DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:It's like the popular kids in high school, a liberal clique, is now assuming the role of authority over everyone and they are just as shallow, clueless and drunk on their own power as they ever were.

WTF are you babbling about? The US is almost mindlessly conservative compared to virtually all other nations in the civilized world. Where, pray tell, is this vaunted liberal clique?

fake food, if anything. Do you see anything in the American psyche that would lead you to expect 'worship' of the government?? If by worship of state you refer to some sort of hyper-nationalism or overly patriotic sentiment, we get a bit of that here, but overall, we are a pretty cynical and independent lot.

Let History be your guide. If people start starving and everything goes to pot, anything is possible. 1 day before 9/11, the Patriot Act would have been an impossible task.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's like the popular kids in high school, a liberal clique, is now assuming the role of authority over everyone and they are just as shallow, clueless and drunk on their own power as they ever were.

WTF are you babbling about? The US is almost mindlessly conservative compared to virtually all other nations in the civilized world. Where, pray tell, is this vaunted liberal clique?

How we compare to other nations is totally irrelevant to the discussion and the point raised.

I'm describing the liberal elite mindset, Pelosi, Frank and company in congress authoring laws that we aren't allowed to read until after they are passed, loudmouthed celebrities in Hollywood leading the charge to shout down the conservatives, professors in universities shaping young minds to be ashamed of conservative values, producers and talking heads on networks creating stories to spin their ideology as correct and their leaders as superior and even forging documents to support their 'stories', etc. etc.
I'm not suggesting they are in total control or outnumber their counterparts, it is simply the other side of the coin that has the religious right on it.
the equal and opposite reaction is hard at work

professors in universities shaping young minds

I don't know about this one. Null aint falling for that ★■◆●

EDIT: You know what I think the problem is Will, they are keeping the the right on the defensive, and the right has no good offense. A good offense is the best defense.

flip wrote:

professors in universities shaping young minds

I don't know about this one. Null aint falling for that ****

EDIT: You know what I think the problem is Will, they are keeping the the right on the defensive, and the right has no good offense. A good offense is the best defense.

I think the right is just as full of crap as the left that's why both sides spend billions trying to fool the uncommitted fraction of the voters each time. The fact that the two parties are indebted to, and dependent on, fools and king making money bags is the problem. Where is a sensible statesman to stand in defiance of that beast? How is the voice of reason going to be heard when both sides will expend millions upon millions and use all their willing accomplices in the media to marginalize anyone who speaks up against them!
The media has failed us miserably.

No argument from me there. I hope they forever stay at disagreement and at each others throats, because none of the latest legislation I've seen has common sense about it.

flip wrote:Let History be your guide. If people start starving and everything goes to pot, anything is possible. 1 day before 9/11, the Patriot Act would have been an impossible task.

......and, should have remained so, except we have become a People who are both easily led, and easily scared. Thus, very manipulable. I agree with your historical assessment. That is one of my main points in conversations with some of my friends over the past 20 years. A nation that grows to an extreme state of 'haves' and 'have-nots' is almost always a ticket to either violent revolt or crushing dictatorship, or both.

Heh I don't see the violent revolt being even remotely possible. I've said this before, but if I was a ruthless dictator, and you had 10,000 hard-chargers, I would just send 2 helicopters and set you all on fire. Heh, I know that sounds bad but it seems realistic. No revolt will succeed in this day and age.

I think violent revolt is much less likely when you get to flush the 'leader' out every four or eight years and eight being the most he can hold the top spot. So there is a perception that hope and change are always just around the corner. We have probably the biggest and best industry for selling hope and change that has taken over our electoral process and they do a great job of keeping the public lined up to buy their latest product. Every four or eight years re-mortgaging your future in exchange for the privilege of re-ordering a delivery of the hope and change that never arrives.

So the revolt part isn't likely at all thanks to that industry's marketing department and thus a new form of 'dictatorship' has been born, dictatorship by fraternity. The ruling class disguised and packaged to be displayed as choices you made.

Yeah if a majority of the population realizes the true power structure then it may be reversible, but I don't see that as likely. There are too many organizations made up of these very same people where they end up falling from the public eye. They are not elected to these 'organizations' and are not accountable to public scrutiny, yet they still go about affecting world policy and change.

flip wrote:Heh I don't see the violent revolt being even remotely possible. I've said this before, but if I was a ruthless dictator, and you had 10,000 hard-chargers, I would just send 2 helicopters and set you all on fire. Heh, I know that sounds bad but it seems realistic. No revolt will succeed in this day and age.

tell that to the Tunisians, Eqyptians, Syrians, Libyans, Yemeni, etc. Likely or not, it happens when the oppressed get to critical mass. Ultimately, the military and police are closely enough related to the suffering masses more than the elites and things can get interesting.

