide to excersise it.

Ironically, the "welfare states" are the highest ranked nations in the world when it comes to standards of living. Why isn't this desired by every human being on the planet?

Because there are selfish greedy people who don't want to share, and don't give a shit that others suffer, so that some may have excessive opulence.

Bullshit. The Democrats don't have any POWER to be that way.

Way to ignore history. They did have the power at one point then the voters gave the power to the Republicans. So what I said was correct. Both sides are guilty of it.

Alright..
So what's the problem with having more people content?

Because they don't care if other people are content or not. they want to keep their excessive opulence, no matter who it hurts. They care not for the suffering of others.

I don't care if they take out the Under God part of the pledge, I'm still saying it. I don't want some small minority controlling every little thing I do.
(/snip)

This is how the pledge went before 1954, when an Unconstitutional law was passed, that changed the wording.

I pledge allegiance,
to the Flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the Republic,
for which it stands,
one nation,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

And this is how it ought to be.

Don't talk to me like a child Nazz. I am fully aware just what the balance of power in the House and Senate is.

I do understand the fact that the dems can't do much but they can filibuster to force compromise. They haven't done this. If they felt strongly on something (short of presidential nominations (don't care what party it is either, it is the President's choice)) then they should filibuster. They haven't done that at all.

Next time don't talk down to me. I am fairly intelligent.

Oh, yeah? Then why is Limbaugh on the air SCREAMING every day about how many extremist nutball whackjob judges the Democrats have filibustered?

How many have the Democrats done this to, you ask? the answer is SEVEN.

How many of Clinton's appointees did the Republicans do this to?? Over 250.

Look it up.

So your only beef with the Democrats is that they sometimes do what Republicans want? isn't that a part of compromise? Republicans sometimes do what the Democrats want as well. {/snip}

Bull-fuck-shit!! The Republicans have no interest in compromise whatsoever. they have demonstrated this over the last four and a half years of the Bush Administration. They demonstrated no real desire to work with Clinton, either, but at least when Clinton was there we had SOME ability to fight back and force some compromise. right now, we have none.

And the Republicans do not share or compromise out of the goodness of their black hearts! They will only do so when FORCED to...and right now, there is nothing that CAN force them to.

Oh, yeah? Then why is Limbaugh on the air SCREAMING every day about how many extremist nutball whackjob judges the Democrats have filibustered?

I don't listen to Rush!

How many have the Democrats done this to, you ask? the answer is SEVEN.

On the floor of the senate.

How many of Clinton's appointees did the Republicans do this to?? Over 250.

Look it up.

Actually it was 65. How many of them though were filibustered on the Senate Floor and not killed in the Senate Judicary committee?

The Nazz:

I do change my position when presented with enough FACTS to warrent it. I am also willing to compromise. As for my opinions, they are informed. I'm going by what 3 well 2 now justices have said on this issue. They have stated that the words "under God" DO NOT constitute a violation of the establishment Clause!

The 4th Circuit and the 7th Circuit Courts have said the same thing. So I am informed on this subject.

You're going with that ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS THE ANSWER AND CONCLUSION YOU WANT TO PRODUCE!!

What if three judges came out tomorrow and said it DOES violate the Establishment Clause? Would you change your mind...or accuse the three judges of being "liberal, activist judges" and dismiss their opinions out of hand?

You needn't answer that question, Corny...most of us already know what you would do.

So I guess I wont be getting an answer to the question I asked you Lyric?

So I guess I wont be getting an answer to the question I asked you Lyric?

She doesn't have an answer apparently E.A. If she did, she probably would've answered it.

Either that or she just wants to attack me and other people who disagree with her viewpoint.

I hate to break this to you Lyric, but the Dems aren't exactly listening either. Both sides are NOT listening to eachother. In Politics, you have to learn how to listen to all sides of the issue in order to come up with a plan of action.
You're right. The Democrats aren't listening...to the people who supported them! They are doing nothing but caving and caving and caving to the Republicans on issue after issue.

Well if the Democrats are too far to the right what exactly is your ideology?

Further left than the current Democratic Party.

Try this...I'm a fiscal-issues moderate (I do not like waste and graft in government spending) and a social-issues EXTREME LIBERAL.

You're right. The Democrats aren't listening...to the people who supported them! They are doing nothing but caving and caving and caving to the Republicans on issue after issue.

Don't you think that is so because people actually brace conservative ideas?

If this is your view point I'll ask you a question. Which is better to live life without coercion like for example slavery or to live life by say having your needs me like for example never being hungry?

Why can't we have BOTH?

Seems like, in this country, we ought to be able to.

Why can't we have BOTH?

Seems like, in this country, we ought to be able to.

Because its not possible to have both. You can only have one or the other. Look at it this way.

___________________________(rich)
\
\
\(taking from rich)

/(giving to poor)
/
___________________________(poor)

The only way to bring the poor up for the second choice's example of never being hungry would be to take away from the rich. That would be accomplished by coercion.

Actually, I learned to share but I would rather spend my money on things that matter like the military and security than on giving a bum who sits on his or her ass all day who is fully capable of working a free handout. I'm sorry but that is the cold hard truth. I have no tolerance for bums who can work but wont.

How about for people who WANT TO WORK...but no one will hire them because of legalized discrimination?

How about for people who WANT TO WORK...but no one will hire them because of legalized discrimination?

1) Prove that your being dicriminated against.

2) If you are being discriminated against, then sue.

