.
.
.
America’s Pledge of Allegiance is neither long nor complicated: “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.” Only 31 very powerful words until NBC television decided that was four words too many and edited the phrase “one nation under god” out of the version of the pledge it broadcast leading up to the start of the final round of the PGA United States Open golf tournament Sunday.
While much of the media takes glee in bashing God and presenting a purely humanist viewpoint, it appears that most of the public thinks that NBC went too far this time. Recognizing the intense blowback, NBC apologized for the omission later in the broadcast:
Shortly after the piece aired, NBC Sports host Dan Hicks apologized for the cut. “We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open Championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation’s capital for the third time,” Hicks said. “Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we’d like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it.”
Of course there are those that blast NBC for apologizing:
“Stupid NBC should have stuck to their guns,” wrote heatherewf on Twitter. “Under God has no place in a pledge to a country based on religious tolerance.”
“heatherewf” misses the point so badly it would be difficult to understand if not for the teachings of “political correctness.” Political correctness teaches that “religious tolerance” means that you can’t talk about God, involve God in the community in anyway without being “intolerant” of non believers and that any opinion to the contrary renders you a “religious fanatic.” The “politically correct” extend this ridiculous argument even further by trying to argue that their version of “religious tolerance” is required under the United States Constitution. All of this is of course wrong.
America was founded based upon Judeo-Christian principles – the “politically correct” may not like that truth, but that is the truth. The United States Constitution does prohibit congress from enacting any law “respecting an establishment of religion” or impeding the free exercise of religion. This amendment was put in place to prevent the creation of an official “state religion” something that many had fled Europe to avoid. If someone at Al Jazeera in Iran had pulled a stunt relating to the Koran like the one pulled at NBC, they would have lost their tongue or their life – that is religious intolerance.
Notice that the First Amendment prevents the government from taking any action to impede the free exercise of religion. That is the little tidbit that the “politically correct” would like you to forget. The “politically correct” act as if the constitution prohibits religious discussion when in actuality the constitution does just the opposite, the constitution allows everyone to express their religious viewpoint and practice their religion in their own way. An atheist has no more right to tell me how and where to pray than I have the right to tell the atheist he is legally required to believe in God.
As a corporate enterprise, NBC has every right to espouse whatever viewpoint it wishes. As a corporate enterprise, NBC must suffer the consequences if its consumers differ with the opinions it espouses.
They left out “one nation” as well? Sounds like an editing accident. So this is today’s outrage? That liberal NBC!
Actually I leave out “under God” when I say the Pledge, because it wasn’t originally in it – it was just added under Eisenhower during the Cold War to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But more importantly, I leave it out (even though I’m a Christian) because I feel phrases like that are insensitive and exclusionary to the many good Americans who don’t believe in God.
You really think you’re better or more American than them?
Wow Vern, I could not have made my point about the weapon that is “political correctness” better myself. “You really think you’re a better of more American than them?” I never said that or anything close to that. As an American I DO have the right to believe in God and to talk about my belief in God. As an American I do have the right to choose NOT to patronize NBC if they espouse a belief set that they reject. As an American I completely respect your right to state your own opinion about God. As an American, I can support or oppose your opinion but I cannot prevent you from stating that opinion. In my opinion, “political correctness” tries to completely PREVENT speech it doesn’t agree with by saying that it is repugnant.
You can talk about God all you want. So can I. But it shouldn’t be part of our Pledge of Allegiance, or plastered on our City Hall walls, because not all Americans believe in God nor should they have to nor should they feel less American because they don’t.
This argument could get tedious, I’ve been through it a thousand times with others like you. It seems like you guys just refuse to get it.
We are a SECULAR NATION. Jefferson said so.
And again, that NBC part seems really silly and irrelevant, as it does appear to have been a case of sloppy editing.
Yes, “sloppy editing” I am sure that is NOT what it is.
