taks

if it was required, i would agree, but it is not, so you are wrong. sorry, di, but "establishment of a religion" as a statement by itself mandates a requirement on the people before it is a constitutional issue. it just isn't, and peer pressure alone (being the most outstanding reason provided) doesn't count as a law. taks

total joke based on hype and hysteria. chemtrails are regularly debunked as well. if someone would actually provided real evidence i may consider thinking about things like this, but there is none to be had. just conjecture, anecdote and fear. taks

given the furor in the media over the topic with both the left and the right foaming at the mouth, no, i don't think it's dismissive nor condescending. as i noted, mr. newdow originally filed a claim on behalf of a daughter that does not agree with him. he was not even her legal guardian at the time (not sure about now). it was a cause, and like-minded folks hopped onto his cause bandwagon to make a political statement. this little item has been the fuel for more discussion than even abortion recently, and it amounts to a hill of beans in the end. at least with abortion the fight is over a life, not two words in an optional recital. no, it's not dismissive, saying this movement is a bandwagon is right on target. uh, you're not presuming motive... but you presume the insertion of the phrases was political? keep in mind, the country was quite different (religiously) when these phrases were inserted. it was hardly an issue (some griped) so political motivations were not nearly as prevalent as they are today for removal. taks

slippery slope there, kaftan. in fact, the same argument has been made every time a new technology comes out, yet no deathcamps. tapes from vinyl, DATs, CDs, you name it. the RIAA will litigate itself into obscurity one of these days. the sooner the better, IMO. taks

children of the 50s should be retiring soon... fortunately, perhaps. a kafuffle alan? taks

calax, lonewolf, it's probably school/location dependent. where i grew up, standard middle class suburb though dominated by two major political drivers: unions and churches. the catholic presence in st. louis is incredible, as is the union presence. never an issue, nor have i ever heard of any. btw, what gromnir is referring to is the fallacy fallacy. saying than an entire argument is fallacious simply because one committed a fallacy is in itself a fallacy. either way, had i been referring to anyone in particular, my meaning could easily have been inferred to be an attack on credibility. however, i did clarify my position to mean the "movement" in general, and there is ample evidence of hypocrisy and not-so-hidden agendas. keep in mind, this swings the other way, too. the bandwagon to keep the pledge as-is is just as powerful. before mr. newdow, nobody really cared one way or the other. it may have bugged some people, but never enough to do anything. along comes newdow (arguing on behalf of a daughter that disagreed with his position... pretty tacky, IMO) and bam! things change. the left has an issue to pound the right and the right thinks they can put the whammy down on the left on the same argument. sheesh... taks

not utterly false at all... i clearly pointed out my experience, and called it as such. also, you never said there was an issue with under god, only the hand on the heart thing, which is not the same issue. be careful what you choose to argue... taks

i attributed motive to the general "movement," no personal credibility attacks. when the far left hops on a bandwagon, the purpose is primarily to attack the right. the same goes for right on left bandwagons. it actually annoys me since i tend to dislike the policies of true conservatives and liberals alike. people read one comment and can instantly vote an entire ideology my way? suuuurre... the media circus is pretty much a bandwagon, which is one of my two major points above regarding the statements... hysteria is, really, a bandwagon thing. perhaps not meaningless, either, but certainly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. taks

no, not at all. i did not criticize anybody, nor did i say their argument was invalid because they're somehow worthy of criticism. that's the requirement for an ad-hominem, i just threw in the "quote" to illustrate how bandwagons work. in other words, there's an opportunity for political muck-racking, and everyone else is doing it, so let's get on board. even commissar just said he normally doesn't care. but i'm really NOT a conservative. however, for the record (you can read all my posts to verify): socially, liberal. pretty much anything goes though i understand restrictions on public speech (airwaves to boot) and other similar concepts. i do believe the gov't should get out of the whole marriage biz, however. governmentally, strict constitutionalist, a federalist, actually. you can't call republicans that anymore, since they're into big government like anyone else. liberals and conservatives alike have a very warped view of "rights," IMO, so i don't fit in either camp there... economically, capitalist. this is probably the most obvious of my traits. diehard. philosophically, objectivist, which is really what drives each of the above points... that it is on here is not a bandwagon jump, i agree. that it is suddenly a national crisis is, however. i mean really, if this is what we're worried about, we have bigger problems than anyone understands. this is the ultimate bandwagon simply because it is meaningless in terms of other issues. like i said, the discussion itself is certainly valid. the fact that all the high profiles and media are making it into some big case is where the bandwagon resides. i'd be willing to bet this lies really, really low on voter priorities. taks

