Since you're not an American, it's not a problem is it?

Not at this point it's not. I disagree with your point here though. I think rkz and others are correct.

Of course you do.

I would feel the same way regardless of who made such a claim Bruce. It's not personal.

Of course it's not.

Could you explain how the comma causes "under God" to not modify "one nation"?

Because the sentence, while seemingly ridiculous and based on little supporting argument, is not modified because of the commas, having been placed after the word, that are separators of ideas.

See, the "seemingly ridiculous" doesn't modify the... "sent..." wait.
The "placed after the word" doesn't modify the... "comm..." wait.

And the grammar confusion is also missing the point: the mentioning of a God in the pledge, on the money, in the schoolhouse, might not be the government supporting one religion over another... but it postulates the existence of god, and that there is only one of him. It's not demanding that I pray in school, but dammit it's one step in that direction... why the hell do we need it in there!? The only argument of defense is that it causes no harm. So what? Why is it in there? It wouldn't cause any undue harm to require all school teachers to wear funny hats... but if it pissed people off, why do it?

You Christians and Jews would tell me that it wouldn't make you angry if we changed the pledge and money to say "One nation, under no god" or "In the gods we trust?" You can make every argument you want about it being OK, but if others don't think it is, why don't you just take the bloody thing out!? If it causes no harm either way, just let it be taken out.

...unless you think it helps us live in a more godly nation.

Would it not just be easier to remove all references to a god that has no place in a secular government? We simply replaced many false idols (godlike men living on Mt Olympus) with a single god. So what has changed? We still have an idol that some worship like others do money. How curious. Everybody get something to worship in the currency ....

Do references to god mean the church can ask for so much money without appearing evil?

Those who were and are most strongly opposed to this and all breeches of the division of church and state are religious people.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is run by religious leaders and those who originally fought the Knights of Columbus about god on money and in the pledge the hardest were those who felt that their god had no place on money. They remembered that the only thing that brought JC to blows was mixing money and the church.
The intelligent ones.

that's right, cuz if they disagree with you they is stoopid. right?

Not me, the facts, separation of church and state is a fact of the foundation of our nation and protects both the church as well as the state.
If one cannot see that after the facts are presented, yes they do lack intelligence, clearly.
It has nothing to do with me.
You, stalker, are the one with the problem with me.
What a pathetic little ad hominem attack, please try harder next time, this one did not even give me a chuckle. You are usually good for a solid laugh.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../Adhominem.jpg

sorry, i missed the attack part of my post. i was simply pointing out your tendency to make your point, generally in a well articulated manner, but then, as usual, you spoil it with your last line. is any issue really so cut and dry that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you must be... unintelligent?
such rigid thinking is dangerous. it limits your ability to consider another possibility which limits your ability to learn.

but nice comeback anyway. you've at least got those down.

I don't see anything "rigid" in recognizing the inherent logic in the separation of church and state.
If you had stated that you did not like that one line because you felt it lead you to think I was making a singular statement, of course it was just your interpretation, then it would not have been ad hominem.
That is not what you did by any stretch of the imagination.

are you so fucking dense that you really don't get it? i didn't address the presentation of your argument. I pointed out your need to strike first and point out that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is obviously unintelligent.

my point: no matter the topic around here, you respond with "blahblahblah... and to disagree proves you are unintelligent." That is rigid thinking inconsistent with growing and learning.

instead of dealing with my statement you drag out your usual snappy comebacks.
"stalker...ad hominem..." insert ridiculous picture... *submit reply*
learn a new trick.

Stop stalking me from thread to thread and guess what I'll stop calling you?
I could care less if you believe me, like the way I discuss topics, etc.
You are a stalker and a troll and don't even deserve my attention, any more than that is gravy as far as I am concerned. You are beneath me.
If I state a point is illogical/unintelligent, clearly show me that I am wrong with facts/a logical argument for the opposing view without your personal attacks and I will tell you I was wrong.
It is as simple as that.