3) Are you sure it isn't your attitude that is preventing you from getting a job? What about hostility?

Quote:
All we want is an end to human suffering in this country. we want the wealthy to pick up their share of the burden. We want the wealthy to STOP getting wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF the poor and the working class.



Terrific Goal. now how are you going to go about it?

The most expedient way possible. Have the government FORCE the wealthy to quit being such pricks.

The most expedient way possible. Have the government FORCE the wealthy to quit being such pricks.

So do you believe in the right to self-employment? Do you believe in Free enterprise?

So now you want the government to control what we think? In any case, the only way to accomplish the coddling of the lower class is to tax the rich and then distribute it, through the government, to the poor. This means that the government now supports the poor, in direct opposition to what you said.

No, you're twisting what I said. Twisting it to serve your argument.

What I said...and what I meant by it...is that i'm not in favor of having people just laze around all day on the sofa in front of the TV while the government takes care of everything.

But I AM in favor of putting an end, by force if necessary...to the worst of human suffering and deprivation. So that everyone's very minimal basic needs, at least, are met.

Because its not possible to have both. You can only have one or the other. Look at it this way.

___________________________(rich)
\
\
\(taking from rich)

/(giving to poor)
/
___________________________(poor)

The only way to bring the poor up for the second choice's example of never being hungry would be to take away from the rich. That would be accomplished by coercion.

So you going to give me an answer Lyric?

And neither did the Democrats when they held power. Its a vicious circle. One that must be broken.

Bullshit. But even if that were true...why should we compromise? WE were the ones taking the country forward, amking it a nicer, fairer, better place for everyone. YOUR guys are the ones making it a wonderful place for the few at the top, and a living HELL for everyone else.

Bullshit. But even if that were true...why should we compromise? WE were the ones taking the country forward, amking it a nicer, fairer, better place for everyone. YOUR guys are the ones making it a wonderful place for the few at the top, and a living HELL for everyone else.

Congratulations. You have just proven yourself ignorant in the matters of politics.

It is true that when one party has all the power, they don't compromise at all. If one party holds both Congress and the executive, no compromise occurs. It doesn't matter what party has control of them.

That is actually the draw back of a 2 party system. If we had a 3 party system, we might see more compromising.

Who said anything about the government supporting anyone? All we want is an end to the worst of human suffering. Now if you wealthy capitalists and robber barons will not do it willingly...and quit getting filthier and filthier...at the expense of the poor and the working class...until their suffering becomes a permanent institution...then we do believe it is up to the government to MAKE you stop being so goddam greedy.

How do you propose the government MAKE them being "so goddam greedy"? There's only one way: tax the rich and give the money the poor. Now, the government supports the poor.

The alternative is that we implant mind control chips in the brains of all the rich people so they'll pick up the tab for the poor ones.

Which is it: A or B? You can't have both! (and I don't think we have the technology for B yet...)

As far as:

What I said...and what I meant by it...is that i'm not in favor of having people just laze around all day on the sofa in front of the TV while the government takes care of everything.

Compared with:


3. It is time for universal health coverage for those who cannot afford it. So that, at the very least...a minor and treatable problem does not go untreated, thus making it a major, untreatable, or life-threatening condition. Private insurance should be available for those who want, and can afford it...and universal coverage for everyone else who can't.

and...

If I had my way, all the way, we'd have a socialist Party in this country, capable of gaining real power, and creating beneficial change for the most unfortunate among us.

I'm sick and tired of seeing those at the top of the heap get everything, while those of us on the bottom never even get a fucking chance!

Socialists take care of those who sit on the couch all day watching TV and eating bon-bons, so which is it? You should solidify on a position, and tone it down a notch.

Congratulations. You have just proven yourself ignorant in the matters of politics.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/ship_sailing.jpg

It is true that when one party has all the power, they don't compromise at all. If one party holds both Congress and the executive, no compromise occurs. It doesn't matter what party has control of them.

Correct.

That is actually the draw back of a 2 party system. If we had a 3 party system, we might see more compromising.

That would make it more interesting. I just hope we don't do a complete 180 and come up with a 1-party system with the Democrats in power, like Lyric wants. If that's the case, we're screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
So why don't we?
Let me start with my short list of things that need to be fixed in this country...


Corneliu: Lets have a looksee!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
1. Discrimination - IN ALL FORMS - needs to be outlawed. Laws should be immediately passed to prohibit making employment decisions (hiring, firing, raises, promotions) on any non-bona-fide occupational qualification. And it will be up to the employer to prove, if challenged, that his decision was based solely on bona-fide occupational qualifications. Period.


Corneliu: Actually, there should already be laws to this affect. However, the ideas are very sound. Maybe we should start an interest group and see what we can do about it.

Lyric: Yeah, there SHOULD BE laws to this affect...but there AREN'T!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
2. The gap between the wealthy and the poor must be narrowed. It's time that the robber barons quit becoming wealthier and wealthier AT THE EXPENSE OF workers and the poor. It's time for a real living wage in this country.


Corneliu: Before I comment, just what do you propose?
Lyric: For starters, how about a cap on CEO's and other executive salaries, that they may not make more than 50 times what their lowest-paid employee makes? Therefore, if a CEO wants to make 2 million dollars, his lowest-paid employee must be making $40,000. That's a good place to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
3. It is time for universal health coverage for those who cannot afford it. So that, at the very least...a minor and treatable problem does not go untreated, thus making it a major, untreatable, or life-threatening condition. Private insurance should be available for those who want, and can afford it...and universal coverage for everyone else who can't.