I’ll find out. You people are so paranoid. I am 100% SURE that there’s not some super-secular guy at NBC trying to reform our pledge. I wish anonster were here, she’s good at finding out the truth behind these outrages-du-jour. And I got a lot of other irons in the fire right now. ANONSTER????
I agree that the argument grows tedious, but not because I don’t get it. I have made my point clearly above.
Sir, I urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue. I don’t know your heart and don’t pretend to, but I do know that being a christian is about honoring GOD and his son JESUS, who died and rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of the father. The bible says God is in control of the rulers and powers in this world, wether they be wicked or just. Many rulers and nations have been destroyed for their actions. A nation that does not honor GOD, does evil in the sight of the LORD. Is it better to honor GOD or man. I urge you read the accounts in the old testament of how GOD dealt with Isreal and the nations surrounding her. GOD has not changed, don’t let the popular oppinion of this present age harden your heart.
Is that to me, Mr. Calhoun? You’re warning me that God will destroy me if I continue to be a traditionalist and leave out “under God” when I recite the Pledge of Allegiance? The way he smote the Philistines? Thank you for the warning, I will not harden my heart.
(Actually, one of the prettiest musical psalm settings I’ve composed is entitled “Harden Not Your Hearts.” But that’s another story…)
Geoff, your folks don’t just “talk about God,” they zealously attempt to legislate whatever religious premise works for them that impedes on the personal freedoms of others, as well as include prayers and whatnot in public circumstances–do you want a list? Glad to help you out.
First of all “my folks” are 73 year olds living in Southern California – other than that, I don’t have “folks” (and I always find it strange that attackers from the left have no problem lumping all of their “opponents” together as if very different opposing viewpoints are interchangeable). “Saying a prayer” in public does not impede anyone’s personal freedom. Attempts to legislate mandatory prayers would be unconstitutional. If you can’t see the difference, I don’t know how to make it clearer. I have as much personal right to say a prayer whenever and however I want as much as you have the right to refrain from praying whenever and however you want. Respecting each other’s “rights” in this regard is tolerance – refusing to recognize my right is intolerant.
Saying a prayer in a public setting–such as a city council meeting — is very different from your gathering around a flagpole on a Sunday morning before going on a hike with your fellow brethren. There are many of us who do not wish to have a highly religious message thrust upon us, and ultimately, why do you have the need to do so? it’s annoying at the very least, and certainly presumptuous. Just stop it.
Your folks, by the way, I’m assuming are the Republican legislators for whom I am sure you vote. They have no problem forcing the republican god on the rest of us, as has been noted with the “under God” slogans we get to look at.
Care to address social legislation, by the way?
as has been noted with the “under God” slogans we get to look at.
As, most disgustingly, we have to see that plaque sitting behind Riggy’s Costa Mesa Council as they lie about their budget in order to rip off their hard, conscientious workers. “In God We Trust.” That makes it extra galling.
Gericault, who’s a more fervent Christian than I, made a good suggestion when the CM Council wanted to put that up – they should have it FACING them, instead of behind them, to remind them God’s watching their lying asses!
Sounds to me that you would like to censor me because you find the content of my speech “annoying.” I choose not to stop it, but honor your right to criticize me and say that you don’t like it.
Um, let’s try again. We’re at a city council meeting. You want to get up and give a big old Christian prayer, despite the fact that it’s a public forum, you are proceeding as if your religion is the correct one, and the rest of us are forced to endure it. Annoying? Damn right it is. It implies that god, whoever that is, is on your side and now the public’s business will be conducted under that assumption. I suggest that I get up and start the meeting with a fart joke. How about that? Want to censor me?
You act as if I don’t understand instead of the truth that I disagree. We are really talking about a free speech right rather than a freedom of religion right unless you somehow use farts in your religious practices. The limiter there would be time, place and manner. It is not uncommon to have several brief prayers from different religions at the beginning of a public meeting and I have no problem with that – the fact that you are annoyed by them is as irrelevant to me as is my annoyance to your public statements during a public hearing process.