There are usually, say, a couple dozen active politics/current events threads at any given time.
You can't 'stalk' over that short amount of space.
If there were thousands of active threads, and someone still posts right after you like, constantly, THEN you can maybe bitch about 'stalking'.

Someone refuting your arguments, or posting around the same time as you, or saying something you dont like in a thread you were in at some point kind of maybe a little bit, or disagreeing with you in any way, is not stalking.

You also have to consider that this is a public forum, and that by posting as often as you do, your posts are going to be read by many and thus your more memorable posts will be brought up later.

Stalking me from one thread to another, not just a couple but several and over long periods of time, is stalking and a couple do it.
They just have a problem with me and like to disagree with me on every other post I make no matter if it is in politics, religion, general, etc, they just follow me around bitching. It is hilarious.

Wow, yeah RK, that's a downright infallible argument! Stalking you is stalking - who would have thought it!

Persecution complex much?

I found his comment completely balanced, logical, and easily grasped. The only part I found insulting - childish - confusing - were both posts from lookout123. Why would lookout123 post as he does. Lookout123's intent is obvious and summarized in rkzenrage's reply. His point was to only disparage rkzenrage. Well let’s see. He insults and mocks rkzenrage. Then he uses profanity.

The problem here is Lookout123. He uses profanity for no useful purpose. Lookout123 cannot just post a logical reply. He must include insults and mockery due to no cognizant rebuttal. Then he starts baiting. Tricks used to represent a dishonest conviction.

I'm sorry dearest little muppet, are you prepared to finally answer any of the questions i asked you in the stock market thread months ago? no? then come back when you are prepared to grow some integrity and are worthy of holding a discussion with. mmmmkay? now wipe your tears away and go back to your popular mechanics collection.

Rk, I post in quite a few threads you do, and more often disagree with you than not. Am I obsessed with you? Don't be so subjective, Ibram's got the right of it. And jesus, there are a lot of folks on here that are more interested in name calling than chatting and arguing.

Oh, and why do you keep calling people muppets, lookout? Don't get it.

Also... what's wrong with popular mechanics? Ass.

actually i only call tw a muppet. everything he says is regurgitated from some damn script.

nothing wrong with popular mechanics. i've read some pretty interesting articles there.

Oh, come on then. 99% of things people say are only ideas we got from someone else. There is a finite number of information in the world, and a finite number of ideas that can be formed from them. Chances are if the information you have isn't brand new (i.e. you JUST did the research like 5 minutes ago), nothing you come up with is new. In fact, you probably heard it on the news and are regurgitating it. It's just a fact of life.

Except me. I'm 100% did-it-myself original. ;)

I'm glad einstein and newton didn't think there were no new ideas. :)

If you're about to compare anyone in this forum to Einstein or Newton, my head might pop. Those fellows and their ideas fall into the 1%... which is actually more like .001%. I'm pretty sure the rest of us will just have to be content arguing, drinking, fucking, and watching tv. All of which I enjoy a hell of a lot.

yes, 99% of us are stupid and don't have an original thought in our head. :)

Oh, hay-zeus christo. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say someone is only 'regurgitating things' when that's all most of us do. You might have rearranged your ideas in a slightly different way, but it's just that, rearranging. Who in this or any discussion have you heard spout a 100% original idea?

There's been a few who have influenced a change in my thinking because of ideas they've presented. whether those ideas were original or not I can't say for sure.

While I agree with you for the most part, I think that there is more original thought around than you ascribe. ;)

queequeger's summary of Einstein and Newton are quite accurate. Almost everything they came up with was existing information put together in a different perspective. I believe it was Hilbert who so noted why a weaker student deserves so much praise. "He did the work'. Why are new ideas so hard to come by? So many have this massive collection of information. But it is the true genius who can merge known fact into a new perspective. So many great ideas are really nothing more than "Oh, yeah . . . ."

It is probably the largest jig saw puzzle ever attempted. Everything is there for us all to see. But which pieces can interconnect?