Corneliu: I don't know. Sounds like temptation for abuse. I'm going to have see the checks and balances on this before I say one way or the other.
Lyric: Abuse, how? I am saying that health coverage should be provided, universally, for those who do not have, and cannot afford it on their own. That way, they are able to actually GO to the doctor while a health problem is still minor...and get treatment for it...so that it does not go untreated for lack of money, and end up becoming a major problem, with possibly even life-threatening consequences due to delaying treatment.
What "checks and balances" were you wanting to see? I'm not saying that someone ought to be able to get a facelift or something elective...I'm saying they should have basic medical coverage so that...if they get sick...they can actually see a doctor while it's still minor and treatable...rather than delaying treatment for lack of money, having it become major and life-threatening, and then having that person come staggering into the nearest E.R.
I'm saying that there should be coverage that, God forbid, you break a bone...you can go in and get it taken care of, and not have to worry about being stuck with bills for it 10 years down the road (this actually happened to my brother, incidentally!!) He was FIVE LOUSY DAYS beyond the age at which my mom's insurance would cover him anymore when he broke his leg. wound up costing him $11,000. He was haunted with that bill for the next ten freaking years! For being exactly FIVE DAYS TOO OLD when he had the misfortune of breaking the leg.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/ship_sailing.jpg

Nice Picture! I love :D

Correct.

Thank you :)

That would make it more interesting. I just hope we don't do a complete 180 and come up with a 1-party system with the Democrats in power, like Lyric wants. If that's the case, we're screwed.

I couldn't agree more. Even I don't want a one party system. Infact, I'm waiting to see if a 3rd party could actually break through. Your right. Having 3 parties would be far more interesting.

Because its not possible to have both. You can only have one or the other. Look at it this way.

___________________________(rich)
\
\
\(taking from rich)

/(giving to poor)
/
___________________________(poor)

The only way to bring the poor up for the second choice's example of never being hungry would be to take away from the rich. That would be accomplished by coercion.

Well then, too bloody fucking bad for the rich...waaaa, waaa, waaa, cry me a fucking river. They can afford it. High time they did it willingly, by paying decent, livable wages. If they won't do it...then they need to be FORCED to.

Yeah, there SHOULD BE laws to this affect...but there AREN'T!!

Actually, yes there are laws on the books in regards to discrimination.

Lyric: For starters, how about a cap on CEO's and other executive salaries, that they may not make more than 50 times what their lowest-paid employee makes? Therefore, if a CEO wants to make 2 million dollars, his lowest-paid employee must be making $40,000. That's a good place to start.

Actually that would be a good place to start. Something that I can get around on. However, what do you do when the cost of living goes up?

*snip*

Apparently Lyric, you don't realize the fact that when governments are involved in programs, they tend to be spending nightmares. Not to mention they would be budget poppers. How are you planning on paying for a national healthcare system. What are you willing to cut?

Well then, too bloody fucking bad for the rich...waaaa, waaa, waaa, cry me a fucking river. They can afford it. High time they did it willingly, by paying decent, livable wages. If they won't do it...then they need to be FORCED to.

So then the government or other people using coercive methods is alright by your standards?

For starters, how about a cap on CEO's and other executive salaries, that they may not make more than 50 times what their lowest-paid employee makes? Therefore, if a CEO wants to make 2 million dollars, his lowest-paid employee must be making $40,000. That's a good place to start.


That's the first good idea this whole thread. It's really not bad at all.

1) Prove that your being dicriminated against.

2) If you are being discriminated against, then sue.

3) Are you sure it isn't your attitude that is preventing you from getting a job? What about hostility?

1. I should not have to prove it. THEY should have to prove they AREN'T discriminating. I managed, one time, to PROVE discrimination. It took me FIVE FUCKING YEARS to get justice.

2. Again...I am not particularly sue-happy. I don't really want to make a living suing the shit out of everyone for my own personal gain. while I may want to BE a lawyer, and represent other people...and sue the shit out of people on their behalf...that is different. I'm not out to sue everyone in the world on my own behalf.

3. The attitude I display in here is far different from the attitude I display in other areas of life. You know, it is a hell of a lot easier to be coarse, rude, abrasive, and argumentative...when you are not face-to-face. This is why MANY people are ruder on the Internet. I do try my best to put on my best face and attitude before going to an interview. You are judging me only by what you see of me in here. and in here, I am quite a different person than I am when I'm on a job interview!
Here, I'm closer to my REAL SELF. On an interview, I'm acting a role, and presenting the best possible package, doing my best to do the required dance steps. Isn't that waht YOU do on an interview, too? Who the hell is actually their REAL SELVES in any work environment, let alone an interview setting? You're a damned fool if you let too much of your real self show in any work environment.

The main arguement against universal health care is this:

If people are poor, they deserve to die.

That's the first good idea this whole thread. It's really not bad at all.


I belive it is practiced in many of the best places in the world to live.

1. I should not have to prove it. THEY should have to prove they AREN'T discriminating. I managed, one time, to PROVE discrimination. It took me FIVE FUCKING YEARS to get justice.

Ladies and gentlemen, here it is. Guilty until proven innocent.