Will Robinson wrote:I think violent revolt is much less likely when you get to flush the 'leader' out every four or eight years and eight being the most he can hold the top spot. So there is a perception that hope and change are always just around the corner. We have probably the biggest and best industry for selling hope and change that has taken over our electoral process and they do a great job of keeping the public lined up to buy their latest product. Every four or eight years re-mortgaging your future in exchange for the privilege of re-ordering a delivery of the hope and change that never arrives.

So the revolt part isn't likely at all thanks to that industry's marketing department and thus a new form of 'dictatorship' has been born, dictatorship by fraternity. The ruling class disguised and packaged to be displayed as choices you made.

so you are suggesting that the divide cannot get bad enough so that folks start to sour on the paradigm?
I'm not so sure, especially if you get to a point where 80% of the population is poor enough, badly fed enough and suffering enough. Like I said, I've warned well-off type friends about this end product of unfettered greed without civic responsibility for years. It isn't the type of society I want to see my child or grandchildren coping with.

flip wrote:Yeah if a majority of the population realizes the true power structure then it may be reversible, but I don't see that as likely. There are too many organizations made up of these very same people where they end up falling from the public eye. They are not elected to these 'organizations' and are not accountable to public scrutiny, yet they still go about affecting world policy and change.

could you give an illustration or two of these 'organizations', as I'm a bit unclear on the type you are talking about? Further, would you suggest that such organizations, albeit simpler and fewer in nature, weren't in place amongst the ruling elite that founded the US?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think violent revolt is much less likely when you get to flush the 'leader' out every four or eight years and eight being the most he can hold the top spot. So there is a perception that hope and change are always just around the corner. We have probably the biggest and best industry for selling hope and change that has taken over our electoral process and they do a great job of keeping the public lined up to buy their latest product. Every four or eight years re-mortgaging your future in exchange for the privilege of re-ordering a delivery of the hope and change that never arrives.

So the revolt part isn't likely at all thanks to that industry's marketing department and thus a new form of 'dictatorship' has been born, dictatorship by fraternity. The ruling class disguised and packaged to be displayed as choices you made.

so you are suggesting that the divide cannot get bad enough so that folks start to sour on the paradigm?
I'm not so sure, especially if you get to a point where 80% of the population is poor enough, badly fed enough and suffering enough. Like I said, I've warned well-off type friends about this end product of unfettered greed without civic responsibility for years. It isn't the type of society I want to see my child or grandchildren coping with.

No, I'm not saying it is impossible but to use your example of what is going on in the middle east today, what happens when they rise up and lynch their current leader? A new one takes over and the masses go back to wait and see if things change...
We are just doing the same thing in our usual more civilized way.
In both places the top gets flushed out and the replacement boss is almost invariably the same as the old boss.

Our system has put off actual bloodletting but, yes, it can get so bad that the ammo in my gun safe, and the ammo in millions like mine, could find a deserving target.
But it is so much less likely since the really poor in this country can expect at the very least rent control and government cheese along with their check in the mail so how many really want to get chewed up and spit out dead in a real revolt as long as their rent, food and pocket change are provided and there is a fresh face selling them hope and change?

Just off the top of my head, the Trilateral Commission and Council Of Foreign Relations. These organizations have great influence with NO oversight.

Further, would you suggest that such organizations, albeit simpler and fewer in nature, weren't in place amongst the ruling elite that founded the US?

No, it's been a common trend, although I disagree with your assessment of who founded this country. This country was founded on revolt and that took a hell of a lot of blood of ALL our ancestors. To try and lay claim in that manner is disingenuous. The ruling elite snookered and stole what they have in 1913, but yes, that was always the goal.

EDIT: Don't be knocking government cheese now, that was the best.

