I support the "under god" phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance

[Walt Starr]

And I do so for political expediency. We don't need this bullshit right now. I hope every Democrat in Congress jumps at the opportunity to promote Save the Pledge legislation to get this shit off the table but quick.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. No way, put the fundies in their place. Preferably out of my govt.

[Walt Starr]

3. Now is not the time

Don't throw the bastards ANY red meat right now.

the time will come. Now is not the time.

[mod mom]

82. I agree in that the R is using it as a wedge issue and rallying point.

[stopbush]

91. I disagree. We need a cogent message to keep it from

becoming a distraction, something like, "under God and the Pledge didn't seem to stop Katrina."

[tx_dem41]

2. I reluctantly agree.

I do think its unconstitutional...I do hope one day its removed....but now is not the time, politically.

[Dhalgren]

4. They could put an "s" on the end of "god" for all I care...

[smoogatz]

5. I think kids shouldn't say ANY pledge. It's a red-scare holdover

that's creepy and pointless in equal measures.

[phantom power]

12. But now we have to be scared of the terrorists!

Boo!

And if we stop saying the pledge, they'll win. And our freedoms will be doomed. Or... whatever.

[smoogatz]

25. You're right, of course--according to the immutable laws of the fundie

universe, everything's going to hell because the infidels among us aren't saying the proper prayers with the proper degree of heartfelt fervor. Magical thinking at its best. Or worst.

[bearfan454]

32. That's right. The terrorists in the White House nt

[ernstbass]

87. I'm in total agreement

[Qibing Zero]

104. Oh I think it has a point

Unfortunately that point promotes blind patriotism and supresses free-thought. But hey, it's not like those things are bad or anything, no sir! Control of the masses is a god-given right of the ruling class, after all.


sigh

[sweet_cobun]

123. Agreed n/t

[southpaw]

179. Back in high school, I used to tell a story about the Russians:

Making sure to adapt a foreboding tone, I would say something like:

"Of course the Russians are brainwahsed by their government! Do you realize that, every morning, every school-aged child in Russia is required to stand at attention and salute the Hammer and Sicle while swearing an oath? No shit! They all have to learn the oath as soon as they start attending school and they all stand there repeating it like they were hypnotized!"

Inevitably, the person I was talking to would respond in one of a few predictable ways:

"That's just like those damn God-hating communiss!"
or
"How horrible. Brain washing children like that!"


Then I would spring the trap:

"No wait. It's not Russia I'm thinking about. It's America."

[opusprime]

6. What the hell do we have a pledge for anyway?

Pledging to a flag? Is this the USSR?

I pledge to no government, and I certainly dont pledge to someone else's imaginary creatures in flowing white beards.

But your right, this issue will only help the GOP "God hates everyone but us crowd".

[MissMarple]

31. Yes, why not something cogent like the Preamble to the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I suppose the Gettysburg Address would be a tad too long.

edit: Interesting, there seems to be different versions. :shrug:


"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

[opusprime]

134. or the Declaration of Independence...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I'd like every kid in school to know that they dont have to keep their pledge, or their government, in fact, it is their birthright to revolt.

Thats what our government has forgotten, and the Bush administration never believed... government of the people, all the people.

[MissMarple]

139. I wish the schools would incorporate these concepts and documents

into their curriculums more consistently and more frequently. Robert Byrd has initiated Constitution Day. That a start, but much more is needed. Having kids rewrite what you just posted in current language would be a good thing. It's language, writing and civics all in one lesson.

Kids just aren't taught this very much. And I know I wasn't. Maybe it's too subversive. :crazy:

[wiley]

155. It doesn't bother me at all

Pick your god. It's the stupidest generic nationistic diddy. Just ignore it. Why not have the kids sign a contract that says they will be taught civics, cooperation with others irregardless of sex, race, religion, age, marital status, sexual or affectional preferences, and choice of pet. Hold the parents accountable. Like that, you know? Funny how this happened just as Ahnuld suggests he might run for re-election.

[MissMarple]

158. That is curious, isn't it? Anything to divide, to anger.

And too many of us just take the bait.

[FreedomAngel82]

159. Same here

Whenever I get into some argument with a fundie or whatever about the pledge or flag I remind them the flag is a piece of cloth made from China and the last real flag probably made in America was the one from Betsy Ross. I pledge to the Constiution and Bill of Rights which is more important to me then some silly pledge or flag. That's where my freedoms lie. Not in a pledge or a flag.

[shrike]

176. No one even listens to the damn thing

I attend a lot of public meetings where the pledge is recited. Like a bunch of robots saying words.

The pledge is meaningless. We'd be much better off with regular and accurate lessons on the Constitution in our classrooms -- what it says about religion, speech, search and seizure. I'd wager many of our citizens don't have the first clue about what the Bill of Rights says.

Jon Stewart summed up my feelings perfectly last night: "Why, and Who Cares? There's no better way to marginalize something than to have a bunch of 5th graders recite it every day. Don't the courts have better things to do?"

[Straight Shooter]

7. It never should have been inserted to begin with.

Under god, my a**.

[Walt Starr]

27. Agreed, but nobody can force a kid to say it

For now, let the bullshit issue rest. It does us no good and does us extreme harm if we come down any other way.

I deal in political reality. There it is. Wanna fight this, we lose on it and everything else. Let the bu8llshit issue go, we stand a damn good chance of taking it all back starting next year.

In politics, you have to choose your battles. If we fight this battle, it's lose lose.

[FreedomAngel82]

160. The original pledge didn't have God mentioned

The original pledge was made by a Christian socalist in 1892 who was a Baptist minister who got the idea from a cousin of his. Not even he, a fellow Christian, didn't add God in. He wanted it to be something everyone could be apart of.

[Skip Intro]

8. agreed. nt

[mike_c]

9. I disagree, quite strongly-- our's is a secular government...

...and it should act like one.

[BlueJac]

10. Against it....

[MrModerate]

11. Another reluctant "let this one go . . ."

Heck, I'm an atheist and I say let 'em have their "under god."

The pubbies have a genius for turning featherweight issues into concrete overshoes that doom Democratic candidates and programs. Let's fight the crucial fights and let the chafalfa go for the time being.