3. The attitude I display in here is far different from the attitude I display in other areas of life. You know, it is a hell of a lot easier to be coarse, rude, abrasive, and argumentative...when you are not face-to-face. This is why MANY people are ruder on the Internet. I do try my best to put on my best face and attitude before going to an interview. You are judging me only by what you see of me in here. and in here, I am quite a different person than I am when I'm on a job interview!
Here, I'm closer to my REAL SELF. On an interview, I'm acting a role, and presenting the best possible package, doing my best to do the required dance steps. Isn't that waht YOU do on an interview, too? Who the hell is actually their REAL SELVES in any work environment, let alone an interview setting? You're a damned fool if you let too much of your real self show in any work environment.

I would hope so. If you acted like this in real life; I shudder to think about it.

So do you believe in the right to self-employment? Do you believe in Free enterprise?

To a point...yes. Profit is not a dirty word. But when you make excessive profit...and do not pass some of that on to your workers...when you get excessively wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR WORKERS...then there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed...by govenmental force if necessary.

There is, for example, no reason on earth for 70 percent of Wal-Mart's workers to be so low paid that they qualify for Medicaid!! Not with the excessive wealth the Walton Family has. They could do better by their workers. They are just greedy pricks who refuse to.

and it isn't just the Walton Family...I just used them as a case example.

I think the band, "Ten Years After" said it best:

Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money, monopoly

World pollution, there’s no solution
Institution, electrocution
Just black and white, rich or poor
Them and us, stop the war

I’d love to change the world
But I don’t know what to do
So I’ll leave it up to you

Nice Picture! I love :D

Thanks, stole a boat picture and added the text later.

I couldn't agree more. Even I don't want a one party system. Infact, I'm waiting to see if a 3rd party could actually break through. Your right. Having 3 parties would be far more interesting.

Just to clarify, I don't want a 1 party system dominated by republicans either. Both would be major disasters in the making. 3 parties would be better.

So then the government or other people using coercive methods is alright by your standards?

Is it correct to assume that you believe this quote to be correct Lyric?

How do you propose the government MAKE them being "so goddam greedy"? There's only one way: tax the rich and give the money the poor. Now, the government supports the poor.

The alternative is that we implant mind control chips in the brains of all the rich people so they'll pick up the tab for the poor ones.

Which is it: A or B? You can't have both! (and I don't think we have the technology for B yet...)

As far as:



Compared with:



and...



Socialists take care of those who sit on the couch all day watching TV and eating bon-bons, so which is it? You should solidify on a position, and tone it down a notch.

If that is what you really think Socialism is about and stands for...then you are not worth my time. You are hopelessly brainwashed by the drivel that is right-wing talk radio, and nothing I say is going to dissuade you of the stated opinion of yours that I took the liberty of bolding. So there's no point.

If you want to know what Socialism is really about, then don't make assidying comments and repeat the drivel coming from the likes of Hannity and Limbraugh, and O'Reilly, and Savage...because when you do that, it tell sme you are already hopelessly beyond being unconvinced. You're brainwashed, and nothing I say will make a difference, so why bother?

1. I should not have to prove it. THEY should have to prove they AREN'T discriminating. I managed, one time, to PROVE discrimination. It took me FIVE FUCKING YEARS to get justice.

Unfortunately for you, you have to provide proof that you are being discrimination against. It isn't quick and easy.

2. Again...I am not particularly sue-happy. I don't really want to make a living suing the shit out of everyone for my own personal gain. while I may want to BE a lawyer, and represent other people...and sue the shit out of people on their behalf...that is different. I'm not out to sue everyone in the world on my own behalf.

Good for you. There have been way to many lawsuits as it is. I congratulate you on your poise not to sue though I hate to say it, but it might be your only option.

3. The attitude I display in here is far different from the attitude I display in other areas of life. You know, it is a hell of a lot easier to be coarse, rude, abrasive, and argumentative...when you are not face-to-face.

Ok, I'll grant you that last statement however, I am not buying your 1st arguement. Alot can be said in body language and tone of voice. You may not be intentionally coming off like someone with a huge chip on your shoulder but that is what it might seem to them. It was just a thought and nothing more. If you are being discriminated against or you even suspect it, you should have it investigated.

This is why MANY people are ruder on the Internet. I do try my best to put on my best face and attitude before going to an interview. You are judging me only by what you see of me in here. and in here, I am quite a different person than I am when I'm on a job interview!

If that is the case then I apologize. I hope you accept it :)

Here, I'm closer to my REAL SELF. On an interview, I'm acting a role, and presenting the best possible package, doing my best to do the required dance steps.

Please don't take this the way its going to sound but that maybe half your troubles. Your acting. Any good person incharge of hiring should be able to detect if someone is acting. I'm not saying that they are but it is a possibility.

Isn't that waht YOU do on an interview, too?

Not me. I'm usually my cheerful self at an interview. I answer their questions thoroughly to the best of my abilities. Of course, I've only had like 2 interviews! One was at a grocery store that I got fired from because of leadership difficulties (I had it and the manager didn't) and for an intramural supervisor position that I did get because of my leadership abilities and basically because of my leadership abilities.

Who the hell is actually their REAL SELVES in any work environment, let alone an interview setting?

Me. My family. Other people that I know and helped interviewed myself. They all acted themselves but in a professional manner.

You're a damned fool if you let too much of your real self show in any work environment.

Actually, no! I've always been myself at job interviews as well as in the work place. Hasn't hurt me in the least.

Thanks, stole a boat picture and added the text later.

Still awesome :D

Just to clarify, I don't want a 1 party system dominated by republicans either. Both would be major disasters in the making. 3 parties would be better.

Even I don't want it dominated by republicans either.