CUDA wrote:

then they're just ignorant and intolerant of those who hold different beliefs from them.

you mean just like the Atheists and hard core lefties that don't like what Christians believe?? you included

So? Are non-Christian views any less important to how our country is run, or would you be happy to just marginalize or destroy all those sinners out there? You don't want to live with secular laws, and most liberals don't want to live with repressive religious laws. It seems we're at an impasse. By the way, you're griping about NBC being liberal. Well, THEY LEAN LIBERAL OVER THERE! That's well known. What did you expect, Fox News right-wing Christian butt kissing? Not everyone is required to spew that kind of right-wing propaganda.

CUDA wrote:edit: Oh and please show me in the Constitution where there is "freedom from religion". not to mention that your attempting to take this thread off topic again. this is about what NBC did, not what our Government allows. See the Difference

No, it does not say that anywhere in the Constitution. That was my opinion. But do you agree that freedom of religion was what the founding fathers intended, the freedom to practice it freely? If that's the case, let me delve a little further into the conundrum. My issue may be with the definition of practicing it freely. If practicing it freely means to force your belief system on everyone else, then we have a problem. What about those of this nation that don't want to live as Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, etc.? Shouldn't they also have the freedom to live according to what they believe in, free from the machinations of a Christian belief system, or the belief systems of other more repressive religions like Islam? People should to be able to be free from the influences of ANY religion in order to have true freedom IMHO. If you can't see that CUDA, then you and the religion you practice are part of our nation's problem. If Christians can't stand with the way OTHERS want to live their lives, they'll always have a fight on their hands. There will never be peace, only a constant fight.

Up until now TC, I couldn't understand the reactions you illicit out of others. The conundrum is that you take others remarks out of context. Freedom of religion in the context of my statement meant EXACTLY what your saying. I don't disagree with your point so much as I don't like my words twisted. Freedom of religion means just that. Believe as you wish. As it should be.

People should to be able to be free from the influences of ANY religion in order to have true freedom IMHO.

If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that THIS is the problem and the agenda of, GLOBALISTS. Both of whom are on the right and left. I don't see Christians trying to force anyone to believe anything, but I do see you "Trying To Remove".

Top Gun wrote:

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:we are a free country first and foremost

So why do we require kids to pledge their allegiance to anything?

Actually, we don't, since a Supreme Court decision stated that schoolchildren could not be compelled to say the Pledge.

What our law says and what happens in practice are not always identical.

Even if it's not a requirement or compulsion: why do we teach our children to pledge their allegiance to anything? It seems to me that's a far bigger issue than the fact that our pledge happens to have two religious words in it. The original pledge didn't have those words (some of you are fond of pointing this out) but the original pledge is still extremely problematic, by its very nature.

The phrase "under God" is a Titanic Deck Chairs problem. Let's solve the bigger problem instead of messing around with the little one and randomly pissing people off with ham-handed activism and ham-handed apologies.

Well, it's all about logistics and community I think. To make every neighbor have a common cause and kinship with each other. Maybe, just for that reason those 2 words should removed. If we could all just be Americans, we would be a stronger nation. I wish they would just go ahead and remove those words. 1-2 years down the road it would be hardly remembered and they would have to find another way to cause division, because things are becoming all too apparent at this point.

tunnelcat wrote:My issue may be with the definition of practicing it freely. If practicing it freely means to force your belief system on everyone else, then we have a problem.

My issue may be with the definition of forcing your belief system on everyone else.

Certainly, writing laws that require people to follow practices specific to your religion would qualify.

But there are those who consider merely speaking about your beliefs within earshot of them to be "forcing it"; I've seen that argued right here on the DBB. There are those who believe "freedom of religion" means not merely being able to live your life according to your own principles, but being able to avoid exposure to other principles entirely -- being able to force others to be silent about their beliefs in order to avoid giving offense. (Such people are often hypocrites -- as they expose others to their principle that you should be able to avoid being exposed to other principles.)

IMO practicing your religion freely means being able to speak about it in public, being able to argue with others about it, and not being intimidated or forced into silence. (Note that this does not give you the freedom to bother someone on their own property, or to otherwise treat someone as a "captive audience".) Even NBC editors have the right to practice their religion freely; I just think it'd be wiser of them to practice in a way they were willing to stand behind instead of making half-hearted pseudo-protests followed by half-hearted apologies.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

then they're just ignorant and intolerant of those who hold different beliefs from them.

you mean just like the Atheists and hard core lefties that don't like what Christians believe?? you included

So? Are non-Christian views any less important to how our country is run, or would you be happy to just marginalize or destroy all those sinners out there?

your Ignorance astounds me. you truly have ZERO understanding of what Christ Taught do you? and the sad part is you don't want to know either do you? Your perfectly fine in your ignorance of Christ's teachings and the condemnation of others because of that ignorance. and you call Christians intolerant.