[Az]

13. I understand your reasoning but disagree

The right has convinced its constituents that they stand for things. If you ask people why they distrust the Dems it is because they don't seem to stand by their convictions. Instead they champion whatever seems to be most politically expedient.

This seems to be why the Dems have no spine. If a cause seems to be politically dangerous they refuse to take a stand on it. Thus there is no true voice of opposition to the right. And since they have effectively taken hold of the flow of dialog in the media they create the sense of political dialog in the public. And with the Dem playbook as it is this makes them act and behave as repug lites instead of representing any particular strong core value.

Opposing the Under God clause goes right to the core of what the Dem party seems to be about. Inclusiveness. The phrase is exclusionary and was originally created for exactly that purpose. Giving up on it for a short term gain seems to be part and parcel with the current problems the party is facing.

[JugDack]

181. Yes!!

Well said!

[Modem Butterfly]

14. Oh for crying out loud

With all the shit going on right now, Iraq, Katrina, Roberts, the O'Connor replacement, I can't believe anyone is seriously advocating that Democrats shift their focus to a judicial matter, particularly one that has already been decided by th SCOTUS.

Fucking please...

[Az]

21. Focus no, but stand up for what is right

I agree its not an issue that should be fought tooth and nail over. But don't simply turn your back on what is right. When asked say you oppose it and then continue to fight for the more important issues.

[Hamlette]

when did SCOTUS rule on this issue?

the skirted it last time because the plaintiff was not the custodial parent.

This admin is like a game of wack a mole. There are too many outrages, too many assaults on our way of life. We must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. This is an important issue.

[lastliberalintexas]

133. Flag day, 1943, opinion by Justice Jackson

The Court unequivocally ruled that a student could not be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance, and that was even before the insertion of "under God". The Court later also ruled that a student could not even be made to otherwise participate in the recitation (ie, stand) even if s/he abstains from speaking.

This WAS a decided issue, until this parent's suit for attention. Now the Roberts Court will be able to decide the issue anew if they so choose. Any guesses how that ruling will come down? :eyes:

[Hamlette]

145. I'm not so sure it will be the way you think it will be.

If so, why didn't they rule when they had the chance last year?

It should NOT be in our schools.

You people have been praising the press for finally finding their spine, where is yours?

Or do you beleive it is just "meaningless." If so, I'd recommend you wake up and watch the American Taliban.

[Shrek]

44. SCOTUS didn't rule

They punted because they claimed that the plaintiff lacked standing.

The precedent cited in the ruling came from the 9th Circuit.

[IChing]

15. What happened to do the right thing and not for political expediency?

Political Pandering never accomplished anything.

[IChing]

16. dupe n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. But would god?

Would you want to be the one they blame when all this crap comes to a head?

For the record, I'm against it.

[chicagiana]

18. Just don't vote ...

Just keep your vote on the record. Let it pass. It's meaningless BS.

The corrct legislative approach would be a "pledge restoration act", that removed the "under god" portion and put it back to it's original condition.

[longship]

19. Let's see,

You support an overtly religious pronouncement being forced down our children's throats merely because it is not politically expedient to say otherwise at this time? Judge to plaintiffs, "Gees, I'm sorry that you lost your case, but it just isn't politically expedient to rule in your favor today. You'll have to try again some other time when it is more timely." Sheesh!

The pledge should have been saved in 1954 when the Knights of Columbus lobbied Congress to include their patently unconstitutional wording.

I support religious independence and freedom in the USA. The court was correct today. It should have happened decades ago.

[Walt Starr]

22. I think the phrase being there is bullshit

Fight it now, we lose in '06 because Democrats hate god.

That's the simple political reality. I deal in reality, not idealisms.

[longship]

28. Would you support slavery because politically inconvenient to oppose?

nt

[Walt Starr]

30. Depends upon what year in American politics you are talking about

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If this was 1848, political reality was you had to support states rights WRT slavery. IF you didn't, you couldn't get elected in most districts.

Also, comparing slavery to the phrasing of the pledge is pretty insulting to anybody descended from slaves.

You can't change anything unless you get elected. That's political reality.

[longship]

62. So getting elected is more important than protecting freedoms.

Is that what you are saying? No offense, but I wouldn't want you as my CongressCritter.

[Walt Starr]

64. First of all, your bullshit strawman is just that, bullshit

Slavery and the pledge do not compare.

Second of all, if you don't get elected, nothing can be changed. That's political reality.

In 1848, all but a very few Congressional Districts would have eviscerated an abolitionist. That was political reality in 1848.

Like it or not, political reality is what it is.

[longship]

84. Political reality is that the Pledge was declared Unconst today.

We have to deal with it on top of everything else.

[Walt Starr]

92. And thus, Democrats should propose a ":Save the Pledge Act"

Such a bill would be every bot as unconsitutional, but would afford political cover for the Dems.

[longship]

100. No, they should just go on protecting the Constitution.

For to not do it lies in madness.

[Walt Starr]

105. Sorry, but your way lies political doom

Political reality dictates otherwise. We don't decide elections and Freepers don't decide elecitons.

There's one guy who decides elections. Mushy Marvin in the Middle, and he donesn't vote for people who hate god.

[smoogatz]

112. I don't know, Walt

I think maybe the electorate are sick of all the knee-jerk emotionalism around non-issues like the pledge. I may be a wild-eyed idealist, but I think there's a chance they'll actually vote for whoever seems like the most competent person, this time around.

[Az]

113. Consider how the right turned the GOP around

They started working on it at the height of the 60s. A time when religious fundimentalism was snickered at. But they set about a long term strategy. And it has paid off.

Our society stands now as one of the most religious fundamentalist industrialized nations in the world. And this is all made possible by those seemingly foolish steps taken in the 60s.

The Dems continue to play the short term game. And as a result they are seen as political opportunists and have little trust from the people. The indies see them as untrustworthy and the left sees them as having no spine. And the right sees them as fading from the radar. The short term game is proving to be the death of the Democratic party. Its time to consider what we stand for and actually stand up for it.

[longship]

115. Thank you, oh wise one.

nt

[longship]

124. Sounds like DLC propaganda

The way to win is to agree with the fascists. Well, that hasn't got the Dems very far. No thank you. I think I'll try another way--becoming an *opposition* party.

[Walt Starr]

132. No, it;'s common sense

but go ahead down the Nader road because that's exactly what you're doing.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

166. Resorting to ad hominems demonstrates you have no argument

Good day, sir.