I agree that time, place, and manner are the key. There is some serious question begging going on in this discussion, though, in that there has been no foundation for the apparent requirement that there be a prayer, prayers, or fart jokes. They all sound fairly equivalent to me, and equally unnecessary. Public statements would, I presume, have to do with the city’s business–but an opening invocation to someone’s mythological being? What is that doing in the mix?
What I consider sacred you consider mythological. You have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine. You seem to demand that I give up my beliefs and traditions and that is not going to happen. I am sorry that you don’t see the connection.
“You seem to demand that I give up my beliefs and traditions and that is not going to happen.”
That’s not what Rapscalion said at all. To repeat…and this time, read closely;
“Um, let’s try again. We’re at a city council meeting. You want to get up and give a big old Christian prayer, despite the fact that it’s a public forum, you are proceeding as if your religion is the correct one, and the rest of us are forced to endure it.”
Now, explain to us how you NOT being able to say that prayer infringes on your right to believe what you want to believe?
Asked and answered.
So you agree that NOT being able to say a Christian prayer in a government meeting in no way infringes on your right to believe what you want to believe?
Good.
Now answer me this…doesn’t that scenario do more to HONOR and RESPECT the religious diversity that exists in this country NOW…2011? Does it not do more to UNITE rather than DIVIDE. If so, why would one not advocate for that? If not, why not?
Anon, I refuse to continue to play this game. You are trying to censor speach, you want to be the sole arbiter of where I can pray and where I can’t pray. Not going to happen and stop the juvenile tactic of telling me what I am saying.
You can pray silently ANYWHERE and ANYTIME you want, including that council meeting…and you can pray out loud ANYWHERE and ANYTIME you want when you’re with a group of like-minded people in a non-government meeting or a church. When I’m in a GOVERNMENT meeting, there is no place for the prayers of a particular religion. And it’s always interesting to see that Christians are all over the notion of “free speech” when it’s THEIR free speech, but not so much when it’s the free speech of other religions. This whole thing is nothing more than a preening fear of the ever-increasing religious diversity of this country, along with a xenophobia-inspired nostalgia for some bygone era.
Anon, your argument is unconstitutional since it abridges my First Amendment right to practice my religion unimpeded by government.
My argument doesn’t do that at all. Focus now…YOU CAN PRAY SILENTLY ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME YOU WANT. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in Christianity that says a prayer must be said out loud for it to be valid.
But that’s not enough for you, is it? You want to have Christian prayers read aloud in Government meetings. This isn’t about practicing your religion unimpeded by Government for you. Please, can you at least be intellectually honest about that? This is about wanting ONE particular religion emphasized by the Government over others.
I feel like I’ve stepped in a trap. I don’t really want to argue about whether we should restore the Pledge to its original form, as I know public opinion’s against that for at least another decade, and I have bigger priorities.
This story was about something NBC supposedly did, to make the decision to reform the Pledge on their own. And I’m 100% sure… i said it wrong before … there COULD have been some rogue ultra-secular editor who didn’t care about keeping his job and did this on purpose … but I’m 100% sure it was not a decision made by NBC. They don’t have any secular “agenda,” they just want lots of people to watch their channel, and this story won’t help them.
I’ll see if I can find out what really happened here, although I’m sure it’ll come out sometime today or tomorrow, and then you’ll all be looking for the next big outrage.
Oh, I read a little bit about this faux-outrage, and nobody’s really sure what happened yet, but
Did you know “INDIVISIBLE” was also left out?
“…to the Republic, for which it standsWith liberty and justice for all.”
So… INDIVISIBLE gone. Maybe NBC is a conspiracy hotbed for secularists AND SECESSIONISTS???
Secessionists? Do Todd Palin or Rick Perry work there?
I agree with you Vern – I think some God-hater in the editing truck took some liberties and edited out the “under God” part. What I disagree with is NBC’s lame apology. Though I know they had to make it all PC, I would’ve loved for them to say “Some guy who hates God took it upon himself to edit God out of the pledge we played. He has been summarily fired and we are sorry if it offended anyone.” I know that will never happen, but how great it would be if they did – in my humble opinion.
