one nation, under god

[Dr.Drock]

Sure you do or you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a wad over my calling you a coward.

I understand you need to give yourself credit for your perceived notion that "my panties are in a wad" but i assure that's just your own insecurities coming to light.

Deny it all you want.

Here's your first post in the thread to me

"The children are not pledging their allegiance to God you moron!"

You came into this discussion and your panties were immediately in a wad, before i ever even said anything to you.

Again you're projecting, just like you were when you called me a coward while biting your nails in fear of answering a question on an anonymous message board.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand you need to give yourself credit for your perceived notion that "my panties are in a wad" but i assure that's just your own insecurities coming to light.

Deny it all you want.

Here's your first post in the thread to me

"The children are not pledging their allegiance to God you moron!"

You came into this discussion and your panties were immediately in a wad, before i ever even said anything to you.

Again you're projecting, just like you were when you called me a coward while biting your nails in fear of answering a question on an anonymous message board.

No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.

And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.

There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.

The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.

That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.

If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.

Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.

There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.

Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

 

[Valerie]

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

This particular family, (and I'm sure there are others), felt like they could not tolerate the daily requirement for their children to recite the pledge with that phrase.

On the surface their lawsuit seems frivolous, but to them it is a matter of principle. To suggest these parents aren't teaching their children "respect" is silly... I haven't heard that these kids were disrespectful in any way, only that they felt discriminated against.

Since when is standing up for what you believe in a form of disrespect...?




As someone who is Christian and has no problem saying the pledge as is, I can still empathize and understand how others may feel differently and out of respect for them, I would have no problem removing the phrase that discriminates against their beliefs. I really don't understand all this wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue... Respecting ALL citizens only strengthens our country, and that is what the pledge is supposed to be about, after all...



I see no value in creating an all-encompassing view of the Pledge issue as if all other issues are the same "nonsense"...? Each legal issue and circumstance has it's own intricacies and rational people can see there is no grand conspiracy against religion, it is simply American citizens asserting their rights...One family asking the court to hear their case and reconsider the issue which affects them, as is their right.


The local court will hear this case and we'll see what happens...

The family’s lawyer asked a judge in Middlesex Superior Court on Monday to have the words taken out.

The parents are identified only as John and Jane Doe, with three children, one in high school and two in middle school.

Their attorney told the judge the children are being marginalized and discriminated against, and that reciting the pledge "defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief."

The school district’s attorney said the pledge is constitutional and voluntary.

Superintendent Stephen Mills says the there are no negative consequences for students who choose not to say the pledge.

The judge did not immediately rule.


Acton family sues over ‘’under God’ in pledge - BostonHerald.com

You have no problem Kowtowing to a few folks that have been offended.

I'm glad Jesus didn't think that way.

I have no problem empathizing and respecting other points of view and neither did Jesus...


The rules do not require the children to participate in the daily pledge, but by virtue of their non-participation, these kids were made a spectacle of, which made them feel ostracized in the public classroom.

 

[Dot Com]

Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.

There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.

The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.

That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.

If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.

Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.

There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.

Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Reading isn't a pasttime you enjoy too much is it? Instead of typing out that mini novella, you coulda' just said "OK, I'm clueless"
In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956.

The country survived w/o it for a few years dearie
Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.

Do you know what ongoing, international event was occurring that precipitated these changes?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Deny it all you want.

Here's your first post in the thread to me

"The children are not pledging their allegiance to God you moron!"

You came into this discussion and your panties were immediately in a wad, before i ever even said anything to you.

Again you're projecting, just like you were when you called me a coward while biting your nails in fear of answering a question on an anonymous message board.

No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.

And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.

So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.

So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.

Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."

A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.

There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.

The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.

That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.

If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.

Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.

There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.

Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Every complaint against gov't endorsing the existence of a god is a legitimate one, not one that I share, but a view I respect.

Agree to disagree, I don't view the gov't endorsement on the existence of a god as a historical thing, I view it as a religious thing. Something gov't shouldn't be involved in.

 

[Foxfyre]

The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.

That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.

If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.

Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.

There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.

Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Every complaint against gov't endorsing the existence of a god is a legitimate one, not one that I share, but a view I respect.

Agree to disagree, I don't view the gov't endorsement on the existence of a god as a historical thing, I view it as a religious thing. Something gov't shouldn't be involved in.

