Re: $$$$ for Bu$h

Quoted message said:

I hereby pledge $20 to the "Osama Bin Laden for president in 2008"
fund, for every pro-Bush post made here.

I don't think that's a good idea. Your disability check will disappear
pretty fast.

The Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department
of Revenue probably won't like that idea, either. Better pay them
first.

"Tim Morrow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hereby pledge $20 to the "Osama Bin Laden for president in 2008"
fund, for every pro-Bush post made here.

Just make sure that you register the fund in your REAL name.

I'm just pleased to see that people who hate the current president - who is
the majority's choice in a free election, are also big fans and supporters
of terrorists and those who seek to destroy Western civilization.

At least they are showing their suicidal/genocidal preferences. My
question is why those who would promote people like Bin Laden are still here
in the country that they clearly hate. It's like an atheist in church or
an abortionist at a Pro Life rally. What is wrong with Indonesia, Saudi
Arabia and Yemen? Answer: Debilitating viruses work better when they are in
the victim's body.

durkster said:

Reuben Hick said:

"Tim Morrow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>
> I hereby pledge $20 to the "Osama Bin Laden for president in 2008"
> fund, for every pro-Bush post made here.

Just make sure that you register the fund in your REAL name.

I'm just pleased to see that people who hate the current president - who is
the majority's choice in a free election, are also big fans and supporters
of terrorists and those who seek to destroy Western civilization.

What a concept !

So that means we can only support the president or the terrorists ?

You are either for us or against us, blah blah.

Nah, Martin. There is a rather large gulf between opposing the current
administration's policies and even joking about running bin laden for
president. Plenty of room for open bebate, and the fact is that idiotic
kooktalk like that promoted by Hank has a far more chilling effect on that
debate.

--
Tim Morrow, Herndon, Virginia
'04 FLTRI Road Glide
'99 Speed Triple
'72 TR6RV Tiger
DoD#2244 RCOS#7
http://users.erols.com/tomorrow
http://www.reeky.org/gallery/Tim

"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm just pleased to see that people who hate the current president - who
is the majority's choice in a free election, are also big fans and
supporters of terrorists and those who seek to destroy Western
civilization.

At least they are showing their suicidal/genocidal preferences. My
question is why those who would promote people like Bin Laden are still
here in the country that they clearly hate. It's like an atheist in
church or an abortionist at a Pro Life rally.

Dear Hick,

If you really think that the post you refer to was serious, you need to buy
a "dictionary" (that's a big thick book with *lots* of words in it), and
look up the words "satire" and "irony".

You'll feel much better afterwards.

Pete

P.Roehling said:

If you really think that the post you refer to was serious, you need to buy
a "dictionary" (that's a big thick book with *lots* of words in it), and
look up the words "satire" and "irony".

I looked up "satirony" and couldn't find it. Then I looked up "satisfaction"
and couldn't get none....

--
Tim Morrow, Herndon, Virginia
'04 FLTRI Road Glide
'99 Speed Triple
'72 TR6RV Tiger
DoD#2244 RCOS#7
http://users.erols.com/tomorrow
http://www.reeky.org/gallery/Tim

Bill Walker said:

The supporters of George Bush share that responsibility for the destruction
of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.. Many Americans who oppose George
Bush and detest him, have earned .. repeat... EARNED the rights for their
elected president to meet the highest expectations ..Any suggestions from
Bush supporters for those Americans to leave the country are prime examples
of the extent of the "unity" that this president is capable of.. NONE.. My
response to any suggestion that I leave MY United States of America... bring
your sorry ass to Irving, Tx. and EVICT me.. personally...

Another disgruntled Texas Democrat. Yer breakin' my heart, Bill.
Take a pill.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Reuben Hick said:

BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it on
real
Constitutional grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some could
easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.

He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?

<grumble, mumble, google, google, freakin' misc. [censored], damn, google's
smart...>

"The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 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., should be
rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over
the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
military salute."

OH MY GOD! George Bush used his left hand, or something? The [censored]!!

David

on 6/5/2005 10:23 PM Lester Long mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

on 6/5/2005 9:28 PM David Cohen mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

>"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it on
>>real
>>Constitutional grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.
>
>He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?

