Are you an atheist?

[ConnorGiles]

It is called a joke my friend. Damn I get called a politician a lot

It was referring to the fact you said "Yes, I have made my decision!" after claiming some think you kill people in the name of god......

 

[Brianwarnock]

It is called a joke my friend...

Not a very good one, but the clue was in the smilies.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

Not very well known for my jokes to be honest Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Then you and Dick7 should get along fine.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

And why is that ?

 

[Brianwarnock]

And why is that ?

Go figure after reading his "jokes" on the joke thread.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

I find the worst jokes make me laugh the most due to the "It's so bad, It's good!" phrase

 

[Bladerunner]

It is called a joke my friend. Damn I get called a politician a lot

It was referring to the fact you said "Yes, I have made my decision!" after claiming some think you kill people in the name of god......

LOL, alright,,,,Connor, I do apologize to you for not taking it as a joke. Sometimes it is hard to do since hearing a joke and the way it was intended makes it easier than reading it.

 

[ColinEssex]

Like CasaBlanca "Play it again Sam"

That line is not in Casablanca.

Col

 

[Bladerunner]

That line is not in Casablanca.

Col

correct my mistake "Play it Sam" Casablanca

 

[ConnorGiles]

LOL, alright,,,,Connor, I do apologize to you for not taking it as a joke. Sometimes it is hard to do since hearing a joke and the way it was intended makes it easier than reading it.

Indeed Bladerunner but as Brian has said.

The clue was in the smilies

 

[Bladerunner]

Yeah, I get it now. , I am relatively new to this (any) forum and did not consider that angle. However, that is no excuse and in the future, I will pay better attention to not only the words but the icons provided in each post.

Again I apologize to you.

 

[Bladerunner]

There is a anonymous Atheist suing the New Jersey Law in order to take "Under God"
out of the Pledge to Allegiance. Who said the Atheist had no such agenda. I guess if it is taken out, then it will make them feeeeeeeel better. The suit states that while she does not have to say it, she is belittled because she has to hear it.

Just another step toward Armageddon. Read the book, its prophecies are coming true as we speak.

Another 3-4 American Rabbis praying were killed in Jerusalem by Muslims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/world/middleeast/killings-in-jerusalem-synagogue-complex.html?_r=0

 

[Frothingslosh]

So in other words, she wants to reset the Pledge back to the way it existed pre-1954/Red Scare. Got it.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Yeah, I get it now. , I am relatively new to this (any) forum and did not consider that angle. However, that is no excuse and in the future, I will pay better attention to not only the words but the icons provided in each post.

Again I apologize to you.

No problem, No reason to apologize friend

There is a anonymous Atheist suing the New Jersey Law in order to take "Under God"
out of the Pledge to Allegiance. Who said the Atheist had no such agenda. I guess if it is taken out, then it will make them feeeeeeeel better. The suit states that while she does not have to say it, she is belittled because she has to hear it.

Just another step toward Armageddon. Read the book, its prophecies are coming true as we speak.

Another 3-4 American Rabbis praying were killed in Jerusalem by Muslims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/wo...plex.html?_r=0

As ridiculous as this suit is, I can see her point. The Pledge to Allegiance being as powerful and binding as it is. when being made to pledge allegiance under a god you don't believe in sort of nullifies the statement.

In a world of changing, (changing ways of living - such as stopping food stores from serving pork and bacon for example in the name of religion) it does not surprise me that suddenly someone who does not have a religion wishes to remove a religious statement from a binding document.

In no way do I support what she is doing, although I agree it should not be in the text, I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

 

[Brianwarnock]

As ridiculous as this suit is, I can see her point. The Pledge to Allegiance being as powerful and binding as it is. when being made to pledge allegiance under a god you don't believe in sort of nullifies the statement.


In no way do I support what she is doing, although I agree it should not be in the text, I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

Don't these two statements contradict each other?
If you don't believe in god then you should not make a statement that says or implies that you do, however it should be of no concern to you that somebody else says it. This is like Muslims getting a job in a store and then refusing to serve all of the products, they don't have to consume them.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Connor - the fights over the phrase "under God" have been around as long as I can remember - this is nothing new. The fact of the matter is that the phrase was added in 1954 during the Red Scare. Part of the reason was pressure from religious groups who, even then, wanted to redefine the US as an explicitly Christian nation, and part was to visibly differentiate the US from the officially-athiest Soviet Union.

As written by the Reverend Francis Bellamy (who was a Christian socialist and the brother of a socialist author) in 1892, the original wording of the Pledge was:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"...my flag..." was changed to "...the flag of the United States..." in 1922 and then to "...the flag of the United States of America" in 1923. This was explicitly to avoid confusing immigrants about which nation they were pledging to.

In a related topic, the official motto of the US was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" in 1956 for much the same reason as the change to the pledge. (The new motto actually started appearing on currency in 1864.)

Interestingly, neither change has ever been heard by SCOTUS. A pledge case did get appealed to them once, but they dismissed it rather than ruling on it because they determined that the plaintiff had no legal standing to file the suit. There have been a couple attempts by the GOP in the last ten years to strip SCOTUS of the power to determine the constitutionality of things like this, but they all died in the Senate. Odds are, however, that that law itself would have been determined to be in direct violation of the constitution. Personally I don't see what they're so worried about - the current makeup of the court all but guarantees the pledge would pass inspection were it to be reviewed right now; Eight of the judges always vote down party lines, and the last one votes conservative about 3 times in 4. One of them - Scalia - has ALWAYS pressed for the implementation of Biblical law and Christianity as the official religion.

 

[Bladerunner]

Connor - Personally I don't see what they're so worried about - the current makeup of the court all but guarantees the pledge would pass inspection were it to be reviewed right now; Eight of the judges always vote down party lines, and the last one votes conservative about 3 times in 4. One of them - Scalia - has ALWAYS pressed for the implementation of Biblical law and Christianity as the official religion.

What about Obamacare. They voted for it. it is an abomination, socialized medicine. It is all down hill from here.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Yes, millions of people who could not afford health care before is certainly an abomination. Better to just let people stupid enough to get sick die, right? Glad to see that Christian compassion you love to talk about - and ignore - is still there!

Gotta love when a so-called Christian - even a white supremacist wretch like you - hates the poor so much he'd rather see them die than lift a finger to help them.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, millions of people who could not afford health care before is certainly an abomination. Better to just let people stupid enough to get sick die, right? Glad to see that Christian compassion you love to talk about - and ignore - is still there!

Gotta love when a so-called Christian - even a white supremacist wretch like you - hates the poor so much he'd rather see them die than lift a finger to help them.

Mr. Frosh: First, we never turned anyone away from our medical doors. Yes, we stabilized them and sent them somewhere else. By that I mean another facility setup to take this type of patient. Their cost are much lower and thus the payments Medicaid paid was accepted. Now before you start hollering about sub standard care, rem. the gov regulates what Medicaid pays for and it itself is substandard.

Yes, 30 million more people have insurance 90% of which are Medicaid, a sub standard health insurance. They are getting it for free and the other 10% is getting subsidies. Now there are the OTHER 30 million that have no insurance because the prices went up drastically they cannot pay for one. I was one of them. Paid about $4,000 a year for personal insurance. Then this was coming down the road and my insurance went up to $8,000. Dropped it. Now they are after Medicare. Death squads ,etc.

You liberals feeeeel good about helping the poor. It is just you way to get the vote you need to stay in power. The Obamacare archrchitect said it best when he said the American people was stupid. Well, he was not talking about me, I knew it was a lie to start with about as much as Obama is a liar. Of course you love him.your liberal.