And the “indivisible” – just collateral damage? We liberals love that “indivisible.” When I heard about that being gone too, I shifted to the theory that it was just clumsy thoughtless editing. But thanks for agreeing with the June 21 early afternoon Vern.
Next the post office will be issuing a stamp that depicts the wrong statue of liberty! Or has that been done already?
*In 1947, you could stand on any schoolground in America…….Say the Pledge and then sing our National Anthem as the flag was raised. “Indivisable” of course came from having to deal with Southern Successionist elements that continued to save their Confederate money….just in case.
“Under God” came along for two reasons: Our money had “In God we Trust” on it and of course the Evangelical rave that was going through our country because of the fear of Communism….Mao, Joe and of course Gandi!
At any rate, “Oh say can you see….” seems to be hanging in there without much change going on……(Thank you Major League Baseball) except maybe Roseann Barr presentations….every now and then. The Jimmy Hendrix instrumental was a classic and cool…..especially when the lighter fluid was set off at the end.
“America the Beautiful” is a nice song….but the George M. Cohan’s “Grand Old Flag” is still one of our favorites …..after all these years.
The ultimate goal of the WHINER PARTY (aka; the GOP);
From The Political Carnival;
“I hope I’m wrong, but I can just hear ClusterFox huffing and puffing and demanding all sorts of explanations and additional apologies from NBC, the kids, the school, the parents, Bill Maher, Glee, the Geico gecko, and anyone else they can think of… right now! Of course, they’ll ultimately blame President Obama.”
From HABLEDASH;
“We chose not to cover this yesterday to see how much coverage it received. It did make headlines, but it likely won’t stick around. Comcast now owns NBC, but the transition isn’t fully complete, which means General Electric’s liberal minions still hold some power. It wouldn’t be surprising if this was planned – which we cannot see it any other way – just to see if they could sneak it past the audience. After all, liberalism is not patriotic, as we’ve seen how President Barack Obama has acted when it comes time for the Pledge of Allegiance.”
Annoster, I know that you had to add the parenthetical “(aka; the GOP)” because the Democrats have cornered the market on whining and screaming.
Really Geoff (aka; sniff,sniff, whine, whine, pity the poor oppressed fat, white, christian male or Mommy their making fun of me! waaaaaa!!!!)?
Ah, the politically correct, always trying to censor debate through inane mockery.
Censor? Damn, Geoff. You feel like you are being censored on this blog. You’ve got to stop over-using that word, you’re draining it of meaning.
When someone launches an attack saying “stop saying what you’re saying” and then follows this with a directed personal attack aimed at demeaning and humiliating, what would you call it Vern?
I always want someone to “stop saying what they’re saying” when I think it’s false and destructive, on top of believing that if this person really used their brain they would stop saying it. It doesn’t mean that I would physically stop them from saying it if I had the power. (Which actually I do here, but never use.)
Oh wait, are we still talking about you praying? No, nobody wants to stop you from praying.
Poor Geoffy (whine, sniff, sniff, MOMMMMY!!!!), am I “censoring” you again?
Thanks for making my case about the party of “whining”.
Geoff,
I have NEVER suggested that you “stop saying what you’re saying”, I have attempted through YOUR own words to prove that you are a thin-skinned hypocrite.
Your favorite line of attack is that liberals are trying to silence you and all conservatives through political correctness, but it’s all right for YOU to try and delegitimize liberals’ concerns of bias and discrimination by using a hot-button phrase like “politically correct”. In your mind our concerns are nothing but partisan blather (political correctness) but YOUR concerns are legitimate and true.
You demand respect for your beliefs but refuse to give the same to others. Atheists not wanting to sit through prayers and have god inserted into their government is some how an affront to your freedom to shove it down our throats.