<grumble, mumble, google, google, freakin' misc. [censored], damn, google's
smart...>

"The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, I pledge allegiance to the Flag

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all., should

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand

over

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the

heart.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
military salute."

OH MY GOD! George Bush used his left hand, or something? The [censored]!!

Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.

That is false, even in Than Franthithco.

You should learn your history, "under God" was added in 1956 and wasn't
part of the original Pledge.

You should read this to see how wrong you are.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email hidden] to reply

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Reuben Hick said:

BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it on
real
Constitutional grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some could
easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.

He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?

Probably did, but I was thinking more in terms of: "The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and
shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic violence."

The millions of illegals from around the globe pouring into our country
sounds pretty much like an invasion.

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

on 6/5/2005 9:28 PM David Cohen mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thanks to McCarthy, we had that added, as well as "In God We Trust" added
to our money. E Pluribus Unum.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption
of the harmony existing between the two countries." --
Treaty of Tripoli, Artile 11

LOL! Here you take a personal letter as Holy Writ that transcends the
volumes of public documents, speeches and legislation which confirms the
Christian origins while you deliberately ignore the Declaration of
Independance which points to Providence, a document signed by the vast
majority as firm believers.

Reuben Hick said:

News Flash. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was "destroyed" back
around 1803 by Marbury v Madison.
Unless you can explain to me how federal tattoo removal programs and federal
seat-belt enforcement somehow have a constitutional basis.

Furthermore, your ilk are socialists at worst democrats (little 'd'😉 at
best, not to be confused with those who support and believe in a republican
(little 'r'😉 form of government. So you [censored] about some alleged
"destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights" is a complete
hypocritcal joke.

I will throw you a bone: I concur that 'W' signing of the 1st Amendment
violating McCain/Fiengold free speech criminalization bill would be
considered a valid attack against the USC. The "No Child Left Behind" (not
to be confused with Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series) seems to violate the
spirit of the 9th and 10th amendments. And with this idiocy of open borders
you have a genuine abandonment of the valueof the 14th Amendment, and
arguably outright sedition in terms of Article 4 Section 4.

But 'W' is a mere amateur when it comes to good old fashioned ripping and
shredding of the USC. For it is a time honored tradition of all
politicians.

'Scuse me, Skippy, but when you're referring to the law, "USC" means
United States Code. If you're talking about the Constitution of the
United States of America, you can call it "the Constitution." If you
really feel compelled to abbreviate, try the Harvard Bluebook[1]
abbreviation "US Const." But if you're going to play lawyer, try to
use the right abbreviations, mmmkay?

Unless, of course, you're one of those militia nutjobs who think that
the only valid law is that based on the UCC. In that case, carry on.

[1] More accurately called "A Uniform System of Citation."
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:chmoe.490$xI2.376@trnddc09...

Quoted message said:

Might be understandable enough when you've considered that George Bush is
considered, by many Americans.. to be as ruthless, brutal and corrupt as
any of the dictators in the history of the world.

So liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq is
"ruthless, brutal and corrupt as ":

Adolf [censored]?
Josef Stalin?
Saddam Hussein?
Mao Tse-tung?

Of these four alone in the last century, the body count was in the
hundreds of millions - and that is of their own countrymen. What is the
worst atrocity that has been dropped in GWB's lap? Abu Ghrab? So
panties on the head by some [censored] reservist makes 'W' more "ruthless,
brutal and corrupt" than [censored]'s Ravenbrück?

Are you on crack? Or are you hiding behind the weasel words "many
Americans" (such where you aren't one of these "many Americans" but are
just impassionately reporting something)

Quoted message said:

George Bush managed to prevail in two elections in this country..

Yes, by numbers never acheived before by any other President - far more
than the previous guy who never managed to get even 40% of the popular
vote. So what is the point - that the voters are idiots and that
well-meaning liberals should appoint their political leaders for them?

Quoted message said:

he did not become the proprietor of America ..

And he wasn't made spokesman for Gillette razor products either. What is
the point in throwing in an irrelevant observation?