If that is what you really think Socialism is about and stands for...then you are not worth my time. You are hopelessly brainwashed by the drivel that is right-wing talk radio, and nothing I say is going to dissuade you of the stated opinion of yours that I took the liberty of bolding. So there's no point.

If you want to know what Socialism is really about, then don't make assidying comments and repeat the drivel coming from the likes of Hannity and Limbraugh, and O'Reilly, and Savage...because when you do that, it tell sme you are already hopelessly beyond being unconvinced. You're brainwashed, and nothing I say will make a difference, so why bother?

Ok, before we go down that road, which version of socialism do you subscribe to?

Here are the choices:

Guild Socialism
National Socialism
State Socialism
Utopian Socialism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Yeah, there SHOULD BE laws to this affect...but there AREN'T!!


Actually, yes there are laws on the books in regards to discrimination.

reply: Not with regards to sexual orientation and/or gender identity! In many places it is still perfectly legal to discriminate based on these things.

Quote:
Lyric: For starters, how about a cap on CEO's and other executive salaries, that they may not make more than 50 times what their lowest-paid employee makes? Therefore, if a CEO wants to make 2 million dollars, his lowest-paid employee must be making $40,000. That's a good place to start.


Actually that would be a good place to start. Something that I can get around on. However, what do you do when the cost of living goes up?

reply: Well, then salaries ought to go up. and when the lowest-paid guy is making $50,000 a year, then the CEO and other executives can start paying themselves 2.5 mil. Right now...cost of living is going up faster than most workers wages...not so with executive pay! THEIR salaries are rising MUCH FASTER than the cost of living is!

Quote:
*snip*


Apparently Lyric, you don't realize the fact that when governments are involved in programs, they tend to be spending nightmares. Not to mention they would be budget poppers. How are you planning on paying for a national healthcare system. What are you willing to cut?
For starters, how about the military? We need to bring 'em home and use them to defend us...and not be the world's policemen. Secondarily...what about cutting foreign aid? Screw it, charity begins at home! When everything is okay here at home, then we can send foreign aid. Hell, half to three-quarters of the recipients of our aid think we are The Great Satan...so fuck 'em....why should we send them any aid?

You are aware, of course...that if we weren't so busy screwing over the rest of the world, and exploiting it...we would not NEED such a big military? There's a reason why we currently seem to need such a big military, and the cold, plain, simple reason is that we don't play nice with the other kids. why else do you think they hate us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Economic Associates
So then the government or other people using coercive methods is alright by your standards?


Is it correct to assume that you believe this quote to be correct Lyric?

If it is being done in order to make the playing field just a bit more level and fair...then yes.

Sorry, Mauiwowee, but if you split those hairs any finer, you'll end up bald. You never address the issue squarely. I've asked you several times what should be done if a person cannot avoid inciting bigots needlessly, if just the sight of the target person walking down the street is enough to set a bigot off. I've given you realistic scenarios: a black person facing discrimination in a job application; a woman facing sexual discrimination walking down the street. You ignore those and instead come up with some fantasy about a black person attending a KKK meeting "just to see what will happen." Well, M, you better have been that black person, because otherwise, I'm going to say that never happens. But my scenarios do happen. So address them.

Is it inciting discrimination for a black person to apply for a job at a white-owned company? Is it inciting discrimination for a woman to go out by herself? Neither of them can hide what makes them targets of bigotry to some people. If they are not "inciting" by doing regular things, then transsexuals also cannot be said to be "inciting" by doing the same regular things.

You just keep shrugging this off, saying, in essence, oh, well, if they *can't* hide, then they have a complaint, but if they can hide it, they really should to avoid inciting the bigot. Can't you see what's wrong with that phrase, "inciting the bigot"? Whether you want to admit it or not, you are telling people that they should hide themselves to avoid annoying bigots. That is the reasoning of a bigot!! The bigots are the bad guys, M. We shouldn't be required to bend our lives around them.

You can't have it both ways. Either bigots are bad and should be restrained legally and encouraged to change their ways socially, or being different is a provocation and people who don't conform should keep a low profile or be prepared to take a beating.

I have a follow up in connection with the pledge which I'll post separately to avoid confusing issues.

I honestly misunderstood your question or you misunderstood my point, so I'll try to be more clear with this: In doing "normal" things a person who is subjected to bigotry due to inherent characteristics (such as skin color, gender, etc.) has every right to stand up against the bigot and demand the bigot be "punished" for the bigotry - sue the company that denies you a job because you are black; sue the law firm that won't promote you to partner because you are a woman, etc. Bigots are the enemy and should be "taken down a notch." I agree fully with that proposition. My only point is that I sometimes see people who will be subjected to bigotry needlessly let themselves be subjected to it. When they do that, I have little sympathy. When they are subjected to bigotry in something they have no control over, they should do something about it- sue, punch the jerk in the nose, whatever. When they deliberately invite bigotry when there is no need to do so or when no broader purpose is to be served by the invitation (Rosa Parks, for instance, invited bigotry, but did so to serve a larger purpose), then they bear some blame for what has happened.

If it is being done in order to make the playing field just a bit more level and fair...then yes.

You can't say I condone coercive tactics only if it is for one thing. Once you condone the use of it for one thing it becomes fair game for others. Slavery was brought about because of the coercive tactics used by Europeans. If you say its okay to use it for that its going to be used in other forums as well.