And when and where have I ever said I wanted to Marginalize anyone???? I just do not wish to be Marginalized myself. and I sure as hell never said or implied that I wanted to "destroy" all those sinners out there. how childish a statement is that. if they get destroyed it will be by their own doing. not by me.

You don't want to live with secular laws, and most liberals don't want to live with repressive religious laws. It seems we're at an impasse.

HARDLY. this is how I see things and I live my life

Romans 13:1 wrote:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

and if I do not like the laws in this country then there is a system in place establish by our government to get them changed. and as is my right as a citizen of this country I will fight for that which I believe in. just as you are free to do the same. but my question to you is. Will you willfully obey they laws that are in place if they are against your personal wishes. I have SERIOUS doubts.

I will use the example of the Followers of Christ church here in Oregon City. those people are WRONG, they are Violating God's laws and they are violating mans laws, they are getting what they have coming to them.

By the way, you're griping about NBC being liberal. Well, THEY LEAN LIBERAL OVER THERE! That's well known. What did you expect, Fox News right-wing Christian butt kissing? Not everyone is required to spew that kind of right-wing propaganda.

YES YES YES we all know that Big Bad FOX news is the devil incarnate for the left. but this isn't about FOX news now is it. I see you have your dance and deflect shoes all polished and ready to go




your still trying to change the subject. I'm not biting

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

You know, Christian Americans have had it easy. This country had a huge majority of people that believed in Jesus and he was who he said he was. Because of that, they have pretty much had their way up until now, and now feel threatened. It wasn't always like that and in fact is pretty much the exception. Nothing can or has been able to stop it even in the face of great opposition, so I don't understand the outrage at every little threat. Every christian that wants to continue living his faith without fear of reprisal should vehemently oppose any attempt to nationalize Christianity or any other religion. Any attempt to remove it from society should be vehemently opposed also. Calling people ignorant, childish and making low blows at their opinions is so un-Christlike it's sickening. It helps no one and subverts the other hearers. It merely becomes politics at that point. TC has valid concerns but she does seem to get alarmist at times. All I can say is this: Is God glorified or is the gospel promoted that way, or just your view point on the matter?

Let me add also that I cuss like a sailor and when I do drink probably drink too much, because I start laughing like hell and can't quit . I care about people, not ideals and sometimes I let that get the best of me. I got respect for you Cuda, and in no way want to give the impression I got it all figured out. I don't.

No need flip, you are correct. Thx. sometimes its easier to see thing from the outside than the inside.

TC doesn't want to understand ANYTHING. it always has to be her way. She never takes responsibility for her own words and when she cannot defend herself or her position she either changes the subject or she blames someone else, as you noticed earlier. and sometimes I get caught up in trying to make her see that. SO

Matt 10:14 wrote:If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Matt 10:14 wrote:
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Lol, man you have no idea how many years it took for me to learn this lesson, and always a great reminder. It brought alot more strife than was necessary . If all Christians would start being more honest with themselves and others, become fearless, then we would see mighty things.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

God's strength is made perfect in weakness >: )

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

then they're just ignorant and intolerant of those who hold different beliefs from them.

you mean just like the Atheists and hard core lefties that don't like what Christians believe?? you included

So? Are non-Christian views any less important to how our country is run, or would you be happy to just marginalize or destroy all those sinners out there? You don't want to live with secular laws, and most liberals don't want to live with repressive religious laws. It seems we're at an impasse. By the way, you're griping about NBC being liberal. Well, THEY LEAN LIBERAL OVER THERE! That's well known. What did you expect, Fox News right-wing Christian butt kissing? Not everyone is required to spew that kind of right-wing propaganda.

CUDA wrote:edit: Oh and please show me in the Constitution where there is "freedom from religion". not to mention that your attempting to take this thread off topic again. this is about what NBC did, not what our Government allows. See the Difference

No, it does not say that anywhere in the Constitution. That was my opinion. But do you agree that freedom of religion was what the founding fathers intended, the freedom to practice it freely? If that's the case, let me delve a little further into the conundrum. My issue may be with the definition of practicing it freely. If practicing it freely means to force your belief system on everyone else, then we have a problem. What about those of this nation that don't want to live as Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, etc.? Shouldn't they also have the freedom to live according to what they believe in, free from the machinations of a Christian belief system, or the belief systems of other more repressive religions like Islam? People should to be able to be free from the influences of ANY religion in order to have true freedom IMHO. If you can't see that CUDA, then you and the religion you practice are part of our nation's problem. If Christians can't stand with the way OTHERS want to live their lives, they'll always have a fight on their hands. There will never be peace, only a constant fight.