Quoted message said:

Prevailing in those elections also did not change the fact that he has
always been morally bankrupt and corrupt..

I find it interesting that deconstructionalists who categorically reject
absolutes and objective moral standards somehow find within themselves the
audacity to accuse any person of being "morally bankrupt". It's not much
different than hearing Michael Jackson define what a "pervert" is.

Quoted message said:

As a liar .. America has never seen his equal..

OK, this will be fun. You draw up a list of all of 'W's lies, and I go
draw a list of Clinton's, or Nixon's or Carter's, heck even Reagan, and
then we can compare. I'll start the list with "I never had sex with than
woman, Monica Lewinsky". Then amble on over to the public records
regarding Clinton's perjury (aka "lying under oath"😉 which got him
impeached, then we can progress on to those memorable words regarding
Whitewater, illegal campaign contributions from Indonesia and China, about
his various promises to lower our taxes only to raise them higher than any
other president....

Quoted message said:

As an incompetent leader,

How does one identify an "incompetent leader"? By the inability to lead?
It seems to me that Bush managed to push through much of his agenda
including socialist [censored] that would never have seen the light of day under
any other president such as the wealth transfer system where young people
supply free or heavily discounted Viagra to wealthy seniors. Heck, if he
is such a lousy leader, how did he manage to stump the omniscient and all
mighty John F'ing Kerry into voting for war against Iraq? How did he
managed to slip in gobs of old fashioned FDR socialism past the "vast
right wing conspiracy"? By being an incompetent leader? LOL!

Quoted message said:

there has never been an American president so widely despised..

Oh really? Even Abraham Lincoln? He was a hit in the south and by all of
those men he ordered gunned down in the streets for not wanting to be
drafted into his war. How about Richard Nixon? Exactly how many
people would attend that fan club? Heck, some ninety-year-old fart comes
out of hiding and the left is reliving orgasms from their halcyon days of
yore when they claimed that everyone hated Nixon. And weren't you folks
whining about this "vast right wing conspiracy" (you do know what the
meaning of "vast" is, don't you)

How short and corrupted is your memory of recent domestic history?

Quoted message said:

The supporters of George Bush share that responsibility for the
destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights..

News Flash. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was "destroyed" back
around 1803 by Marbury v Madison.
Unless you can explain to me how federal tattoo removal programs and
federal seat-belt enforcement somehow have a constitutional basis.

Furthermore, your ilk are socialists at worst democrats (little 'd'😉 at
best, not to be confused with those who support and believe in a
republican (little 'r'😉 form of government. So you [censored] about some
alleged "destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights" is a complete
hypocritcal joke.

I will throw you a bone: I concur that 'W' signing of the 1st Amendment
violating McCain/Fiengold free speech criminalization bill would be
considered a valid attack against the USC. The "No Child Left Behind"
(not to be confused with Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series) seems to
violate the spirit of the 9th and 10th amendments. And with this idiocy
of open borders you have a genuine abandonment of the valueof the 14th
Amendment, and arguably outright sedition in terms of Article 4 Section 4.

But 'W' is a mere amateur when it comes to good old fashioned ripping and
shredding of the USC. For it is a time honored tradition of all
politicians.

Quoted message said:

Many Americans who oppose George Bush and detest him, have earned ..
repeat... EARNED the rights

How does one EARN a right? I can understand earning a privledge, earning
an exception, perhaps earning a perq, but how does one EARN a right and a
right not lose its meaning? And I am not sure what exactly you and
these who "oppose George Bush" have done of value to earn anything? I
mean, is sedition, slander and lies now considered noble? If I falsly
accuse you of horrible things (since you have already accused the
president as being the worst person who has ever lived) does that mean I
EARN a new right? And since we are making up rights here, do I get to
pick and choose what new right I can exploit to lord over you?

Quoted message said:

for their elected president to meet the highest expectations ..

Quite frankly, in the most raw political terms, if you didn't vote for him
or help him to get elected he and any other politician you didn't support
doesn't owe you squat no matter what right you claim to have earned. If
I had a Demoncat act as my representative, and I didn't vote for him, and
wouldn't vote for him in any subsequent elections, he doesn't have to
listen to a single word I say - and he would be right.