This is a follow-up to post #808:

Mauiwowee:

On the subject of the pledge:

1. For the record, I want to state that I think the pledge is way too trivial a topic for such a long, heated thread (two threads, in fact). If I had to take a stand on it, then, if we keep the pledge at all, I'd like "under god" out, restoring the original content. But I'd rather discontinue using the pledge altogether -- except maybe for new citizens, new soldiers, and how about starting sessions of Congress with the pledge instead of a prayer? :D But in practical terms, I can't believe we're still beating this dead horse.
As stated before, I don't care if "under God" is in or out of the pledge personally, it makes me no nevermind either way. I'm not sure I favor discontinuing it though, maybe, just haven't given the idea much thought. Otherwise, I agree.
2. That said, in an earlier post, I stated that, to me, being asked to recite the pledge in school, even if it's not *required*, creates a situation in which some people -- dissenters -- will be forced to display a difference, which otherwise might not be obvious, and thus be put at risk of inciting bigots. I described this as an unfair set-up. It creates a pressure to conform under an implied duress. Admittedly, it is very mild, but it is the principle of the situation that matters to me. I believe it mattered to various courts as well and that is why they issued decisions banning mandatory recitation of the pledge.
Actually, mandatory recitation of the pledge was banned because it forced people to recite the pledge in violation of their own deeply held religious beliefes - in other words, it was stricken down as a violation of the "free exercise" clause. There is a valid argument to be made regarding the "inherently coercive" nature of the classroom on students who don't "confrom to the norm" though and I'll grant the possibility that a refusal to say the pledge might lead to the inciting bigots (though I've never heard of it and I had one kid in my high school class that did not say the pledge and we could've cared less.)
3. If we follow your argument about minorities or dissenters being responsible for not inciting bigotry, then we are left with no option for dissenters but to go against their consciences or else risk retaliation with no hope of protection before or justice after.
Wrong, re-read my argument. In the classroom the dissenter who doesn't say the pledge is not inciting bigotry "needlessly." Again, I DO NOT say that "minorities or dissenters" should be "silent" and "hide" themselves at all times.
4. My question to you is: If dissenters who refuse to recite the pledge do become the victims of discrimination -- if a student gets roughed up in the schoolyard or if a teacher gets fired -- do they deserve it? Have they brought it on themselves by displaying a difference publicly?
No, they have not brought it on themselves in a needless fashion, they should do something about it. The student must be there and so must the teacher since it is part of the job description. Since they must be there, they have not "invited" discrimination based on their view point.
Or do they have the right to demand rules to protect them against such retaliation and to demand enforcement if those rules are broken (i.e., should the bully be suspended and can the fired teacher sue)?
yes!
5. And finally, how about if that dissenter is a transsexual? :p
I don't see the connection here. Dissenters against the pledge will do so based on the free exercise clause (i.e. their religion prohibits them from saying the pledge period) or based on the establishment clause (i.e. they believe the words "under god" are "establishing" a religion) or based on a general anger/hatred of the U.S. government (i.e. Lyric). I can't see a transsexual refusing to say the pledge merely because they are transexual - I see no connection.

You are aware, of course...that if we weren't so busy screwing over the rest of the world, and exploiting it...we would not NEED such a big military? There's a reason why we currently seem to need such a big military, and the cold, plain, simple reason is that we don't play nice with the other kids. why else do you think they hate us?[/b]

Actually, by comparison, our military is mid-range.

Comparisons:

U.S.: 3.3% of GDP
China: 4.3% of GDP
Greece: 4.3% of GDP

Those Lower than us:
Brits 2.4% GDP
French 2.6% GDP

I suggest visiting the CIA world factbook. It's interesting what you can find.

Actually, by comparison, our military is mid-range.

Comparisons:

U.S.: 3.3% of GDP
China: 4.3% of GDP
Greece: 4.3% of GDP

Those Lower than us:
Brits 2.4% GDP
French 2.6% GDP

I suggest visiting the CIA world factbook. It's interesting what you can find.

Does that account for our 'off-budget' war in iraq though?

If i recall correctly, money that is approved especially for iraq (hundreds of billions a year) is not counted as military spending by the government, but as 'supplimental appropriations' or some other kind of jargon.

Does that account for our 'off-budget' war in iraq though?

If i recall correctly, money that is approved especially for iraq (hundreds of billions a year) is not counted as military spending by the government, but as 'supplimental appropriations' or some other kind of jargon.

Well that's the crux of it isn't it? The biggest part of politics is how you name things. The simple answer is: I can't tell with the given information.

Well that's the crux of it isn't it? The biggest part of politics is how you name things. The simple answer is: I can't tell with the given information.

I dont know either, but it is worth considering.

I dont know either, but it is worth considering.

Indeed, it is. Remember, statistics are rarely as important as the criteria used to count them.

Just curious Lyric, do you have the same amount of hatred towards Saudi Arabia and Iran (both Islamic theocracies that, for all practical purposes, deny women any rights at all and would probably call for your executuion as a transsexual) as you do for the U.S. which is secular? Do you decry the repression of human rights in China and parts of Africa the way you decry them in the U.S.? Is it proper for us or anyone else to try and halt the spread of Islamo-facism? Do Republicans actively advocate discrimination against transgendered or do private businesses just have the ability to get away with it?

1) Prove that your being dicriminated against.

2) If you are being discriminated against, then sue.

3) Are you sure it isn't your attitude that is preventing you from getting a job? What about hostility?
Check earlier pages of this thread. Lyric has already given a full resume of legal and legislative action she has been involved with. She's not just a complainer.