Gonna have to disagree with a few of your views here. Firstly the notion that you seem to have that freedom of religion is not, in fact, a Christian ideal--it is. Freedom of religion never came from people wishing to be free from everything that a religion (and Christianity specifically in this case) stands for, it was born of Christians wanting to be free of the oppression of a state church. What you're actually talking about here is freedom from morality, which is not found anywhere in our founding documents. I, as a citizen of the United States, reserve the right to demand a certain level of moral responsibility from my fellow man. I will not accept the ridiculous and convenient notion that it infringing on someone's freedom to do so. This is why I would not accept the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, as an example.

ST wrote:I, as a citizen of the United States, reserve the right to demand a certain level of moral responsibility from my fellow man. I will not accept the ridiculous and convenient notion that it infringing on someone's freedom to do so.

I subscribe to the simple notion that you should have the freedom to do anything, including something immoral, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. If you don't trust the government to be good stewards of money, why trust them to be good stewards of morals?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What you're actually talking about here is freedom from morality, which is not found anywhere in our founding documents. I, as a citizen of the United States, reserve the right to demand a certain level of moral responsibility from my fellow man. I will not accept the ridiculous and convenient notion that it infringing on someone's freedom to do so. This is why I would not accept the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, as an example.

Who defines these morals, though? The government? You? Whatever group happens to form a majority at the time?

You know, we just had this discussion briefly on .com. I say THIS is the conundrum, because you don't want to restrict free will, but at the same time, lawlessness is the direct cause of oppressive governments. My assessment was that as a society grew to capacity, it was destined to destroy itself.

We aren't talking theory here. Societies define these morals, and to the greater extent they have long-since done just that. Then some mush-brain comes along and gets ahold of the idea that such things infringe on freedom. I know that young people these days have little enough use for morality, for the greater part...

Which "the government" are you referring to, Jeff? If the Federal government got it in its craw to try to enact some far-reaching, moral code, that's an entirely different matter, but local governments have been enforcing moral standards since the would-be Americans first set foot on the continent. While we're on the subject of local government, the city that I live in is not in debt. The mayor told my brother-in-law last year that they run it like a business, and only approve projects that they can afford (all kinds of parks and road projects being done).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:We aren't talking theory here. Societies define these morals, and to the greater extent they have long-since done just that. Then some mush-brain comes along and gets ahold of the idea that such things infringe on freedom. I know that young people these days have little enough use for morality, for the greater part...

But again, what if one person happens to have a different view of morality than some of his neighbors? Who's the one that gets to draw up the definitions? Are you advocating strict majority-rule?

Which "the government" are you referring to, Jeff? If the Federal government got it in its craw to try to enact some far-reaching, moral code, that's an entirely different matter, but local governments have been enforcing moral standards since the would-be Americans first set foot on the continent.

Yes, and often for the oppression of some group or another.

ST wrote:Which "the government" are you referring to, Jeff? If the Federal government got it in its craw to try to enact some far-reaching, moral code, that's an entirely different matter, but local governments have been enforcing moral standards since the would-be Americans first set foot on the continent.

Just because it's been going on for a while doesn't mean it's good. We're already familiar with how the government presently legislates morality, but the question isn't whether they do--it's whether they should.

I don't think that any level of government should be involved in legislating the prohibition of victimless behavior. I like when state governments enact legislation to undo unnecessary prohibition of the federal government (like to legalize drugs) or when state governments recognize rights that the federal government won't (like recognizing gay marriage). In that sense, I think that states should play a unique roll. But I can't think of a justification for why it would be better for a state government to prohibit victimless behavior over the federal other than "less damage done."

ST wrote:...such things infringe on freedom.

The idea that "laws prohibiting you from doing things" infringe on your freedom shouldn't be controversial. If anything, I'd think you should be arguing that, although they infringe on your freedom, the government is somehow still justified in legislating them.

ST wrote:Then some mush-brain comes along and gets ahold of the idea that...