There is a huge difference between endorsement and acknowledgment. The Founders were adament and zealous in there intent that there be no official or required endorsement of God or any other religious concept by the Federal government. But they were equally adament and zealous that the very foundation of the United States of America was based on the concept of God given unalienable rights that no government would touch. The entire premise of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize, protect, and defend those rights and it was and is the only nation in the world to do so.

Those who are hostile to, resent, or are offended by anything religious should be very careful what they wish for. Should they finally succeed in removing the historical perspective of God given rights, we will lose them. And along with them American exceptionalism in which no monarch or other government authority would rule us but the people would have their rights secured and would govern themselves. That made us the greatest, most powerful, most altruistic, most prosperous, and most free nation the world has ever known.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This particular family, (and I'm sure there are others), felt like they could not tolerate the daily requirement for their children to recite the pledge with that phrase.

On the surface their lawsuit seems frivolous, but to them it is a matter of principle. To suggest these parents aren't teaching their children "respect" is silly... I haven't heard that these kids were disrespectful in any way, only that they felt discriminated against.

Since when is standing up for what you believe in a form of disrespect...?




As someone who is Christian and has no problem saying the pledge as is, I can still empathize and understand how others may feel differently and out of respect for them, I would have no problem removing the phrase that discriminates against their beliefs. I really don't understand all this wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue... Respecting ALL citizens only strengthens our country, and that is what the pledge is supposed to be about, after all...



I see no value in creating an all-encompassing view of the Pledge issue as if all other issues are the same "nonsense"...? Each legal issue and circumstance has it's own intricacies and rational people can see there is no grand conspiracy against religion, it is simply American citizens asserting their rights...One family asking the court to hear their case and reconsider the issue which affects them, as is their right.


The local court will hear this case and we'll see what happens...

You have no problem Kowtowing to a few folks that have been offended.

I'm glad Jesus didn't think that way.

I have no problem empathizing and respecting other points of view and neither did Jesus...


The rules do not require the children to participate in the daily pledge, but by virtue of their non-participation, these kids were made a spectacle of, which made them feel ostracized in the public classroom.

Jesus didn't forsake nor compromise His belief because of empathy.

And the children stated they felt ostracized?

Let's say they feel that way. Who's fault is it? The teacher? The parents? The pledge itself?

 

[Dot Com]

Here's your first post in the thread to me

"The children are not pledging their allegiance to God you moron!"

You came into this discussion and your panties were immediately in a wad, before i ever even said anything to you.

Again you're projecting, just like you were when you called me a coward while biting your nails in fear of answering a question on an anonymous message board.

No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.

And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.

So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.

So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.

Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."

A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.

johnny reb jr is thin-skinned. Same thing w/ Lilrebnyc1775

 

[Foxfyre]

You have no problem Kowtowing to a few folks that have been offended.

I'm glad Jesus didn't think that way.

I have no problem empathizing and respecting other points of view and neither did Jesus...


The rules do not require the children to participate in the daily pledge, but by virtue of their non-participation, these kids were made a spectacle of, which made them feel ostracized in the public classroom.

Jesus didn't forsake nor compromise His belief because of empathy.

And the children stated they felt ostracized?

Let's say they feel that way. Who's fault is it? The teacher? The parents? The pledge itself?

Exactly. All children should be expected to rise and stand during the Pledge as a matter of courtesy for custom just as children should not be allowed to interrupt the teacher or disrupt the class as a matter of courtesy. But any teacher that would allow a child to be ostracized or made a spectacle because he or she did not recite the Pledge or any part of it should be fired because that teacher would not be maintaining discipline in his/her clasds and would not be doing his/her job.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here's your first post in the thread to me

"The children are not pledging their allegiance to God you moron!"

You came into this discussion and your panties were immediately in a wad, before i ever even said anything to you.

Again you're projecting, just like you were when you called me a coward while biting your nails in fear of answering a question on an anonymous message board.

No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.

And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.

So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.

So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.

Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."

A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.

Don't bring any of my family into this.


FYI my wife died giving birth to my son.


Yes I had strong emotions, it was that funny.

Now go ahead and be the good little liberal you are and flail away with your insults.

That's all you liberals can do when faced not with hypotheticals but with facts.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.

There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.

Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Every complaint against gov't endorsing the existence of a god is a legitimate one, not one that I share, but a view I respect.