[Silverhair]

141. You can't protect freedoms if you lose the elections.

First, you have to be IN office to be able to do anything.

Sometimes reality sucks.

[longship]

143. No, what sucks are spineless Dems who only know how to lose

They are whiners.

:cry: We can't oppose the Republicans because we might lose. :cry:

:cry: We can't defend a principled position with the electorate. :cry:

:cry: We're afraid of the dark. :cry:

:cry: The big meany Republicans are beating us up. :cry:

[Silverhair]

148. I don't see any massive demonstration against the

Pledge of Allegiance. I don't hear any great outcry against it. I remember Dukikias getting beat up over it. His problems with the Pledge really played well with the voters didn't it? What percentage did he win by?

Campaign against the Pledge and you will lose, except in hyper-liberal areas.

[longship]

149. I see. People have to be taking to the streets

before you'll take a principled position.

Well, I'll stand on my position because I know that it is correct. I don't need anybody to tell me that. I don't need a crowd to validate my opinion. I stand on principle, not expediency, not politics, and certainly not fear.

[Silverhair]

150. How many points did Duke win by? NT

[longship]

157. Irrelevant.

Winning is everything? No, that's the Repug principle. It's what gives us a White House which is incapable of telling the truth. It gives us wars, and corruption, and stolen elections, and thousands of dead. That's the sole product of "winning is everything".

Now, that principle has been shown to be as bankrupt as it truly is. The shocking reality of dead people on television has opened people's eyes. Our country has just tipped beyond the point of winning as a goal onto itself. (Indeed, it was already tipping. But Katrina pushed things over big time.)

From this day forward, winning alone will not be the goal. People are starving to hear something other than the feel good platitudes and ravings of an illiterate. To win in 2006 or 2008 it is going to take people of vision, people who are willing to defend their principles and unselfishly set aside all else. It's going to take patriots who care more for their country than themselves. I truly believe that this is the winning formula.

The GOP is dead. So is the DLC. All of the principles on which they exist are no longer operative.

[Silverhair]

162. And attacking the Pledge is one of those principles?

Duke had some problems with the Pledge and it was used to beat him up.

Do you really think that the general populace is groaning under the burden of the Pledge and hungering for a deliverer?

[longship]

168. Nobody's attacking the pledge

This is the pledge as it first appeared in 1892, as written by socialist and children's magazine publisher Ralph Bellamy.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty, equality, and justice for all."

Congress changed the pledge in 1923, fixing the grammar. Along the way, "equality" was removed. In a period of women suffrage and Tom Crow we couldn't have people speaking of equality.

It was the Knights of Columbus, a catholic men's fraternal organization which attacked the pledge in 1954 by the inclusion of a patently and overt religious pronouncement, "under god".

Like many, I first learned the pledge without this abomination.

[Silverhair]

169. The Pledge, as it is currently written, is what this thread is about.

If you want to make a cause out of removing the words, "Under God", I will leave you to fight that one for yourself.

The problem is, that as you fight it, then your side of the issue will become, in public perception, the Democratic Party side. So we will all be guilty by association, and we will further lose public support. And the issue is at most, merely symbolic.

Rove must be jumping with glee over this development. An issue that was dead is now back in the news and available to him.

[longship]

172. I am weary of this

If the Democratic Party cannot stand for protecting the Constitution then I no longer want to be associated with the Democratic Party.

But wait....

On second thought, scratch that. I've been a devoted Democrat for decades. I think that I'll stand my ground here. I think I'll take the high road and defend both my party and my Constitution.

If you want to appease the Repugs, go right ahead. I don't mind. But do not claim to speak for the party. You are welcome to disagree on issues. But I will not bend on the defense of Constitutional principles. I sincerely hope that the party as a whole does not either. I know that a great many Dem Congress Critters will take my stand, enough maybe to uphold the body of law. In the end, when we defend the Constitution, we win.

Let Rove spin his webs. I do not care what he does. When Dems adjust their positions to Rove's whim, we have let that dispicable knave win. Is that what you want? A Democratic Party which bends to the whim of the likes of Karl Rove? I think you need to think about that for a while.

Appeasement does not work. I won't believe that you are so unknowledgeable of history that you aren't acutely aware of that fact. No appeasement!

[Silverhair]

173. It isn't Rove that you must appease. It is the voters you must appease.

If the voters are not appeased, you lose. Voters have shown that they want the Pledge by electing candidates who will take the Pledge.

[longship]

175. Stand up for the pledge, then

Say the pledge. Scream it. Yell it from the rooftops. But "under god" does not belong there. What the fuck good is a pledge, a flag, a country, or anything else under the sun, if we scrap the document on which the whole thing is based.

This is the simplist of concepts. None of it is worth anything if the Constitution is not upheld. It's the basis for *everything*. It has to be the ultimate criteria. You would raise a stupid platitude about a piece of cloth (which itself is merely a surrogate for the Constitution) above the Constitution. That is not only lame. It leads us down a road where the trappings of liberty are more important than liberty itself.

To hell with the trappings. I'll take the liberty.

I'm done with you. No more.

[JVS]

189. How does losing elections constantly protect freedoms?

[Hamlette]

20. sounds like what they said under the Nazis

"let 'em take the jews, hell, let's support 'em"

(Sorry, I'm on a very short fuse right now. I'm pissed at what the religious right is doing to my contry. I'm about to go back to calling it a fairy tale which I stopped doing when some DUers said it was insulting.)

Having God in the pledge lets the religious nut cases argue this is a christian nation.

GET IT OUT! You are either nuts, Mr. Starr, or religious. Either way, you are wrong on this point.

We should get it off money too. It is offensive, stupid and wrong. Oh yeah, and evil.

[mzteris]

23. oh please,

that's like saying put gays back in the closet for political expediency.

[titoresque]

99. well put!

:applause:

[jedicord]

24. I do not want my child forced to acknowledge someone else's God.

And that's what that phrase does - forces my child and others to, every day, acknowledge someone else's God.

Forces.

on edit: took out phantom punctuation

[Walt Starr]

33. Your child does not have to say the pledge

If your child chooses to say the pledge, your child does not have to utter the phrase "under god".