first, the hand over the heart thing is a little different than under god, but either way... perhaps 25 years ago things were different, i agree. there was probably more pressure in the 50s for sure (particularly since the communism scare was in full force). but like i said, even in my grade schools (23-31 years ago, politically mixed area) there was never any pressure. today, it is almost non-existent other than the danged press generated by newdow and co. taks

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind? ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board. taks

why not? i mean, c'mon, say it if you believe, don't if you don't. big whoop if it's written down on paper one way or another. no life altering crisis there. either way, neither you nor i ever really have to say it anyway... tak

precisely what i stated above... we are in agreement. people get bent out of shape over things they don't even have to do anyway. why should commissar gripe when he doesn't even have to recite the darned thing. and to your pending argument that it impinges on others... why not let them worry about it. oh, and it wasn't "under satan" because, whether you like it or not, 95% of the world believes/d in a higher power (a god, by many names) and worshipped said power when the words were added. big deal, if the gov't would get out of the education business, which it coincidentally is not chartered to be in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ach, but all i can do is try... taks

6 Mb/s here and no cap (adelphia). the difference is really only in time to DL, since most of the wait above a few hundred kb/s from serving webpages is the latency in the link and handshaking. taks

cheaper to rent them and you can always have the newest technology. if you buy a good pair, it's going to run nearly $1000, and they'll be way behind in less than 5 years. renting the performance package is about $150-200 including tuning, and you'll always be current. boots, OTOH, are a necessity. taks

i'm not. IMO, the only reason other entrenched atheists raise a fuss in the first place is because they have a political axe to grind. sure they spout the whole "separation" theme over and over but that's a cover story. as long as i or my family are not told what do do, where are my rights being trampled? oh well, i'll stay in the minority (of course, the ex prez or whatever of NOW is an atheist republican, which is very strange, and begs the question about her beliefs on this matter). taks

then don't say under god. it is not required, last time i checked. nothing to square and no contrary statements. that's pretty much what i did (er, didn't do) when i was growing up (started my conversion around 12/13 or so). no sweat off my back and nobody seemed to care, not even my teacher. taks

of course, ski season will be upon us shortly (a-basin and loveland open in october)... then i have a second hobby. taks

on PCs, yes, i realize that. it was my entire point, actually. taks

i rarely puke when i get drunk volourn. practice makes perfect. taks

Billiards. yes, that's me. APA national team 8-ball championships in vegas a few weeks ago (the riviera). i won that match, barely. our team did not fare well, however. taks

wow, a rare political post from sammael! on this point, i agree. this just bolsters my position that public schools are forced detention camps with a goal of "socializing" our children. odd that i don't find "under god" unconstitutional, though i do find the whole public school system unconstitutional... my child will be homeschooled. of course, he's ready for kindergarten now... taks

no i wouldn't. which is a different argument than "separation of church and state." you stated quite clearly "legislation limiting rights..." which is a far different matter than the words "under god" in the pledge. there is no limitation there, no requirement to even recite the pledge, and therefore no limitation. i will place odds that the supreme court will overturn this ruling, which will also refute your insistence on a legal standard that has never been called out by anyone other than politicians... taks

walmart won't stock AO games, they'll simply move to unmoddable games and console games. this is not good for the PC genre. taks

no, it is really not. it is never stated nor implied. there is ONE line preventing congress (US law) from respecting an establishment of religion. that one line - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - has been interpreted to mean 'separation of church and state,' but the population has always been divided on the issue as has SCOTUS. the phrase we so often hear has been coined by politicians attempting to woo voters, not constitutional law experts. taks