Agree to disagree, I don't view the gov't endorsement on the existence of a god as a historical thing, I view it as a religious thing. Something gov't shouldn't be involved in.

There is a huge difference between endorsement and acknowledgment. The Founders were adament and zealous in there intent that there be no official or required endorsement of God or any other religious concept by the Federal government. But they were equally adament and zealous that the very foundation of the United States of America was based on the concept of God given unalienable rights that no government would touch. The entire premise of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize, protect, and defend those rights and it was and is the only nation in the world to do so.

Those who are hostile to, resent, or are offended by anything religious should be very careful what they wish for. Should they finally succeed in removing the historical perspective of God given rights, we will lose them. And along with them American exceptionalism in which no monarch or other government authority would rule us but the people would have their rights secured and would govern themselves. That made us the greatest, most powerful, most altruistic, most prosperous, and most free nation the world has ever known.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a religious issue.

So when one's religious views don't acknowledge the existence of a god, that child shouldn't be singled out.

I think if there were such a thing as god given rights than man wouldn't be able to take them away, but as we see in our gov't and even moreso in other gov'ts, basically every right can be taken away by our fellow men in gov't.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree since we aren't really saying anything new to one another.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Get your god..........

off the pledge
off the money
out of the politics

thanks.

No, I don’t want that.. Where will I get my public, Gods Delusional Devotee Entertainment from? Nobody going to watch a show called let’s say,
Sarah takes God hunting for little pray? Not as fun, she will control the show alone vs what we get in politics..
Praise The Load!… LORD!

 

[Foxfyre]

Every complaint against gov't endorsing the existence of a god is a legitimate one, not one that I share, but a view I respect.

Agree to disagree, I don't view the gov't endorsement on the existence of a god as a historical thing, I view it as a religious thing. Something gov't shouldn't be involved in.

There is a huge difference between endorsement and acknowledgment. The Founders were adament and zealous in there intent that there be no official or required endorsement of God or any other religious concept by the Federal government. But they were equally adament and zealous that the very foundation of the United States of America was based on the concept of God given unalienable rights that no government would touch. The entire premise of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize, protect, and defend those rights and it was and is the only nation in the world to do so.

Those who are hostile to, resent, or are offended by anything religious should be very careful what they wish for. Should they finally succeed in removing the historical perspective of God given rights, we will lose them. And along with them American exceptionalism in which no monarch or other government authority would rule us but the people would have their rights secured and would govern themselves. That made us the greatest, most powerful, most altruistic, most prosperous, and most free nation the world has ever known.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a religious issue.

So when one's religious views don't acknowledge the existence of a god, that child shouldn't be singled out.

I think if there were such a thing as god given rights than man wouldn't be able to take them away, but as we see in our gov't and even moreso in other gov'ts, basically every right can be taken away by our fellow men in gov't.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree since we aren't really saying anything new to one another.

For me it is not a religious issue. To you it apparently is. On that I will agree to disagree. I won't EVER agree to the American people caving in and giving up their unalienable rights or our historial perspective/heritage to those hostile to religion.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.

And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.

So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.

So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.

Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."

A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.

Don't bring any of my family into this.


FYI my wife died giving birth to my son.


Yes I had strong emotions, it was that funny.

Now go ahead and be the good little liberal you are and flail away with your insults.

That's all you liberals can do when faced not with hypotheticals but with facts.

I was praising your wife.

No you didn't, you liar. And if you did have strong emotions, that would make even more sense as to why your panties would be in a wad rather than mine.

Lol another instance of you pouting about insults, when the first sentence you typed on this thread was an insult, even though i didn't insult you.

I'm roughly 23143687156175376 times more conservative than you. Enjoy voting for RomneyCare or Gingrich and his many endorsements of universal healthcare, since you're such a hardcore consertaive.

You come here with insults in your very first post and every post since, and pretend you're posting facts.

The pouting of hypocrites, it stops being cute after around the age of toddlers.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There is a huge difference between endorsement and acknowledgment. The Founders were adament and zealous in there intent that there be no official or required endorsement of God or any other religious concept by the Federal government. But they were equally adament and zealous that the very foundation of the United States of America was based on the concept of God given unalienable rights that no government would touch. The entire premise of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize, protect, and defend those rights and it was and is the only nation in the world to do so.