[jedicord]

47. For one, peer pressure and fear of a stigma factor into this.

And I'm really not sure it's not a forced recital, at least in practice and presentation.

Also, telling my son NOT to say "under God" is forcing MY beliefs on him as well. We discuss God and religion, I feel it's my son's decision as to what he believes.

The decision to practice or not practice religion should stay within the family, it's no one else's business.

[Walt Starr]

51. Agreed, but fighting this issue means we not only lose on it

we lose on everything else and stand no chance to take back congress next year because "Democrats hate god".

[jedicord]

75. I feel we should fight the "Democrats hate God" logo line as well.

Friggin' take back America for cripes sake. Unmask the BS. Speak plain truth. Quit trying to be like them.

I truly feel that after Katrina, people woke up and saw that the Emperor has no clothes. We should fight every fight, and quit being scared of our shadow. If we believe in something, show we believe in it and prove why it's better for America.

Republicans don't show why it's better for America, they just keep turning fancy talking points that work well for a TV crazed public used to 30-second commercials. Now Bush's 30-second commercials are no longer working.

Finally, straight talk is working.

Maybe we lose every election because we are so scared of losing that we don't make a connection to the people. Like Bartcop says "take off your pink tutus".

I'm hip to what you're saying, I'm just tired of pussyfooting around these guys.

[Walt Starr]

78. Well you can't "Friggin' take back America" if you can't get elected

and you can't get elected when Mushy Marvin from teh Middle thinks you hate God.

[jedicord]

110. Well, we're not getting elected now because of your way of thinking.

Kerry was a wimp, Gore was a wimp.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a fight with you on this. Do you have any children? Do you believe in God? Is this an important issue to you? It is to me, and I feel we should fight on every issue that is important to us.

If we don't shout from the rooftops, no one will hear us. And nothing will get done and we won't win.

Think of this - if we act like we believe one way, get elected because of that portrayal, the truth will come out and we won't get elected again.

And hopefully, that's what's happening to the Repubs now.

[Walt Starr]

170. Actually, this issue was a loser for us in the last election

and continues to be.

Democrats "hate god" because of shit like this. Get it off the table.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. If someone is going to dumb enough to base their vote on something like

that, when bodies are floating in the streets of New Orleans and kids are coming home from Iraq in boxes from a war based on a shabby pack of lies...

I'm sorry, but anyone that fucking stupid has their head up their ass. ALL the way up.

I absolutely don't think we should pander to anyone that ignorant, (While we're at it, why not go after the Fred Phelps Constituency?) and I certainly don't agree with you that they comprise a meaningful slice of the electorate, much less people who would otherwise be inclined to vote for our guys.

[MissMarple]

50. And that's usually the truth.

No one can force them, and who could tell if they say "under god" or not, anyway? Unless it is a very small classroom.

Basically. it is an activity that brings the class together to focus on starting the day. Any other recitation or a moment of silence would do as well. It's small stuff.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

73. My youngest son does not stand up and say the pledge. I think he

irks his teacher but there are no repercussions. I have to add that we live in NY and he's in HS.

[Book Lover]

94. What do you tell your child to do, Walt? (nm)

[Walt Starr]

106. I have no children right now

However, we are planning on adopting. When it comes time, she will make the decision herself. The most important thing I can teach her is to understand what the pledge means.

[Book Lover]

118. Good luck

on the adoption process. Maybe by the time she's in school, things will have changed.

[Qibing Zero]

26. And the purpose of the pledge is what?

Aside from all the 'under god' BS, I would ask: what purpose does the pledge serve other than to indoctrinate? Teach kids they owe their country something, and expect it to be a lesson in respecting authority? Perhaps maybe more of an incentive for them to join the military too?

Help me out here. Why do we even care so much?

[Walt Starr]

35. The only reason I care about this issue is because it is a wedge issue

that plays into the hands of the Repukes.

It's a bullshit issue, just like any issue they use to divide and conquer.

[Qibing Zero]

53. Yes, I know the political reason for bringing up the issue,

and it's absolutely pathetic that people use smear campaigns over these types of issues. "Liberals will take away your freedom of religion - look, they tried to take god out of the pledge!" Talk about utter stupidity...

I just meant to ask about why anyone out there even gives half a shit about it in the first place. Why is the pledge necessary for our children to say every day in school? I'm not sure I understand the logic of that in a country that is supposed to be a model for freedom.

[Walt Starr]

68. This is the political reality, though.

Don't like it? Get some Dems elected, but you'll never accomplish that if you choose to pick up the banner for this bullshit issue right now.

[titoresque]

102. just curious...

what do you think gay's should do?
And why are we STILL pretending that there will be REAL "elections"??!!!

[Walt Starr]

108. ahhh, the "stolen electiion" excuse

Sorry, I don't buy that bullshit. We lost. The sooner you face that fact, the sooner we can work to actually win.

Blaming it on some weird nationwide conspiracy to steal the election is just a copout to make it easier to not work and face political reality.

[Qibing Zero]

116. Psst, it didn't need to be nationwide in either year. nt

[titoresque]

119. Oh you've got to be kidding

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yeah ok, then you go cast your ballot, we'll see how that works for ya. Not only is your THEORY about the election just completely ignorant.....it's insulting to millions of people who's vote was highjacked. Insulting! You must think Amurikens are as stupid as Bush and the media have tried to paint them to be.....:crazy:

Do you think (S)election 2000 was fair as well? Oh, please.....I've gotta know. Enlighten me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. I disagree, respectfully

and I am very cautious about that sort of thing. (timing and not stirring the water into a storm we can't control) But I think a little show of strength from the secular end (and I am a Christian) is appropriate right now.

Time to remind folks that the right wing agenda does not always reign supreme.

And if you wonder how I am a Christian, well...they hijacked my religion.

[ContraBass Black]

34. War Pledge

War Pledge

I pledge allegiance to the embattled ideal
Of the United States of America,
Not to the flag, but for what it stands,
Or what it stood for before this hysteria.
One nation, despite its many divisions,
Under God, though ruled by the godless,
With liberty and justice for most of its people
And more coming soon for the rest.


-PaaKow Acquah August 2005

[Atman]

36. If not now, when?

Seriously, part of the BushCo strategy against the democrats and the passive (often one and the same) is to inundate the public with too much to deal with. Serve up a platter so full of stuff, no one knows where to begin defending.