Actually, yes there are laws on the books in regards to discrimination.



Actually that would be a good place to start. Something that I can get around on. However, what do you do when the cost of living goes up?



Apparently Lyric, you don't realize the fact that when governments are involved in programs, they tend to be spending nightmares. Not to mention they would be budget poppers. How are you planning on paying for a national healthcare system. What are you willing to cut?
1. When I was a kid, there was a thing called "the cost of living increase" which meant that base wages were increased in proportion to the cost of living. At some point in the 1980s that stopped happening.

2. I wouldn't cut anything. I'd reinstate the estate tax for estates $400,000 or more and increase capital gains taxes, for a start. That's one way to "force" the rich to give back to society without the impossible task of making them stop being pricks.

:D

I honestly misunderstood your question or you misunderstood my point, so I'll try to be more clear with this: In doing "normal" things a person who is subjected to bigotry due to inherent characteristics (such as skin color, gender, etc.) has every right to stand up against the bigot and demand the bigot be "punished" for the bigotry - sue the company that denies you a job because you are black; sue the law firm that won't promote you to partner because you are a woman, etc. Bigots are the enemy and should be "taken down a notch." I agree fully with that proposition. My only point is that I sometimes see people who will be subjected to bigotry needlessly let themselves be subjected to it. When they do that, I have little sympathy. When they are subjected to bigotry in something they have no control over, they should do something about it- sue, punch the jerk in the nose, whatever. When they deliberately invite bigotry when there is no need to do so or when no broader purpose is to be served by the invitation (Rosa Parks, for instance, invited bigotry, but did so to serve a larger purpose), then they bear some blame for what has happened.

I still have a problem with this idea of "needlessly inviting" discrimination. I just can't imagine that anyone would deliberately put themselves in trouble's way for no reason. Either they think their actions are normal and not provocative, or they believe they are doing it for the higher good, even if some observers might not see how.

And frankly, I don't care why or how the person got discriminated against, I don't believe bigots should be allowed any leeway outside of free speech. When it comes to action, discrimination is always wrong. Period. It's like, if someone does something that really offends you, and you punch them, you're still up for assault, regardless of why you felt provoked. They might be in for punishment, too, but that doesn't let you off the hook.

BTW, just for accuracy, Rosa Parks didn't sit in the front of the bus to challenge segregation. She did it because she was tired and that seat was available, so she took it just like any other human being would have, and all hell broke loose as a result.

I guess this isn't about the pledge, anymore, but I wanted to mention that I have seen one of the stupidest statements, ever, in reference to that matter.


"The Founding Fathers believed that our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights. The Pledge of Allegiance simply reinforces the beliefs that led to the birth of our great nation. It is an oath of our fidelity to our country, and I am disappointed that the [9th Circuit] Court chose to rule against this American treasure." —House Speaker Dennis Hastert


How does he not see that the phrase 'under God' is the problem? And how does he not see that it would be easy to just remove it and restore the pledge to its pre-Ike form?

As was said before, there's no room for pragmatism when passions are involved.

As stated before, I don't care if "under God" is in or out of the pledge personally, it makes me no nevermind either way. I'm not sure I favor discontinuing it though, maybe, just haven't given the idea much thought. Otherwise, I agree.

Actually, mandatory recitation of the pledge was banned because it forced people to recite the pledge in violation of their own deeply held religious beliefes - in other words, it was stricken down as a violation of the "free exercise" clause. There is a valid argument to be made regarding the "inherently coercive" nature of the classroom on students who don't "confrom to the norm" though and I'll grant the possibility that a refusal to say the pledge might lead to the inciting bigots (though I've never heard of it and I had one kid in my high school class that did not say the pledge and we could've cared less.)

Wrong, re-read my argument. In the classroom the dissenter who doesn't say the pledge is not inciting bigotry "needlessly." Again, I DO NOT say that "minorities or dissenters" should be "silent" and "hide" themselves at all times.

No, they have not brought it on themselves in a needless fashion, they should do something about it. The student must be there and so must the teacher since it is part of the job description. Since they must be there, they have not "invited" discrimination based on their view point.

yes!

I don't see the connection here. Dissenters against the pledge will do so based on the free exercise clause (i.e. their religion prohibits them from saying the pledge period) or based on the establishment clause (i.e. they believe the words "under god" are "establishing" a religion) or based on a general anger/hatred of the U.S. government (i.e. Lyric). I can't see a transsexual refusing to say the pledge merely because they are transexual - I see no connection.
1. There are much stronger issues, such as school prayer, to apply all this debate too.

2. You are lucky to live in a tolerant and well-behaved community. In my school, the pledge was dropped after 2nd grade as being a waste of time, so this was never a specific issue for me, either. But I know from first hand experience and direct observation that it takes very little to provoke a bully, and that bullies whose parents/community are bigoted will use those same attitudes in picking kids to attack. If their behavior is tolerated or even backed up by the school administrators, then real discrimination is going on.

3. See my previous response regarding my issue with the concept of needless provocation.

4. I was just yanking your chain with that last part. :D

I guess this isn't about the pledge, anymore, but I wanted to mention that I have seen one of the stupidest statements, ever, in reference to that matter.

How does he not see that the phrase 'under God' is the problem? And how does he not see that it would be easy to just remove it and restore the pledge to its pre-Ike form?

As was said before, there's no room for pragmatism when passions are involved.