I think that it is brazen arrogance on your part to fight this man at
every single turn and then demand that through this hostile and violent
opposition that you have somehow EARNED the right to have him do whatever
your petty demands dictate. Reason would seem to prevail here and say
that 'W', like any other politician, has a duty to the USC and the law
first, then to his supporters 2nd. I don't think that you would even
show up on the radar. Anything thrown in your direction should be
considered mercy and grace for all of the [censored] that you have slung towards
him. And yes, you can replace "you" with "me" and replace "W" with any
other politician and it is still true.

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions from Bush supporters for those Americans to leave the
country are prime examples of the extent of the "unity" that this
president is capable of..

So the agitators who are deliberately dividing up the people and causing
strife are now accusing the targets of their actions of dividing the
country. Hypocrite. Excuse me, but there have been a number of
Hollywierd illuminaries and other assorted nutcases who have VOLUNTEERED
to leave this country (as if it was some sort of threat) if John F'ing
Kerry wasn't to be elected.

Quoted message said:

response to any suggestion that I leave MY United States of America...
bring your sorry ass to Irving, Tx. and EVICT me.. personally...

It isn't your United States of America - we all are borrowing it from our
ancestors and are passing what we don't destroy to our children.

From your posts, it is clear that you reject the USC and the republican
form of government that it guarantees. From a practical standpoint,
there is really only one constitutional republic on the face of this
earth, and for the millions of us on this planet who have been graced by
God to live in this country, we have no other place to go to escape
totalitarian apologists like you. So since you hate a constitutional
republic, and since the world already has plenty of places where it is
likely that you will find a government more to your liking, instead of
trying to destroy this country and its culture, perhaps you would be
happier in a socialist nation that already holds and cherishes your
values, rather you staying here an pissing in the soup for those of us
troglodytes that still prefer to be a nation of Laws under God.

Think of it as simply honoring our differences of opinion. To borrow
from folks like you, consider leaving the US as a Constitutional Republic
in the name of "Diversity" as in a Diversity of Governments on this Earth.
(Whether that requires actually leaving or just enjoying the glory of the
world's only superpower is up to you)

But I know it isn't about respecting others - you want to see our
predominately Christian culture destroyed and replaced by decadent
secularism. That's what makes your post so comical and so richly
deserving comment for its over-the-top hypocrisy.

<left all of it in place for demonstration>

Whew.. now that's impressive.. Piece by piece.. this entire rant is so full
of holes, anyone could drive a truck through them.. No need to bother..
What's really jumping out is that you believe George Bush is serving as
president to represent ONLY the ones who voted for and supported him..

WRONG.. George Bush represents ALL Americans, even the ones who disagree
with him and voted for someone else.. And yes.. that is an obligation that
should be assumed when he takes office.. The margins of victory that Bush
claimed when he assumed that office is marginal and only reflect the closely
divided voters of the U.S. that Karl Rove created..

I have no intention of debating with any intention of changing your mind
about anything.. Bush supporters don't do that until their own ox is being
gored.. Then .. they come a'crying..

To address the issue of what many Americans have done to "earn the right" to
be Americans.. They've SERVED when needed.. They've lived up to their
responsibilities to defend and honor their obligations as citizens, which is
more than George Bush and most of his administration have done.. Nowhere in
the oath of office of the president is there a mention of serving for the
benefit of party or corporation.. The agendas of Karl Rove and George Bush
are clear.. Corporate and party influence is their primary objectives..
Corruption, deception and destruction of democracy as we know it, are the
means which they have employed to achieve the power of control..

Half of Americans opposed George Bush at the polls .. There is more than
that, now.. Americans have, at last.. begun to realize what this man is all
about.. They don't approve.. History will record that George Bush is the
most corrupt and dishonest president to ever hold that office in this
country..

Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.

Quoted message said:

on 6/5/2005 10:48 PM Lester Long mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

on 6/5/2005 10:23 PM Lester Long mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>on 6/5/2005 9:28 PM David Cohen mumbled something about the following:
>
>
>>"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>real
>>>>Constitutional grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some

could

>>>>easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.
>>>
>>>He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?
>>
>>
>><grumble, mumble, google, google, freakin' misc. [censored], damn, google's
>>smart...>
>>
>>"The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 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.,

should

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be

>>rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand

over

>>the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with

their

>>right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the

heart.