Am I a mush-brain? Flamebait is lame.

flip wrote:Up until now TC, I couldn't understand the reactions you illicit out of others. The conundrum is that you take others remarks out of context. Freedom of religion in the context of my statement meant EXACTLY what your saying. I don't disagree with your point so much as I don't like my words twisted. Freedom of religion means just that. Believe as you wish. As it should be.

OK, where does your freedom of religion begin and it's influence over me or other non-Christians end when it comes to meddling in the lives of others? When laws are passed to restrict abortion rights for women and/or restrict or forbid birth control, who's responsible for controlling my body now? Christians or me? Personally, I would never have an abortion, but I still want women to have control over the rights and destiny of their own bodies and wombs, not the church or the state. When science is blended and distorted with stories from the Bible to create one blurry non-scientific mishmash that then gets incorporated into school textbooks by politicians and school board members and is taught as fact, Creationism for example, who's idea is that? Christians? Certainly not the Secularists or Liberals.

Personally, I'm not against Christians having the rights and freedoms to worship in church without government influence, to believe in and follow the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ and raise their children as they see fit with their theology. I see nothing wrong with that nor would I want to restrict that. What bugs me is when Christians get into politics and throw their gospel in my face as justification for their outrage (CUDA) of some secular or liberal ideal that governs the people of this country. Or rail against the way I choose to live my life as blasphemous because I don't follow the teachings of the Bible or of Christ and actively fight them whenever I feel their creeping influence. One doesn't have to be a Christian to live a good, honest, helpful and positive life to be be forthright member of our society. I've seen more than my fair share of "Christians" telling others how to live their lives, all the while sinning in their own. The "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy.

Here's the problem I see with your argument. It's not based in fact or reality. The law does condone Abortion. I don't personally so I'm covered but I respect the laws of this land. They do not teach creationism in schools, in fact they ONLY teach evolution, which is one-sided at best. It looks like your winning already TC and if anybody's belief system is being run over roughshod it's mine, and yet your the one still crying foul. I'm content to let the state of things be exactly like they are. Your arguments are steeped in fanaticism and what-if's. When will you and yours quit trying to force your unbelief on me? Because all I see is a liberal agenda going full force against what I believe and succeeding.

EDIT: In other words, YOU are the one with the agenda.

Sure…protect everyone from Christian laws…but give the stupid ones free reign…

(coughhealthcarereformcough)

Florida, Texas and South Carolina are now passing laws to force women who want to undergo an abortion have a required ultrasound or sonogram. What, so now the state can require a doctor doing a private procedure to do another procedure BEFORE the abortion can be done. Also, many states are requiring neo-birth consultations beforehand as well. How's that small government mantra working out for Conservatives?

http://www.news4jax.com/news/28371908/detail.html

So get this, the state needs to tell me or any other woman that we're about to kill another potential human being. Don't you think I or any woman has the intelligence to know that fact? We don't need the state forcing doctors to tell us that little nugget of information. All these machinations are just a backdoor way to chip away at a legal medical procedure for women as a way to destroy the law eventually. And then there are these de-funding attempts at the state level on that evil Planned Parenthood as another method to stop abortions. It's yet another veiled attack on an institution that gives other vital services to poor women, namely medical exams, screening, neonatal counseling and yes, birth control. And only 3% of their services are abortions by the way.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ver-90-pe/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opini ... llins.html

All this from Christian Conservatives.

I'm not gonna debate abortion itself, especially when the idea itself led to partial-birth abortions. We all have our stances. To me it's ending a life, a life generated by carelessness. By your own definition, it is VIOLENCE. Aside from that, if we are gonna respect a woman's right to choose, and we have, we could at least inform them of exactly what they are fixing to do. At the very least. You think asking a woman to consider her choices is a bad thing? Or do you just immediately knee-jerk with your anti-religion campaign. I've heard more than one of these women crying and devastated by their choice when they were young. It carries with them the rest of their life, especially after having given birth in later years. To ask them to consider what they are doing first doesn't seem to me to be anything but human.

I find it interesting that nobody seems interested in defending the idea of the pledge of allegiance itself, with or without the words "under God". People are willing to argue about those two words, or argue about how abortion law is nefarious Christian influence, but is there anyone willing to step up and say "yes, I think we should have a pledge of allegiance"?

Well, it's all about logistics and community I think. To make every neighbor have a common cause and kinship with each other.

I was advocating the pledge with these words.

EDIT: Although I think they are empty words at this point, initially it was a good idea.