We now, finally, have the perfect combination of public outrage and vulnerable president, pre-occupied with his enormously full plate. Au contraire, NOW is the time to bring this up. What is too be gained by waiting until things have calmed down? Do you think they'll EVER calm down under BushCo? Hell no. They won't allow them to calm down. Chaos and fear is how they rule. If we wait for them to be ready to hear us, listen to us, we'll simply wait forever, for they'll always have something else with which to distract us.

[Walt Starr]

38. If you fight it now, you lose on this issue and every other issue

The time to fight it is when WE have control of two out of three branches of the government.

Attacking a superior enemy on ground of his choosing is beyond foolish, it's insanity.

[SmokingJacket]

37. Agree wholeheartedly. This crap gets in our way.

It wasn't until this week that I would agree with you, but desperate times, desperate measures.

[Walt Starr]

43. I've been throwing principal overboard ever since Katrina

There are more important issues besides principals about things like this.

Teh Republicans have made politics into a win at all cost game. We must answer in kind.

[Ms. Toad]

154. If we play the game by their rules and answer in kind

we have lost, regardless of which party is in power.

[necso]

39. Not a big deal,

it's no more than a couple of empty words (especially in the mouths of the fundies) with no legal ramifications (unless there is something that I've missed in the bill).

That is, it's not a big deal unless we let the neocons use it to paint us as being anti-"religious", etc. Then it could hurt us.

The word of the day is "proportion", as in "seeing things in proper proportion".

[BurtWorm]

40. Why not take advantage of it and throw in an amendment that will make

the GOP squirm? Make it illegal, under penalty expulsion, for members of Congress, including the president of the Senate, to use foul language in either Chamber when directed at another member. Call it the Cheney-Leahy Act. (That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more uncomfortable amendments Dems could offer.)

[BurtWorm]

56. ...Or the Katrina Accountability Amendment

[Atman]

57. Or ANYTHING similar...they do it to us all the time

Slip in an amendment making feeding the poor an obligation. Or one calling for massive help to the poor, or health care. Something they cannot refuse. Then see how deep their principles go. With the GOP, their wallets takes precedence over their convictions.

[Dogmudgeon]

41. I think it's been off the table for some months now

People have some "real" issues to worry about -- energy prices, the Katrina disaster, the debacle in Iraq, the Roberts hearings, the Death Lottery Tax fight, and the immanent delivery of Britney-and-Kevin's first child.

This may explain why Bush is doing so poorly now. The culture-war issues are taking a back seat to issues of life, death, and money; ideology, spite, and Jeebus can't hope to get a hearing in this environment of malaise and Bush Fatigue.

--p!

[WeRQ4U]

42. Deleted. Misread article.

[Walt Starr]

48. The only reason it was thrown out is it was deemed the person

who brought the suit did not have standing.

I can understand why the judge did this. I just wish he had not done it.

[Shrek]

59. Should the judge have disregarded the precedent?

Or skirted it in some way?

How should he have ruled?

[WeRQ4U]

83. Yeah, I reread the article and then reread the last SCT case.

I realized that the intial case was dismissed for lack of standing, based on disputed custody of the child.

I got caught up in my rant and forgot what had happened. I'm OK now. LOL.

[charlie]

49. I thought the SC passed

That Newdow had no grounds, being that didn't have custody of his daughter, who was listed on the complaint.

[WeRQ4U]

55. I misread the article. So I've deleted my post. My bad.

I thought that they had done something completely different. Rant was worthless I guess. LOL.

[charlie]

63. Well, it was a good point anyway

Whether applicable this time or not.

[Xenotime]

45. That phrase has no place in our govt.

the state and "church" should be separate. It's the law.

[Generator]

46. The way I'm feeling at the moment

I don't support an "allegiance" pledge to any country at all. It seems creepy, and really-where's the but? I pledge allegiance to what-traitors and thieves? I pledge allegiance even if they start putting me in jail WITHOUT trial? Just come from the "Bush wants MORE POWER" thread in late breaking news. Shaking. Thinking that governments descend into mockeries of what you believe they should be just like that. Scared to death of these people. I ALWAYS mocked the pledge when I was in school anyway. I always knew it was bunk. This part: And JUSTICE for none. That's what I always said. The God part is the least of it. An allegiance that you force kids to say is just creepy.

I pledge allegiance to truth and justice. Indeed. If that's not what America is about-forgetta about it.

[DistressedAmerican]

52. No Way! As An Atheist, I Support Any Movement Away From Theocracy.

Especially right now. That on nation under God shit has always gotten on my nerves.

Just like "In God We Trust"! Not me brother!

Screw the fundies and let them chew on it!

[charlie]

58. Not gonna happen

The Dems are gonna stampede hard and fast to the TV studios to bellow their outrage. Then there'll be a vote on some idiotic Defense of the Pledge bill and it'll be over...

...until the SC renders a decision on the appeal, right about election time.

[DistressedAmerican]

70. If This Is A Constitutional Ruling, Wouldn't They Need An Ammendment?

I am not sure writing a new "unconstitutional" law ends anything.

[charlie]

80. Would it matter?

Didn't stop them last time. I want them to get their stupidity over and done with now, so in that sense, I'm with Walt. If you think you're frustrated now, wait until this monumentally banal issue gets traction around election time, subsuming bigger and scarier matters. It could easily happen. Ask Mike Dukakis.

[Walt Starr]

86. That's the beauty of using legislation on it.

If the Democrats proipose a "Save the Pledge" bill, it changes nothing from the constitutionality of the issue. Basically, if it's unconstitutional to have the pledge in school, the "Save the Pledge" bill is just as unconstitutional.

This gives the Democrats political cover on thye issue without fundamentally altering the conditions surrounding the issue.

A "Save the Pledge" bill would be win win for the Dems.

[DistressedAmerican]

88. You May Be Right There! OK Have Your Bill!

I am convinced!

See, I do change positions every so often.

[charlie]

90. Wouldn't be win win

But it'll blunt the matter for a while and I'll only have to watch them act like jackasses for a short time. They're not going to ally themselves with this ruling, no matter what anyone here hopes or fears.

[Jacobin]

54. Give the fundies an inch and they'll take a mile

The court is correct.