>>Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
>>military salute."
>>
>>OH MY GOD! George Bush used his left hand, or something? The [censored]!!
>
>Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.

That is false, even in Than Franthithco.

You should learn your history, "under God" was added in 1956 and wasn't
part of the original Pledge.

You should read this to see how wrong you are.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Are we discussing what the Pledge IS, or what it WAS?

The pledge was changed for political reasons, the pledge, as ORIGINALLY
written, and as was meant by the author, does NOT contain "under God"
nor does it contain "of the United States of America". That is the
Pledge. What is currently recited, is not the Pledge, but a
bastardization of it.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email hidden] to reply

on 6/5/2005 11:11 PM Reuben Hick mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

on 6/5/2005 9:28 PM David Cohen mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thanks to McCarthy, we had that added, as well as "In God We Trust" added
to our money. E Pluribus Unum.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption
of the harmony existing between the two countries." --
Treaty of Tripoli, Artile 11

LOL! Here you take a personal letter as Holy Writ that transcends the
volumes of public documents, speeches and legislation which confirms the
Christian origins while you deliberately ignore the Declaration of
Independance which points to Providence, a document signed by the vast
majority as firm believers.

The Treaty of Tripoli is NOT a personal letter. You need to learn your
history. The Declaration of Independance is not the laws that the
United States is based on, it is nothing more than a letter to Britain,
and it's state forced church, that we wanted nothing more to do with
them. Not once is God mentioned in the Constitution. You people REALLY
need to learn your history.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email hidden] to reply

Odinn said:

Lester Long mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

Odinn said:

Lester Long mumbled something about the following:
>"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> David Cohen mumbled something about the following:
>>>"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>>>"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it
>>>>>on real Constitutional
>>>>>grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some could
>>>>>easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.
>>>>
>>>>He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?
>>>
>>><grumble, mumble, google, google, freakin' misc. [censored], damn, google's
>>>smart...>
>>>
>>>"The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, I pledge allegiance to the Flag
>>>of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
>>>stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
>>>all., should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
>>>the right hand over the heart.
>>>When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their
>>>right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
>>>heart.
>>>Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
>>>military salute."
>>>
>>>OH MY GOD! George Bush used his left hand, or something? The [censored]!!
>>
>>Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.
>
>That is false, even in Than Franthithco.

You should learn your history, "under God" was added in 1956 and wasn't
part of the original Pledge.

You should read this to see how wrong you are.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Are we discussing what the Pledge IS, or what it WAS?

The pledge was changed for political reasons, the pledge, as ORIGINALLY
written, and as was meant by the author, does NOT contain "under God"
nor does it contain "of the United States of America". That is the
Pledge. What is currently recited, is not the Pledge, but a
bastardization of it.

What is currently recited is the Pledge of Allegiance pursuant to
statute, 4 USC 4, reaffirmed by Congress in 2002. The fact that you
may find some words offensive does not change that, nor does it change
the nature of our representative democracy pursuant to which such
legislation is enacted.

You are free to object to the wording; that is your right and
privilege under the First Amendment of United States Constitution.
However, that does not change what is, and what is not, the Pledge of
Allegiance.

HTH
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Reuben Hick said:

Quoted message said:

'Scuse me, Skippy, but when you're referring to the law, "USC" means
United States Code. If you're talking about the Constitution of the
United States of America, you can call it "the Constitution." If you
really feel compelled to abbreviate, try the Harvard Bluebook[1]
abbreviation "US Const." But if you're going to play lawyer, try to
use the right abbreviations, mmmkay?

I apologize for violating the double standard provisions of reeky.

It was my mistake to assume that Libs had the attention span sufficient
enough to see USC in context of "United States Constitution" (where "United
States Code", or for that matter "Unitarian Service Commitee" or
"University of South Carolina" never was in anyone's posts until now) and
think United States Constitution. Perhaps because the United States
Constitution is to Libs what crosses and silver spikes are to vampires. Who
knows?