Those who are hostile to, resent, or are offended by anything religious should be very careful what they wish for. Should they finally succeed in removing the historical perspective of God given rights, we will lose them. And along with them American exceptionalism in which no monarch or other government authority would rule us but the people would have their rights secured and would govern themselves. That made us the greatest, most powerful, most altruistic, most prosperous, and most free nation the world has ever known.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a religious issue.

So when one's religious views don't acknowledge the existence of a god, that child shouldn't be singled out.

I think if there were such a thing as god given rights than man wouldn't be able to take them away, but as we see in our gov't and even moreso in other gov'ts, basically every right can be taken away by our fellow men in gov't.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree since we aren't really saying anything new to one another.

For me it is not a religious issue. To you it apparently is. On that I will agree to disagree. I won't EVER agree to the American people caving in and giving up their unalienable rights or our historial perspective/heritage to those hostile to religion.

Well you said religious, your words not mine. I dunno how a god discussion isn't religious. There's no history of god, as there's no proof a god ever existed, it's purely religious, which is fine.

I agree the american ppl shouldn't cave in and give up their right not to be prejudiced against for their religious views.

I don't want your kids to be forced to acknowledge a god doesn't exist even though that's my view, a shame you don't share that sentiment.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.

So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.

Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."

A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.

Don't bring any of my family into this.


FYI my wife died giving birth to my son.


Yes I had strong emotions, it was that funny.

Now go ahead and be the good little liberal you are and flail away with your insults.

That's all you liberals can do when faced not with hypotheticals but with facts.

I was praising your wife.

No you didn't, you liar. And if you did have strong emotions, that would make even more sense as to why your panties would be in a wad rather than mine.

Lol another instance of you pouting about insults, when the first sentence you typed on this thread was an insult, even though i didn't insult you.

I'm roughly 23143687156175376 times more conservative than you. Enjoy voting for RomneyCare or Gingrich and his many endorsements of universal healthcare, since you're such a hardcore consertaive.

You come here with insults in your very first post and every post since, and pretend you're posting facts.

The pouting of hypocrites, it stops being cute after around the age of toddlers.

As I said. Do not talk about any of my family. Praise or otherwise.

You're no more conservative than Rdean.

But you are a moron and a coward.

Now I have weekend plans and arguing with idiots like you are not included.

later!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Don't bring any of my family into this.


FYI my wife died giving birth to my son.


Yes I had strong emotions, it was that funny.

Now go ahead and be the good little liberal you are and flail away with your insults.

That's all you liberals can do when faced not with hypotheticals but with facts.

I was praising your wife.

No you didn't, you liar. And if you did have strong emotions, that would make even more sense as to why your panties would be in a wad rather than mine.

Lol another instance of you pouting about insults, when the first sentence you typed on this thread was an insult, even though i didn't insult you.

I'm roughly 23143687156175376 times more conservative than you. Enjoy voting for RomneyCare or Gingrich and his many endorsements of universal healthcare, since you're such a hardcore consertaive.

You come here with insults in your very first post and every post since, and pretend you're posting facts.

The pouting of hypocrites, it stops being cute after around the age of toddlers.

As I said. Do not talk about any of my family. Praise or otherwise.

You're no more conservative than Rdean.

But you are a moron and a coward.

Now I have weekend plans and arguing with idiots like you are not included.

later!

Keep endorsing universal healthcare through your vote and lying to everyone by saying you're a conservative.

You're the biggest hypocrite on this board.

Have fun this weekend, maybe try taking some college courses. An expansion of intellect is greatly needed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a religious issue.

So when one's religious views don't acknowledge the existence of a god, that child shouldn't be singled out.

I think if there were such a thing as god given rights than man wouldn't be able to take them away, but as we see in our gov't and even moreso in other gov'ts, basically every right can be taken away by our fellow men in gov't.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree since we aren't really saying anything new to one another.

For me it is not a religious issue. To you it apparently is. On that I will agree to disagree. I won't EVER agree to the American people caving in and giving up their unalienable rights or our historial perspective/heritage to those hostile to religion.

Well you said religious, your words not mine. I dunno how a god discussion isn't religious. There's no history of god, as there's no proof a god ever existed, it's purely religious, which is fine.

I agree the american ppl shouldn't cave in and give up their right not to be prejudiced against for their religious views.

I don't want your kids to be forced to acknowledge a god doesn't exist even though that's my view, a shame you don't share that sentiment.

All non sequitur and totally avoiding the points that I made.