If what Einstein and Newton discovered was so radical, then conventional science would have rejected it completely. Why persecute Galileo? What he concluded - a perspective using existing knowledge just too radical for conventional thought - was too radical for others.

flaps!

Cabin crew prepare for landing.

tw, the point i was making is not that it is wrong to take existing information, analyze it, and make a statement based on your perspective. my point about regurgitation is that you haven't come up with a new post in years. you say the exact same thing the exact same way in every thread whether it is relevent to the topic or not. why do you think people crack jokes about tw's posts being "george jr, mental midget, 7 minutes, directly traceable to the top..." is it necessarily because everyone disagrees with you? no. it is because you might as well just cut and past your canned responses from a word document. they don't change. ever. that is not critical thinking, that is rote memorization.

One of the reasons I can't wait for a new administration is because tw will have to change his puke. It'll be like new wallpaper.

Barely. He's still talking about Nixon, for god's sake.

Radar, do you believe that states have the right to secede?

Where did that come from?

And...

Ok, ok, ok. TW does pretty frequently repeat himself near verbatim (as do a few others). I guess I was being more reactionary because I agree with him about, oh, 85% of the time. Maybe he just hasn't gotten so burned out on the whole ridiculousness of our fearless leaders that he still bothers being outraged by it.

I find that every time the GOP or GW specifically takes another step toward total-fucking-insanity, it just makes me tired more than outraged. For a while there, before taking up my apathetic approach, I wouldn't watch the news because I'd get so damned mad. There's only so much outrage one guy can take.

Reality did not change just because you don't like it. Those jokes cannot be repeated enough. Truth behind each joke IS bad news for every decent person. At least we still have humor due to an American disaster created by our wacko extremists and their supporters.

George Jr is a mental midget just like Monday happens every seven days. We even sing about Monday mornings. Does that mean the song is not original or good? Same thing was said for centuries. And yet we delightfully sign along to the diatribe.

So many disparaging comments earned by George Jr are quite original for tw since tw has never so disparaged any other politician in accuracy, content, ferocity, consistency, or history. Ask UT. UT - when was the last time (in 20 years?) that I so conspicuously identified any other political figure? Never. What is new for me is based on old, well understood facts from history.

Reality does not change only because your political agenda cannot grasp reality. Just because one did not grasp old material used by Einstein, then his work is completely original? And because it has been repeated so often, then we should never again say "E=MC squared"?

We should discuss the mental midget to the point of vomiting. How original is he? He is that dangerous to the world; based on old and well proven prnciples. He even violates principles from Military Science 101. Acknowledging this perspective and the resulting question is enormously original to George Jr supporters even though this reality is old, often repeated, and well understood. "When do we go after bin Laden?"

What makes it original? The question cannot be asked enough. And yet still George Jr supporters still fear to ask it. What is old to some is still too radical and original for George Jr supporters.

For wacko extremists, asking that question would be a major revelation. To those who have grasped this reality, asking that same question is regurgitation. Regurgitation made necessary because we are massacring our most precious treasures for the greater glory of George Jr. Is the question an original perspective - or just obvious from lessons in history? To answer, first ask yourself, "what is my perspective?" Do you yet grasp reality or instead worship a president who talks to god? Lookout123 still has not asked that question. Asking that question would be an original breakthrough for lookout123.

When do we go after bin Laden? Meanwhile, according to news reports, the Marines were asking that same question. Is that original thinking or just regurgitating what any patriotic American would ask weekly? No wonder students walk out during the Pledge. Even they understand what it really means? Does that mean they are original thinkers?

:brikwall: you da man TW.

Sorry - "indivisible". Since Radar was fine tuning the pledge, I thought he might remove "indivisible". It seems to me that it would be a better fit with what I interpret to be his philosophy.

Ok, gotcha.

Of course I believe it. It's a fact. The sovereign states each joined the union voluntarily, and if the federal government is stepping out of bounds, or treating them unfairly, they can choose to leave the union voluntarily too.

That's a good point.

I agree.

didn't they try that once?

Yeah, and I hear they're going to again.

Let 'em.

Xenophobe.

:corn: