Students walk out during Pledge, recite own version
About 100 students at Boulder High School walked out after their first class this morning, to recite an alternative Pledge of Allegiance, in protest.
They object to hearing the phrase "one nation, under God" during the morning Pledge recitation, led over the school's public address system.
The Pledge recited by the student protesters today went as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity in which our nation stands. One nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."
The newspaper articles:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016257
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016263
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7015611
Hope it catches on and it returns to how the man who wrote it intended and not the nut-jobs during the 50's raped it to be.
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
Fascinating. Thanks for that rk. That's one in the eye for the pessimists who think younguns are apathetic.
High school students have never been shy about following causes... or tilting at windmills.
I never recited the pledge while I was in school. I remember wishing someone would call me on it so I could make a stand, but no one seemed to give a rat's ass.
piss off rkzenrage
you don't want to say it? fine. sit down and shut up.
**I** like it.
Are you gonna boycott dollars cause it says Under God on them too?
I think i only said it once the whole time i was in the states.. the day we caught saddam. I got yelled at to say it a few times, so i mouthed the words a couple times. I was usually forced to stand up, but whenever i could i just stayed seated.
piss off rkzenrage
you don't want to say it? fine. sit down and shut up.
**I** like it.
Are you gonna boycott dollars cause it says Under God on them too?
I cross it out.
& I say the pledge, the
real one.
Are you gonna boycott dollars cause it says Under God on them too?
I cross it out.
How about coins? Do you prefer to scratch it off with a nailfile, or daub a little J.B.Weld over it?
I love the idea of making an amendment to any money that crosses my palms. I wonder what the odds are on getting one of them back? Trouble is, it disappears before I'd even have time to check...
Not being a militant atheist, I wouldn't have a real problem with the pledge - heck it's just words (my brother and I spoke all the responses in Mass the other week, just because we knew it would make our parents happy). But it does seem wrong that the mention of God is a recent insertion - shame YouTube wasn't around then for people to complain about Godly values taking over...
How about coins? Do you prefer to scratch it off with a nailfile, or daub a little J.B.Weld over it?
I often mention that little bit of ignorance to my congressmen. Though my Dremel would work just fine on a slow day.
I've heard that replacing "under god" with "underdog" satifies a quiet need for rebelliion while not ruffling too many feathers. Of course, as an alien, I'm not allowed to say it, but I don't half get some dirty looks when we're at swim meets in hicksville and they insist on this pageantry.
I think the whole idea's silly, myself. But I agree with Bruce's summary of this situation.
One nation, under Canada
I larfs:rolleyes:
piss off rkzenrage
you don't want to say it? fine. sit down and shut up.
**I** like it.
Are you gonna boycott dollars cause it says Under God on them too?
For all of those Anti God folks, I'd hate to have you continue to be offended handling money with a reference to God on it...so just withdraw all of your funds, grab your coin jars, piggy banks, etc., and ship them to me. I'll be glad to take them off of your hands. :p
Again, we just mark the god off of it.
[youtube]jtvXxsf3ngk[/youtube]
I wonder if republicans in this country can legally cross out the Queen's face...
Probably not, simply because the Queen is legally the Head of State and after all whether you agree with the monarchy or not, there are no doubts that she exists!
I wonder if republicans in this country can legally cross out the Queen's face...
Well, don't get the wrong idea--defacing currency is most definitely illegal in the US, it's just not really prosecuted very eagerly.
Nope, we have done our homework, defacing has a specific definition and crossing out that lil pathetic sentence does not fit it.
I wonder if republicans in this country can legally cross out the Queen's face...
Oh I don't think so.
[youtube]JZmezGK0hNw[/youtube]
Christians are always saying that the "god" referred to in the "In God We Trust" on the American national currency is a non-denominational deity and can apply to any religion.
Bearing that in mind, I propose a craft project to put pirate hats and eye patches on our past Presidents depicted on American currency.
This is done without an intent to defraud or change the value of the currency or in an attempt to make the currency unfit for reissue.
This is done in an exercise of free speech along with freedom of religion.
Here's what I do to fix just one of the mistakes and violations of the law that Christians have dumped on America. No little piece of paper is going to speak for me by saying such nonsense. Uppity Atheists Unite!
And if you actually believe that this solution is illegal, and the problem of In God We Trust on money is legal...(sheesh!) then check out the information that many Atheists have worked hard to gather from the government on this issue:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm
[youtube]e8yngj4MbIY[/youtube]
[youtube]KPRfBqprLNA[/youtube]
[youtube]V1tjlzjeBDM[/youtube]
[youtube]v5E4W9GvKIw[/youtube]
You guys have Darwin on your money!? *envy*
A small ball file will wipe god off of your coins in a swipe or two, BTW.
Ooh - I might have met my ideal man.
Older, public school, techy, atheist and has tenners to waste :)
When theists bitch about me marking on the money...
The AU, largest separation of church and state org is run by church leaders, the strongest opposition to the motto change and it being put on money both times were church leaders, the only thing Christ says in the Bible three times is:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
The only time he gets angry enough to become violent is when bankers/money is mixed with the church.
The separation of church and state safeguards the church more than the state and having your god on money does not sully it in your opinion? Something used to buy booze, whores, gamble, etc, doesn't your god deserve better?
It's very simple, people. Get a thin marker pen. Squeeze in an L between the O and the D.
What a ridiculous dumptruck load of bollocks sauteed in codswallop. "[U]nder God" in the Pledge is as old or older than I am. Of course, never having become an unbeliever, I don't grow a problem with it.
This seems another fundamental on which BigV and I can be found in agreement.
Lead paint was used in cribs for a long time too.
What a ridiculous dumptruck load of bollocks sauteed in codswallop. "[U]nder God" in the Pledge is as old or older than I am.
I remember when it was added. The teachers stumbled over it for months, while we kids adjusted in a day or so.
Interesting, but yeah -- I've done just that stumbling over variant texts of the Nicene Creed. A good friend of ours from church, who's a gay clergyman's life partner and doesn't mind me mentioning it, has some radical notions about gender-inclusive language in re the Holy Spirit, Who with the Father and the Son... it could be a real nuisance reciting the Creed along with him. It's less trouble keeping the ancient and modern versions of the Lord's Prayer in order. But only less, not none.
"[u]nder God" in the Pledge is as old or older than I am.
How is that relevant?
Lead paint was used in cribs for a long time too.
Just out of curiosity, are you using this as a rebuttal to his argument by saying that just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't make it right?
Or are you attempting to explain a possible cause for his line of reasoning by implying that UG at some point in his life used a lead painted crib as a chew toy.:D It would explain so much.
Nah, just that being rather right of center, I'm more enlightened than the pigheaded, echidna-hearted Left. Admittedly, I'm rather setting the effect before the cause.
They hate that, and they hate having it shown them. Generally, too, the dumber they are the harder Left they hew. But the stupid really don't have an opinion that counts with the enlightened, now do they? Yet they insist they should, and get patronized for their regrettable presumptions. It's never good; it's always somewhere in the gamut running from dumb to contemptible.
Monkey, in that it's quite old enough to have its tradition -- it is not merely the speech of the arriviste.
Monkey, in that it's quite old enough to have its tradition -- it is not merely the speech of the arriviste.
So? The version without it is older.
So? The version without it is older.
And not recited in schools alongside the newer, for the newer superseded it. All in all, I just can't get bothered about including "under God." If anything, it adds a little something.
And I'm not going to go there to any stuff about "but, prayer in schools" -- I'm keeping in mind that as long as there are pop quizzes and tough tests... you know the rest.:cool:
Just out of curiosity, are you using this as a rebuttal to his argument by saying that just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't make it right?
Or are you attempting to explain a possible cause for his line of reasoning by implying that UG at some point in his life used a lead painted crib as a chew toy.:D It would explain so much.
I am saying "it has been this way for a long time" is
always an inane/faulty/red herring argument with absolutely
no substance.
Almost as much as "millions of people believe/feel it" is... not quite, that one is just stupid, but close.
"tradition" yeah, we sure loved McCarthy and all want to be just like him and his Knights of Columbus sycophants, LOL!
That is the
only tradition it shows.
It is unfortunate that Senator McCarthy was not only a flawed man, but was suffering from a brain tumor. Unfortunate because he damaged the beautiful cause of anticommunism for so long after his death.
And whattaya know: Ann Coulter undertook to rehabilitate McCarthy to history -- and there are no adequate rebuttals made, either. Some hemipygian tries, but nothing adequate to rebut. Whether you're going to agree with her thesis or not, it's still worth reading. Was this devil to those inadequately equipped to defeat international Communism so very black as they painted him? This is a question open minds will look into, and closed minds will immediately try to shout down, thus demonstrating the inferiority of their thinking and the grotesque immaturity required to remain leftist.
Go ahead, leftist asswipes! Show your inferiority to the enlightened! Remind us why we aren't you!
The inane hysteria of the ebil of the pinkos in the US and what was done to American freedoms and their wiping their ass with the Constitution was wrong on all fronts.
Of course we are living in those times again with a president and cabinet that has no respect for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the beliefs of the Republican Party.
Placing religion wherever they could fit it in, in complete ignorance of the wisdom of separation of church and state was, and is still wrong and ignorant. Both for the state and for the church.
Anyone who wishes to bring attention to that fact is doing a good thing.
I have read a great deal, from both sides, yes Communism was a threat and I have concluded the US did more harm than good when it comes to the spread of it.
McCarthy was nothing more than a propagandist possibly almost as good as Goebels. They both used lies and manipulations of the truth to promote their own adgenda. I can't believe you'd be silly enough to fall for it UG.
Thing is, I used to believe the more leftward accounts of what he was doing. Now I'm not quite so sure of their veracity, precisely because somebody's been raising fresh questions. Seems it's about time, too.
And Jews are just Christians that need "perfecting".
Well, a Jew wouldn't believe that. A Christian might believe that.
For me, monotheism of whatever brandname is really enough.
A Zen Atheist's opinion of this would seem a touch remote, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose there's something in Zen that's important to you.
She is out of touch with social reality and probably does not understand the way others react to her just like McCarthy, of course she would relate to him.
Zenrage is a pun. But, yes I have studied it for a long time.
Theists have always been the strongest champions of the separation of church and state... the sane ones. McCarthy and the leadership of the Knights do not fall into that catagory... perhaps sane but not intelligent, same outcome.
I dunno; you can't be both a polarizing figure and way out of touch. She can, however, disagree with your entire circle of friends. This is not the same as out of touch with anything.
I've never accepted "In God We Trust" as a federal endorsement of anything. If it says anything of governmental significance at all -- and I doubt it -- it is that the government is not chiefly staffed by doctrinaire, devout atheists. People, in short, who aren't unwilling to pray now and again. The conscience clauses of the First Amendment apply just as strongly to government staffers and officialdom as they do to the private citizen -- and they flatly do not enjoin an official to say or believe anything one way or another of the supernal. Who needs to cultivate good ethics more than an official? And what are the mechanisms for doing so? You can use religion, or a sense of fair dealing, or minute regulation -- probably some other things that don't come to mind just now.
I don't despise you for your little quirk -- I just don't share it at all.
I feel the same way about any theist... I becomes more, much more when they use it to replace the motto to a religious statement from the one this nation was built upon out of fanaticism, changing the pledge so one must pledge to a deity as well as the nation (the pastor writer of the pledge was against it as well), and placing it upon our money and national seal.
All of this goes well beyond a difference of opinion.
The complete separation of church and state in all things is a founding belief of this nation and it was thrown out the window by fear mongers in the fifties lead by McCarthy and the nuts of the Knights of Columbus.
We, all of us, theists included, need to repair that damage.
The sentence speaks of to the nation for which it stands, not to God. Can't stretch "under" into "to." Nor does officialdom at any level start the day on a recitation of the Pledge. Neither they nor the military, who are if anything more strongly committed to their nation.
The sentence speaks of to the nation for which it stands, not to God. Can't stretch "under" into "to."
That's true. We are pledging allegiance to the flag, and to the republic, while recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life.
"Under god" specifically states that the US is beneath a god that is being validated by the pledge.
A state you are pledging to that is under something indicates fidelity to that "superior" imaginary being.
There is no point in it being there, it was not in the pledge as written, is against the wishes of the fonding fathers ideal for the formation of this nation and is a reminder of a shameful time in our nation's history.
It has been past time to return to the true national motto and remove these vestiges of paranoia from money, the pledge and all aspects of the state.
The newspaper articles:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016257
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016263
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7015611
Hope it catches on and it returns to how the man who wrote it intended and not the nut-jobs during the 50's raped it to be.
While I disagree with their childish version of the pledge, I respect their protest.
We don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to put a leash on government in protection of those rights.
While I agree that diversity is one of our greatest strengths, I don't pledge allegiance to diversity. All nations are part of this planet so that part is irrelevant. I wouldn't mind using the phrase "one SOVEREIGN nation..." and lastly adding the word "choice" is also wrong because freedom already includes the freedom of choice so it's repetitive at best.
If it were up to me, I'd return the pledge to the way it was before the McCarthy witch hunts...
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
If I altered it at all, I'd change the word "flag" to "people" and add the word "sovereign" before the word "nation". For grammatical reasons, I'd also change the word "it" to "they" and the word "stands" to "stand".
The completed product would be...
I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic for which they stand; one sovereign nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Now that's a much better pledge imo.
"Under god" specifically states that the US is beneath a god that is being validated by the pledge.
A state you are pledging to that is under something indicates fidelity to that "superior" imaginary being.
Not even close.
Let the record show that Dana and Radar have actually agreed on something.
Savor this moment.
I think it is a good pledge too. I always think it's silly to pledge allegiance to a flag. Australia has an occasional fit of debating whether to remove the Union Jack from our flag. How could we do this if we had pledged allegiance to the flag?
Furthermore, I agree with RK about the Under God clause. Bruce's claim that about it "recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life." doesn't cut it with me.
"One nation under God..." explicitly entails that there is a God who is "above" the nation. There's no "not necessarily" about it.
(WTF? Who am I agreeing with all of a sudden? : Checks for alien brain control device : )
Let the record show that Dana and Radar have actually agreed on something.
Savor this moment.
*chuckles* oh now....Radar and I have agreed on many things....just rather less vehemently than we disagree :P
Furthermore, I agree with RK about the Under God clause. Bruce's claim that about it "recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life." doesn't cut it with me.
"One nation under God..." explicitly entails that there is a God who is "above" the nation. There's no "not necessarily" about it.
That argument makes sense to me. I cannot see how the phrase "one nation under God" can mean anything other than that the nation exists under God. I understand that the emphasis of it is on the "one nation" part of that, but it is integral to that statement that God is above and over the nation.
No, it's not... one nation under God. It's... one nation, under God. See that comma? That's a separation of Church and State.
Are you serious Bruce? :eek:
Would I lie to you.... my oldest and dearest friend... [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"]if it didn't involve money or sex.[/SIZE][/COLOR]
I have to say that I wouldn't pledge allegience to a country/place/anything if the phrase 'under god' were included, regardless of commas.
Why mention god if there's no significance?
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.
I would feel the same way regardless of who made such a claim Bruce. It's not personal.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
are you so fucking dense that you really don't get it?
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. ;)
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.
...
I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic for which they stand; one sovereign nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Radar, do you believe that states have the right to secede?
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.
why do you think people crack jokes about tw's posts being "george jr, mental midget, 7 minutes, directly traceable to the top..."
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.
Every other day, every other day,
Every other day of the week is fine, yeah
But whenever Monday comes, but whenever Monday comes
You can find me cryin' all of the time
Monday Monday, so good to me,
Monday Monday, it was all I hoped it would be
Oh Monday morning, Monday morning couldn't guarantee
That Monday evening you would still be here with me.
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?
I pledge alliance to the dictator,
who is the Vice President of America.
And to the republic for which is owns,
One nation, under his god, wiretapped,
with liberty and justice defined by the executive branch.
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.
Where did that come from?
...
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.
Radar, do you believe that states have the right to secede?
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.
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.
That's a good point.
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.
I agree.
didn't they try that once?
Yeah, and I hear they're going to
again.