Political expediency is a slippery slope, as we have learned from our spineless and de-fanged dems

[Walt Starr]

60. So the Dems take a stand on this right now

Then we will lose seats next year in both the House and the Senate.

Now filbusters are gone completely because we simply do not have the numbers and they formally instill a doctrine that forces Christianity as an official religion. Not only that, but the SCOTUS upholds the law because it's been packed by religious whackos in the vein of Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.

Now you have a REAL Theocracy and there is no way in hell to change it.

All because you chose to fight this bullshit issue right now.

[Az]

66. There are degrees

You don't have to jump up and down declaring your opposition to the phrase. But you can still stand by what you believe is right. That is the essence of having a spine.

When asked state that you believe the phrase does not belong in a pledge for a free society. When voting vote for removal. When asked what is important talk about helping flood victims.

[Walt Starr]

74. "Having a spine" on this issue is lose-lose for any Dem

You and I don't decide elections. The mushy middle decides elections, and the mushy middle is swayed by bullshit like this.

[Az]

79. Yep and the current tactics are working so well

Spineless poll watchingis what is driving people away from the Dems. Its what has been costing us the long term game. It forces us to play more and more to the repug play book. And each time we turn our back on our core values the more people walk away from the entire system.

[Walt Starr]

81. Choose your battles, and especially your battlefields

If you fight this battle you fight a superior enemy and you give him the high ground.

There is no way to win this battle and on top of that, you will so weaken your forces that youw ill be unable to fight a battle you could have won and done so from the high ground, such as battles related to Katrina.

Political reality is war. We must fight it as war. Winning is everything. Losing is just so much bullshit.

[Az]

85. I never said throw everything into this fight

Its a skirmish if even that. Stand up for what you believe is right. Say what you believe. And put your energy in the fights that you believe are important.

Don't give the right the frenzy they are looking for. Play it down but play it honestly. This builds trust and understanding while denying the right the battle the desire.

[Walt Starr]

95. It's lose lose, fighting it weakens all of your forces

Sorry, but to be allied with those who "hate god" is to "hate god" yourself.

Political reality.

[Az]

101. Long term losing strategy

You hand the entire battle to the religious right. All they need do is turn everything into a vs god issue. Then all the spineless Dems will have to play ball with them or face being demonized.

For good science education? Then you hate god.

For progressive medical research? Then you hate god.

Think people should not be compelled to pray? Then you hate god.

Yes, standing up for such things may seem to be a losing strategy in the short term. It certainly gives the right something to crow about. But if you explain why you take the stand you do you establish identity and trust. And if you explain things well enough you may begin to convince others.

This is similar in many ways to the crisis corporations are facing. They only respond to things that give them short term gains or losses. They cannot play to long term considerations and thus they become increasingly destructive to the environment and the people that form the resources of the company.

Its like an out of control race. Play only to the short term and you lose the ability to guide your path. Wisdom and understanding go out the window. Humanity is lost in the process.

[LoZoccolo]

61. You are asking message board posters to be politically expedient?

:rofl:

[meisje]

65. It is now clear why Dem's will not regain power

[Fox Mulder]

67. I don't.

Hell, I don't support the pledge period.

[ComerPerro]

69. The hell with that. They are the ones who brought it up

Why can't the dems just say, "Who gives a rats ass, we have bigger fish to fry" while still not having to cave in to "Save The Pledge" BS.

Isn't that what the GOP wants? For us to put it through without protest for expediency?

[bluestateguy]

71. I'm inclined to agree

You don't win white male conservatives in Mississippi by endorsing this court decision.

And that's a vote that I want to win.

[Walt Starr]

76. You also don't win Mushy Marvin from the Middle by hating god

and that's how you'll come off to mushy Marvin in the middle if you try to fight this bullshit right now.

Eliminate it as a bullshit issue. That's the only choice for now.

[Neshanic]

128. It's guns, God and gays....oh, we are Democrats...sorry. I forgot.

[txaslftist]

72. I support your right to post flamebait.

[AntiFascist]

77. I think many misinterpret the meaning

It should mean that no one, not even the Republican controlled government, has any right to proclaim that they have some unique pipeline to divine rule. The phrase "under God" should make the President look entirely ridiculous when he makes a decision to go to war because he was told to do so by his god. It should mean that there is a higher authority than the American judicial system and, as a last resort, the American people will rise up and overthrow any Federal authority who feels that they alone have the inside track on religious-based governance. Whether or not you believe that there is a God, you should acknowledge that the government does not have the final say in what we should or should not believe.

[petronius]

89. How about not support it by pointing out that there are

far more pressing issues facing the U.S.? Frame the discussion as "why do Rs want to ignore Katrina, Iraq, Osama, etc? Do they not realize the importance of these issues? Why do Rs hate America?"

(Which I suppose was your point - so I agree with you, but no one should go on record as actually being in favor of the idea.)

[Az]

93. Even if they agree with it?

This is the thing that people keep missing. Voters want candidates that stand for things even if its not politically to their advantage. Its called leading. Sometimes you need to stand up for something that is right but will cost you votes in the short term. You have to explain why you believe the things you do and convince people of the truth of it.

Its the difference between leading and following.

[petronius]

107. If someone agrees with a 'Save the Pledge' act

than they should support it, be they R or D or whatever. However, it seems like this would be a trap - the only reason Rs would bring this up now is to get Ds to outright oppose it so that they can then paint Ds as unpatriotic. It is politics of distraction/political expediency on the part of the Rs to even bring it up.

There are (as I see it) three possible responses:

1) oppose it outright and try to convince people of the rightness of that course
2) support it to take the wind out of the sails of the Rs
3) point out that there are more important issues and Rs are trying to play political games

I think #3 is the best option, followed by #1. I don't think it is a leader/follower issue - Ds opposing something 'on principle' when it is clear that that response is exactly what Rs hope for is following. Far better to sidestep the games entirely and point out the trivial focus of the other side...

[Walt Starr]

96. Tha'ts another good way

but you gain nothing in the end.

By turning it around on the Repukes with a "Save the Pledge Act", yoiu increase your political viability to Mushy Marvin from the Middle because you've shown him tha you don't "hate god".

I'm a firm believer in conservation of resources in war. Never act at all unless you stand to gain. Acting where you gain nothing, but you only hold ground, gets you nowhere and wastes resources better spent elsewhere.

always take ground. Always be on the attack. Take any bad situation and turn it around so you gain ground.

[Maple]

97. 'Political expediency' will kill you, every time

[RSchewe]

98. Take it off the currency as well! n/t

[Solon]

103. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Look, political expediency doesn't really mean shit right now. The court rules as the Constitution allows. Whether the Democratic leadership takes any position is moot. First, if they applaud it, then the Repubs RR base is appeased. Second, if they oppose it, through legislation or through speech, the Repubs will spin this as simple grandstanding by the Democrats, that they lie, etc. etc. Again, the Repub base is appeased.

In either case, the muddled middle, and the apathetic will STILL not really give a shit. Probably the best response is NO response, but then again, the Repubs will probably spin THAT too.

[noahmijo]

109. That's how it starts

First it's "We're going to defend Under God!!"

Then when that goes unanswered it will be "Under A Very SPECIFIC God"

And so on and so on.....

Fuck the pukes I refuse to give em an inch.

[LuckyTheDog]

111. Want to "save" it?

Promote the idea of putting the text back the way it was originally.

[NYC Liberal]

114. Because we've gone SO far with being politcally expedient right?

You can flip-flop around trying to be 'politcally expedient' -- ie, what Dems have been doing for the last 4 years, and LOSE support.

OR you can CONVINCE people that you're position is the right one. That is how you win votes. People think sticking an obvious endorsement of a particular religion in the "pledge" is OK? Go out and convince them otherwise.

If you are a "Republican lite" on these issues, why would people vote for you when they could vote for an actual Repug and get the WHOLE thing?

[norml]

117. Nope. Although I'm willing to accept some Establishment of Religion by

our Government, as with any of our Constitutional rights some judgment is required as to how absolute any of those rights are.

I'm glad for people who bring cases like this. They hold back the establishment of a fundie theocracy.

[RSchewe]

122. Which "establishment of religion by government" do you accept?

I think that, at least to me, sparks my curiosity.

[norml]

131. Any time Government establishes religion through pledges, statuary

or funding for anything religious I think there can be some reasonableness as to what is allowed.

I don't think just making it a generic God makes it OK.

The Constitution doesn't say, shall make no law regarding an establishment of A religion.

Establishing even a generic God, through pledges, statuary, or funding, is still establishing religion.

However I'm fine with leaving it up to the Courts to decide when things have gone too far.

I agree with court decisions that allow religious symbology as part of historical architectural ornamentation, or as decoration on money.

I even agree that it's OK to have a National Cathedral in Washington D.C.

Not because I don't think it's an establishment of religion by our Government, but because I think that a little establishment of religion by the Government, just like a little gun control, is OK.

[RSchewe]

120. Should never have been added by Congress in 1954

to the Pledge of Allegiance to begin with.

What's next is BUsh going to get his Senators and House members to add "For 9/11 we bomb"?

[Whoa_Nelly]

121. I ABSOLUTELY Disagree! Back-burner this, but don't let it go

If it were voted on today simply to move on to other pressing issues, it would be a slap in the face to all who believe in separation of church and state. Even more importantly, to uphold the premise that it's such a non-issue that it can "cleared out" and "taken off the table" adds even further to the disassembling of the Constitution regarding civil liberties.

We, as a nation, are not made of the whole cloth Christian belief. When it is allowed to continue indoctrinating children to support that belief system, then we, as a nation, have failed our children by not schooling them in their rights as under the COnstitution.

It is imperative that US Public Schools, funded by federal and state monies, not be the stage for forcing one singular belief system that becomes the blanket belief system for all. Privately funded schools can insert whatever they wish into the Pledge of Allegiance, such as Under God, Jesus, and Constantinople, as long as they are not receiving federal funds.

I can support the indoctrination view of stating the pledge within the public school venue, and that those who choose, whether by their own decision or through their parents' instructions, be allowed to not participate. However, the "under God" part has to go.

And by all I've stated above, I feel it important to add, that this particular issue should become a catalyst in changing recent court decisions that allow placement of Christian belief on any US public grounds, such as the Ten Commandments being allowed on courthouse lawns.

One axiom I wholly support is this:
Freedom is the distance between Church and State.

If all of our civil liberties based on our freedoms are to be allowed to live and thrive, then religion must not play any part to any party when it comes to properties that are for and by the people of The United States of America.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

125. You're right, dems need to steer away from BS issues until back in power.

The Democratic Party needs to judiciously pick its fights until we re-establish the credibility of our party with independent voters, forget about the re-puke voters we don't need them if we attract enough moderate independents. This is the kind of pissing contest that accomplishes nothing in positioning our party to win in 2006.

[Neshanic]

127. Yes, and add those homos to that little "lets not go there" list.

[Viking12]

138. ..and women too!... and those "colored" people...

:sarcasm:

[MisterP]

144. au contraire, we win beaucoup points if we refuse to jump whenever

the cons snap their fingers, and actually oppose their bankrupt policies

[RSchewe]

126. Good idea! Let's censor ourselves and not have a discussion about

an issue that cme up in the news.

[Marr]

129. I agree. And this is the proper response:

If a Republican wants to talk about "under god" being in the pledge, the response should be, "unemployment is up, poverty is up, the wealthiest 1% are looting the treasury and you want to talk about the pledge. Why is that? Who's paying you?". Or something to that effect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

130. Yeah. Let's just cave in to the fundies.

Gawd will luv ya for it.

[Telly Savalas]

135. Where'd this come from?

I thought Katrina and Iraq were at the forefront of political discourse in the U.S. Why are we bringing up right-wing wedge issues when there are real problems in the world?

[politicat]

136. If not now, when? There will never be a good time for this, so the time

when it happens is the best time. Those of us who are not Christian are constantly being told to sit down and shaddup and we'll get to your problems when everything else is taken care of.

You know, I'm tired of being in the back of the bus and tired of being told what I believe is not good enough for me to be a full American.

Besides, this is not new - it's been in the pipe for three years.

[Viking12]

137. History is not on your side

TX v. Johnson upheld the right to burns flags as protected expression. Clinton beat the flag-wrapped Bush I. It's a minor issue. It's the war, the economy, and the incompetence stupid.

[bloom]

140. Someone probably had that argument keeping women from voting.

"Political expediency" is never a reason to deny people their rights - or people would never have any.

