Pledge! Now!

[Musopticon?]

Oh, horrible movie that.

[Judge Hades]

It is actually a very good popcorn movie. Far superior anything Goerge Lucas and Speilberg has done in recent years in the genre.

[Musopticon?]

Well, that's not much of an achievement, is it?

[Judge Hades]

Have you seen the sci fi movies lately? They have steadily gone down hill since then. Serenity might be better than ID4 but as a whole ID4 is the best popcorn action sci fi movie in 10 years.

[Drakron]

ID4 is the closest movie we have to a "The War of the Worlds" adaptation to modern days ... if you look close you can spot the similarities.

 

I like ID4 because it did not tried to be anything else that it is, thats the problem with a lot of the "big names" directors that appear to lost the idea of filming a movie and instead are working for their oscar nomination (or their inflated ego in Lucas case).

[Reveilled]

I always thought the world Lennon describes in imagine would be suicidally boring.

 

"And now, the news at 6 'o' Clock: Nothing happened today. Here instead is some light piano music."

 

"

[kumquatq3]

Oh, horrible movie that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, but you loved the white house blowing up, didn't you..... commie

[Musopticon?]

 

Now that you mention it.

[alanschu]

I always thought the world Lennon describes in imagine would be suicidally boring.

 

"And now, the news at 6 'o' Clock: Nothing happened today.  Here instead is some light piano music."

 

  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Meh, excitement doesn't have to come with people blowing each other up, or other "bleeds and leads" news headlines.

[Dark Moth]

You forgot major scandals as well. People just tend to be more interested in current events when things aren't going so fine and dandy. I'm shocked Metadigital hasn't commented on this thread. Come to think of it, he hasn't been around for a few days.

[Deraldin]

You forgot major scandals as well.    People just tend to be more interested in current events when things aren't going so fine and dandy.  I'm shocked Metadigital hasn't commented on this thread.    Come to think of it, he hasn't been around for a few days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Meta hasn't been around since

 

Last Active  10th September 2005 - 10:53 PM

[Calax]

BTW the guy who's spearheading the suit lives about 30 minutes away from me... And the districts are allowing the Pledge to be said according to the local newspaper

[Cantousent]

Treason is not acceptable. I think SS managed to convey my thoughts and so I will just affirm his statement.

[Calax]

Treason is not acceptable.  I think SS managed to convey my thoughts and so I will just affirm his statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

? who's SS? do you mean the SS?

[Cantousent]

ShadowStrider, my young friend. Not the German SS from world war II. D'oh. That doesn't look good, huh?

[Musopticon?]

Shadowstrider.

[Calax]

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms over a phrase put in to remove the americans from the "godless communits" It seems odd that they think it's always been Under God since the founders created the nation. Given that Religion is technically supposed to be seperate I would think the words under god should be removed... the Pledge shouldn't necessairly be banned but the two words that get everyone's juices going should go.

 

That'll be two cents.

[Cantousent]

I wasn't really worried about the phrase "under God." I was responding to my neutral friend's comment quote about treason. Treason is something different than simple dissent.

[taks]

The Pledge of Allegiance is pure nationalism at its worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Gromnir]

The pledge is said simply as manner of respect to the country.  Besides, if you aren't comfortable with saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, you don't have to.  If this guy doesn't want his children to say the pledge, then they don't have to.  But don't take away our own right to say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge.

 

The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear."

 

the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit.

 

make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it.

 

...

 

look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

The Pledge of Allegiance is pure nationalism at its worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Socializing? I don't think school does that. I never went to a private school in my life, and got a damned good education to boot. I certainly wouldn't say I was socialized, as I came out rather atheist despite being obliged to recite the Pledge every day. Which I really don't have a problem with, as I said; on the other hand, none of you should have a problem with allowing "under God" to be replaced by whatever the individual's beliefs happen to be.

[Commissar]

The pledge is said simply as manner of respect to the country.  Besides, if you aren't comfortable with saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, you don't have to.  If this guy doesn't want his children to say the pledge, then they don't have to.  But don't take away our own right to say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge.

 

The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear."

 

the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit.

 

make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it.

 

...

 

look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today.

 

Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you.

[Gromnir]

oh, and not that it matters, but Gromnir is catholic and goes to church regular and we watch notre dame football every saturday and if we ever have children we will probably send 'em to catholic school... and if it were up to us, we would have a Wall of Separation 'tween church and state. in spite of our faith (or maybe because of it,) is our opinion that religion and government is a bad combination and we would just as soon keep 'em as separate as reasonably possible... 'course is not like we is suggesting that if a church is on fire that local municipal fire departments should not put out the blaze. total separation ain't as possible as some folks seem to think.

 

however, as a dyed-in-wool original intentionist, we will tell you that Wall of Separation were not what were the meaning o' the separation clause when it were written, and as such it should not be the Law of the Land.

 

oh, and judges who go around changing the law to suit their personal politics should be horsewhipped... even if they think that they is doing so for the greater good.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

The pledge is said simply as manner of respect to the country.  Besides, if you aren't comfortable with saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, you don't have to.  If this guy doesn't want his children to say the pledge, then they don't have to.  But don't take away our own right to say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge.

 

The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear."

 

the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit.

 

make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it.

 

...

 

look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today.

 

Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

jefferson were THE framers? wow. and here we thought that he were just one guy... and kinda a fringe politician at that. were he even at the constitutional convention? no?

 

wall o' separation folks place too much stock in jefferson... and they ignore pretty much everybody else. is bad history and bad scholarship.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

The pledge is said simply as manner of respect to the country.  Besides, if you aren't comfortable with saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, you don't have to.  If this guy doesn't want his children to say the pledge, then they don't have to.  But don't take away our own right to say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge.

 

The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear."

 

the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit.

 

make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it.

 

...

 

look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today.

 

Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

jefferson were THE framers? wow. and here we thought that he were just one guy... and kinda a fringe politician at that. were he even at the constitutional convention? no?

 

wall o' separation folks place too much stock in jefferson... and they ignore pretty much everybody else. is bad history and bad scholarship.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, he's not the only framer. On the other hand, he is the most prominent and the chap generally given credit for doing the majority of the heavy lifting. If you're really going to make me, I'll go ahead and pull some stuff on the other lads involved that'll support my general argument. I won't do it now, since I've got to take a shower and get on the road, but sometime over the weekend.