Since YOU are now establishing the publishing standards, it would seem that
from now on you will lead by example and always post according to the
Harvard Bluebook, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Amy Vanderbilt's Complete
Book of Etiquette.

"Hank" <"stopbu$h"@warcrimes.gov> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yeah, no soldiers of civilains have died or been crippled
in Iraq...

I guess that makes any police action of any sort instigated by a government
where an agent gets killed as "corrupt and immoral".
Police shouldn't go afer criminals either since if a cop dies in trying to
apprehend a perp, then the mayor, governor and city managers are certainly
guilty of "war crimes".

I guess that FDR was a mass murderer for sending "soldiers" to die or become
crippled in Europe and the Pacific.

Just for grins, I would love to see some of this hate speech of yours
against Clinton during the Waco siege, or the military action in Kosova
(where we STILL have troops today since Clinton never came up with
the -all-so-important- "exit strategy"😉 Didn't Clinton order the high
altitude bombing of television stations and newspapers? I know that he
nailed the Chinese embassy with one of those high-tech missles.

I forget, exactly what harm was the people/government of Kosova promising
against the US - or for that matter any of our NATO friends? Using the
20/20 hindsight machine, it appears that the winners in that deal was Muslim
drug lords, the loser was the environment (The Danube river makes a
SuperFund sight look pristine), and the several million refugees that
crowded into camps on the perimeter of Macedonia because we blew up their
homes and villages.

Quoted message said:

there is no war profiteering or taxpayer theft
taking place by Cheney's Haliburton and other fraudulent,
parasitic, anti-American corporations,...

Haliburton is an "anti-American" corporation? By what properties or
attributes does one identify an "anti-American" corporation? Is Newsweek,
a division of the Washington Post anti-American when they publish sedition
riddled "The Day America Died" articles around the world? Or is hating
America and everything the country stands for now considered "patriotic"
whereas operating within the laws and regulations of the US, paying taxes
and actively engaging in the spread of the US government's interests home
and abroad "anti-American"?

Up is Down, White is Black and Good is Evil to you, isn't it?

and bu$h never spent

Quoted message said:

200 billion taxpayer dollars on an illegal, immoral, globally
condemned, and tragically failed invasion...

I thought we already concluded that you have no basis for calling anyone
"immoral".

Futhermore, I know that you are a hard-core marxist and don't understand nor
appreciate the concept of "representational government" but the President is
not a dictator. He simply is the head of the Executive Branch and therefore
must rely on the Legislative Branch to authorize that alleged $200 billion
taxpayer dollars to be spent in Iraq. Last time I checked, it requires a
majority of Representatives and a majority of Senators to approve of any
money sent to Iraq. Happy Day for You! It appears that you have a
plethora of targets for you to aim your hate and contempt.

And what do you mean by "globally condemned"? That "Malcontents and
Marxists around the Globe who reflexivly [censored] about the US" is supposed to
be some sort of condemnation I or anyone should care about? Or does
"globally condemned" mean the various United Nations resolutions against
Saddam Hussein, and the Security Counsel's green light on the US led
coalition's enforcement of their edicts? Are you also condemning UK,
Australia, Spain, Poland and the other countries who went into Iraq? Or
do you just focus your insane hate at the US?

Quoted message said:

Wow, where do
all these' net kooks come from?!

Projecting again?

on 6/6/2005 1:29 PM JMW mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

Odinn said:

Lester Long mumbled something about the following:

Quoted message said:

"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Lester Long mumbled something about the following:
>
>>"Odinn" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>David Cohen mumbled something about the following:
>>>
>>>>"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>"Reuben Hick" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, If anyone wants to impeach the current president, why not do it
>>>>>>on real Constitutional
>>>>>>grounds such as his gross dereliction of duty - some could
>>>>>>easily argue "sedition" in terms of Article 4 Section 4 of the USC.
>>>>>
>>>>>He said the pledge of allegiance wrong?
>>>>
>>>><grumble, mumble, google, google, freakin' misc. [censored], damn, google's
>>>>smart...>
>>>>
>>>>"The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, I pledge allegiance to the Flag
>>>>of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
>>>>stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
>>>>all., should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
>>>>the right hand over the heart.
>>>>When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their
>>>>right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
>>>>heart.
>>>>Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
>>>>military salute."
>>>>
>>>>OH MY GOD! George Bush used his left hand, or something? The [censored]!!
>>>
>>>Remove the "under God" portion, and you have the Pledge of Allegiance.
>>
>>That is false, even in Than Franthithco.
>
>You should learn your history, "under God" was added in 1956 and wasn't
>part of the original Pledge.
>
>You should read this to see how wrong you are.
>http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Are we discussing what the Pledge IS, or what it WAS?

The pledge was changed for political reasons, the pledge, as ORIGINALLY
written, and as was meant by the author, does NOT contain "under God"
nor does it contain "of the United States of America". That is the
Pledge. What is currently recited, is not the Pledge, but a
bastardization of it.

What is currently recited is the Pledge of Allegiance pursuant to
statute, 4 USC 4, reaffirmed by Congress in 2002. The fact that you
may find some words offensive does not change that, nor does it change
the nature of our representative democracy pursuant to which such
legislation is enacted.

You are free to object to the wording; that is your right and
privilege under the First Amendment of United States Constitution.
However, that does not change what is, and what is not, the Pledge of
Allegiance.

If you take a book, change the words to mean something else, it is no
longer the same book. If you take a song, change the words, it is no
longer the same song. What you call the "Pledge of Allegiance" is NOT
the Pledge of Allegiance that was authored. You may dislike it all you
want, but it won't change facts.

HTH

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email hidden] to reply

"Bill Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pfWoe.11013$U_2.5737@trnddc06...

Quoted message said:

What's really jumping out is that you believe George Bush is serving as
president to represent ONLY the ones who voted for and supported him..

Actually I would be rejoicing if that were the case. Unfortunately, George
Bush appears to not think of himself as President of the United States as
much as he considers himself to be Leader Of The Free World.

Once one applies that template to his actions since his inauguration,
everything makes sense.

Immigration? Why is it that 'W' will do anything for foreigners at the
expense of US citizens?
Why will 'W' literally spend billions of US tax dollars to cure AIDS in
Cambodian prostitutes?
Why does 'W' keep pouring billions of US tax dollars into UN relief and IMF?
Why does 'W' enact socialist legislation and programs then turn around and
call himself "conservative"?
Why does 'W' surround himself with globalists and neo-cons who feel that the
definition of "super-power" includes converting the planet into democracies
by any means necessary - up to and including bankrupting the US treasury and
depleting our military?
Why does 'W' try to convince everybody that he is a devout Christian only to
turn around and show much greater reverence to the Q'ran and Islam?

Apply the template - it all makes sense.

Quoted message said:

WRONG.. George Bush represents ALL Americans.

Actually the president doesn't "represent" anyone except the Party's
platform and agenda. If you want representation, you have your Congress
critters to accomplish that mission. That is why you have direct
elections of representatives and have pledged delegates elect your
president. There is a reason why the Electoral College exists, and not
just yet another vehicle of [censored] and moaning for those who eschew
constitutional republics.

Quoted message said:

with him and voted for someone else.. And yes.. that is an obligation that
should be assumed when he takes office.

Well that should be easy to dismiss right now. Slightly more than half of
the voting republic are opposed to abortion on demand. This statistic was
also true during Clinton's regime. So Clinton should have advocated the
Pro-Life way of things, right? Of course not. Clinton catered to the
people who put him in office. According to you, Bush is supposed to be
eternally conflicted between honoring abortionists and honoring pro-lifers.
Dittos for the immigration issue. two-thirds of the voting republic want
immigration put under control. Yet the president seems to have a deaf ear
towards the shouts of his constituents. That is why I call my
representative in Congress rather than waste time dialing the White House
Opinion Line.

Quoted message said:

. The margins of victory that Bush claimed when he assumed that office is
marginal and only reflect the closely divided voters of the U.S. that Karl
Rove created..

Three million voters is considered "marginal" and "closely divided" ?
What New Math education did you get?