[kohodog]

dupe...server issues i think.

[kohodog]

146. I don't give a shit either way. Get rid of it altogether is a better way.

Really, who cares? "In God we trust" is on our coins. It's not killing anybody like our federal and domestic policies which are responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths worldwide under this administration.

We need to focus on the policies that are causing death. not the empty recitation of a stupid pledge that is meaningless to most kids. Just ditch the whole thing.

[Cats Against Frist]

147. Can we recite this?

next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

-- e.e. cummings

[JNelson6563]

151. I prefer "under Zeus"

It's not forcing anyone to choose any one religion, it just acknowledges a "higher power".

:toast:

[bloom]

152. "Under Nature" would be a nice change of pace...

i'm always impressed with countries that put loons and flowers on their money instead of men (or women - but mostly men).

[Paulie]

153. We beat them over the head with it

Quote: "You're worried about protecting "under god" when people are DYING in NOLA, IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN???? And they want to spread it to IRAN, SYRIA, N. KOREA and VENEZUELA? And the President is so out of touch he needs help going to the washroom? $4 a gallon gas? Recession? Dogs and cats living together? WTF is your malfunction with agreeing with the leaders trying everything they can to not stand up and be responsible about the 100 other freaking important issues!?!?!?!" Unquote

If someone morally can put this issue above the other issues we have, we won't be getting their vote anyways. Seriously.

[FreedomAngel82]

156. I could really care less

I could really care less honestly. Since I'm not in public school I hardly say it now days. It doesn't matter to me and people can easily leave out that part.

[NancyG]

161. Pick your fights.

As a realistic optimist, I agree with WaltS and don't expect to win this one or it could lose 2006 for us.

As a Unitarian (meaning super-liberal in religion), I want it out of the pledge.

Realistic optimist wins this battle for me, meaning I agree with WaltS on this one. And for us to start to rewin elections. Does no good to be correct in every election and keep losing them. Once in, we can take the principled stand. Gotta be in first. IMO being effective in this case beats being right.

[Az]

163. Having a spine

means standing up for issues that may not be popular. It doesn't mean throwing everything at the issue. But if its right to stand up for something then do so.

People keep complaining the Dems have no spine. Well here is why. Right here if front of you. People keep acknowledging its the right thing to do but its not politically advantageous. That is the definition of spineless. Not standing up for what you believe is right.

[mopaul]

164. a person could get through his WHOLE life without pledging allegiance

without serious harm, with or without the word 'god'

[Az]

165. Lucky them

and?

[More Than A Feeling]

167. I don't support it

I'd like the government's hands off my religion, thank you very much. It demeans God to associate Him with an earthly government for nationalistic and political reasons.

Fortunately for everyone here who thinks as you do, it isn't up to me.

[smartvoter]

171. It sucks, but I agree with you. We cannot afford to have any more

of this bullshit social stuff become the focus of public attention while they drive us further into financial ruin for the benefit of a few.

[ProfessorGAC]

174. Nope. There's A Better Way

Dems just ignore the issue, when the Pledge legislation hits. The mantra should be "We've got far more important issues to work on. Deficits, war, natural disasters, unemployment, etc. When those are solved, we can always get back to the Pledge."

It defuses the debate since the Dems would be neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the court's decision, just prioritizing.
The Professor

[shrike]

178. Great suggestion

Just read your post after I posted mine. Agree completely: why the hell are we even worrying about this when we've got another country overrun by our illegal war, soldiers dying, poverty, homelessness and all the other godawful problems in the good old USA.

[JugDack]

180. Yes! Exactly! Why pretend to be Repubs??

I detest these "we must lie to win" arguments.

[shrike]

177. I don't give a damn about it

I see your point, Walt, but I am really sick of this crap. I wish it would go away, which I suppose is what you're hoping will happen, with the "Save the Pledge" nonsense.

My husband the agnostic, who has no use for religion whatsoever, was watching the Daily Show last night. It was the first time he had heard of the ruling.

He turned to me and said, "Why do people in this country get so worked up about such stupid things?" We both agreed with Stewart, who appeared rather weary of the issue.

As I said in an earlier post, why don't we just get rid of the pledge altogether and replace it with a thorough, daily grounding in the Constitution.

[JugDack]

182. Sorry, they'll see right through that.

I understand what you're saying, but the minute a Dem introduces that it won't deflate the issue at all! There'll be a zillion Pubs on TV pointing out what a politically motivated move it is. Heck, they might even point to this thread as evidence.

No, it'll just look like pandering.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. "Now is not the time"

There'll be time for that civil rights nonsense later. We don't want to alienate the Southern Dems, do we?



Sure, we support your equality an' whatnot, really we do- but.. you know, maybe you guys can wait until LATER to bring up this marriage deal? Um, Electoral Reality and stuff. But we can still count on your donation to the DNC this year... right?



You know, ladies.. Um, yeah, those laws where you have to go before a judge to get an abortion, or explain to a bunch of strangers why you want one and who you had sex with... or maybe in your state you can't get one at all? Sorry 'bout that. And yeah, um, we realize that you can't get your birth control prescriptions filled anywhere, now, either. But, uh.. you know, those heartland voters, heh heh.. they really have us over a barrel! What can we do? I'm sure you young women will understand that it's nothing PERSONAL when we sell your reproductive rights down the river!




:grr:

[progressivebydesign]

184. I don't. McCarthyism added it in the 50's.

It's not our founding fathers intent, therefore it's bullshit.

[Greyhound]

185. That is the not-so-subtle shit that has led us to this sorry State.

We are/were a nation of laws, not men, not gods, nor religion. You can believe any kind of fairy-tale you want to, but when you slip it into our national pledge, you've crossed the line. This is truly corrosive and should not get a pass because it happens to coincide with your beliefs.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. As Modem Butterfly Noted, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll445.xml

And please take note, it was done two election cycles ago, so all the folks who Mr. Starr claims vote against the Dems for "hating god" apparently are going to do so no matter WHAT useless, pandering, fluff legislation they vote for in this regard.

Can we talk about something else, now?

[Malikshah]

188. Political expediency = Current regime

Fuck expediency--

Focus on constitution
Focus on truth
Focus on bringing the battle to the bastards

Fuck expediency

And have the happiest of pickledickle days. :)