Actually, it isn't that easy. Most of the Congress support the words under God in the pledge of Allegience. One has to go back to last year to see that for when the 9th Circuit Court ruled it unconstitutional, the Congress voted to reaffirm the words "under God" in the Pledge.

BTW, just for accuracy, Rosa Parks didn't sit in the front of the bus to challenge segregation. She did it because she was tired and that seat was available, so she took it just like any other human being would have, and all hell broke loose as a result.

Err, wrong:
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man forty years ago on December 1, 1955, she was tired and weary from a long day of work.


At least that's how the event has been retold countless times and recorded in our history books. But, there's a misconception here that does not do justice to the woman whose act of courage began turning the wheels of the civil rights movement on that fateful day.


Rosa Parks was physically tired, but no more than you or I after a long day's work. In fact, under other circumstances, she would have probably given up her seat willingly to a child or elderly person. But this time Parks was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans received every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time.


"Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it," writes Parks in her recent book, Quiet Strength, (ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1994). "I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents, and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."


The rest of Parks' story is American history...her arrest and trial, a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and, finally, the Supreme Court's ruling in November 1956 that segregation on transportation is unconstitutional.


But Parks' personal history has been lost in the retelling. Prior to her arrest, Mrs. Parks had a firm and quiet strength to change things that were unjust. She served as secretary of the NAACP and later Adviser to the NAACP Youth Council, and tried to register to vote on several occasions when it was still nearly impossible to do so. She had run-ins with bus drivers and was evicted from buses. Parks recalls the humiliation: "I didn't want to pay my fare and then go around the back door, because many times, even if you did that, you might not get on the bus at all. They'd probably shut the door, drive off, and leave you standing there."

Source: Rosa Parks (http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html)

Actually, it isn't that easy. Most of the Congress support the words under God in the pledge of Allegience. One has to go back to last year to see that for when the 9th Circuit Court ruled it unconstitutional, the Congress voted to reaffirm the words "under God" in the Pledge.


Luckily, the constitutionality of matters of legislation isnt left in the hands of the legislature.

We cant let the inmates run the *whole* asylum afterall ;)

Actually, it isn't that easy. Most of the Congress support the words under God in the pledge of Allegience. One has to go back to last year to see that for when the 9th Circuit Court ruled it unconstitutional, the Congress voted to reaffirm the words "under God" in the Pledge.
The entire point is that, regardless of what most of Congress supports, we are arguing that they are wrong and the words should come out.

The only reason anyone is arguing about this at all -- and getting so worked up about it -- is that it's just another way in which the minority is told to go screw themselves. It seems there is no detail too minor for the so-called majority not to rush in and block the minority voice. We really do feel as if we are being cut out of public life altogether. There is no room made for us, no tolerance for our views shown. "Under god" could be deleted from the pledge without changing its meaning at all and, thus, allowing everyone who wants to be patriotic to be so, regardless of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. But instead of that, the message is "Screw you, we're in charge. Anyone who doesn't like it can just shut up. We're not going to jail you, so be grateful." That's hardly tolerant, or open to compromise, or, imo, the American way.

Err, wrong:


Source: Rosa Parks (http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html)
I stand corrected on that point of fact. Yay, accuracy.

What happened to moderation? We don't have to do all or none in most situations.
Should we have "free enterprise" yes but the ultimate of free enterprise is slavery. The lower the wages become compared to the cost of living, the closer we get.
Should people work if they can. Yes, but my God tells me to help the sick, weak, poor, the disadvantaged. It always amazes me how many people will argue against natural selection in biology,---but argue for it in economics and sociology. And call themselves "Christian".
Should we have a military, yes, but should we use it to try to socially engineer the world?
Should we allow private guns, yes, but the government should have an obligation to see that they have civilian use.
Should the majority have the most say, yes, but they need to remember that in some way each of them is also a minority. No one belongs to every majority group, and if they did they would be a minority in that.

Should Christians be allowed to profess their faith, yes, but should they also "do unto others". Would they feel no pain if they stood silent in a room where everyone else pledged to "there is no God". I would think that they would feel pain in such a room. Why can they not see that others feel pain when they do the opposite? If you don't have to harm your neighbor, why do you? Why do you feel it nesessary to submit your neighbor to that which you yourself would not wish to be submitted to?---just because you are the majority?
Do we always have to love our neighbor, yes-----Well------A------I guess for some things there is no compromise position. It is sad that for so many in this thread----on this subject---there is a compromise position. A position of self-serving, rather than God serving. Let people see you, see how geat a Christian you are, How you can publically profess your faith in a place of great safety. Matt 6:1---6:5-7---7:12---7:21-24

I guess this isn't about the pledge, anymore, but I wanted to mention that I have seen one of the stupidest statements, ever, in reference to that matter.

"The Founding Fathers believed that our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights. The Pledge of Allegiance simply reinforces the beliefs that led to the birth of our great nation. It is an oath of our fidelity to our country, and I am disappointed that the [9th Circuit] Court chose to rule against this American treasure." —House Speaker Dennis Hastert

How does he not see that the phrase 'under God' is the problem? And how does he not see that it would be easy to just remove it and restore the pledge to its pre-Ike form?

As was said before, there's no room for pragmatism when passions are involved.

Amen.

(Glad to see us agree on this.)

What happened to moderation? We don't have to do all or none in most situations.
<snip>
I know I keep saying ditto to Good Lifes, but, hey, man, ditto, you know?

Nobody ever responds to his posts, and I just want to let him know he's not being ignored! :)