Why should you be allowed to force atheists to acknowledge your god?
As to my “directed personal attack aimed at demeaning and humiliating” you, I only bring up YOUR POST about how we “liberals” only allow fat, white, christian, southern males to be skewered and how it hurts your feelings to highlight YOUR hypocrisy and hyper-sensitivity.
At the end of your post “Attacks OK on Fat White Male Southern Christians” you stated that “The answer to all of these issues is simple – treat each person equally”, yet YOU don’t REALLY mean that.
If you really thought that atheists should be treated equally any mention of god would be left to the churches and not put into the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America, where we are all supposedly EQUAL citizens.
You want to whine about your hurt feelings at the hands of liberals yet you don’t give a damn about atheists feeling awkward and shunned because they don’t say the pledge or bow their heads.
Do you believe that atheists should be given EQUAL treatment and consideration or did you mean equal BUT not really?
Stop censoring Geoff!
Problem is anonster that you usually (not always) resort to personal attacks or dismissive language rather than addressing substance – especially when you are in retreat.
Typical Geoff response, perpetual victimhood, I notice no thoughts or answers on “equal” treatment for atheists, in short; no substance.
I think even more startling than the whining, is the constant, insufferable “victim” stance of the GOP. So put-upon, always so close to having the sky fall on them. Life itself hanging in the balance. Oh, the forces aligned against them are too numerous to count.
In the 50’s it was the other way around. The pendulam has reached its maximum arc and is now swinging back towards conservatism. Enjoy your brief moment in the sun.
Conservatism? Is that what you call the current GOP? A party which, in the face of staggering debt and unfunded wars, absolutely refuses, REFUSES to raise taxes? That’s not the conservatism of Eisenhower and Reagan. It’s some otherworldly, faux conservatism, hijacked by absolutist ideologues.
Case in point, from Reuters, as Republicans walk out of budget talks;
“House Speaker John Boehner said Democrats must abandon any tax increases for negotiations to continue.
“These conversations could continue if they take the tax hikes out of the conversation,” Boehner said. He added tax increases could never pass the Republican-controlled House in any event.”
Geoff, I’m still waiting for your support of “conservative” legislation that seeks to control people’s personal lives, as well as taking science out of particular facts of education. You seem to keep on dodging the discussion.
Not dodging the question at all. When there is a discussion or post about “conservative” legislation I will always be more than willing to discuss my views in that context. I think that you will find that there are actually more cases today in which non-science based humanism has crept into school texts than the highly publicized battles over evolution/creationism.
Following up on GWs unsupported assertion, here’s something a bit more reality based;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
This post was not about manipulation of textbooks by liberals or conservatives. I think that would be an excellent subject for a future post and I will start to work on it.
Give me a break, Geoff. You said this in a comment above;
“I think that you will find that there are actually more cases today in which non-science based humanism has crept into school texts than the highly publicized battles over evolution/creationism.”
And yet you want to make it seem like I’M the one who brought the subject up? Are you losing it?
Are you trying to blame McCarthyism on liberals?
Nope, McCarthyism took place at a time when conservatives dominated academia, dominated the press and largely dominated politics. McCarthyism was the repugnant detritus of a political pendulum swung all the way to the right. Today we have liberal domination of academiam, liberal domination of the press and liberals largely dominate politics. Poltical correctness is the repugnant detritus of a political pendulum swun all the way to the left.
Today we have liberal domination of academiam, liberal domination of the press and liberals largely dominate politics.
Well, we know that’s what you guys think, Geoff, but it’s very exaggerated, paranoid, and demonstrably false. You should read Eric Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?” It’ll give you something to think about.
Academia is somewhat tilted to liberalism, probably as a result of “reality having a well-known liberal bias.”
The media and politics are actually pretty well balanced these days; except that what passes as liberal in media outlets and most Dem politicians is very circumscribed by the overriding interests of big corporations.
Do conservatives actually read or watch anything that doesn’t simply reinforce previously-held points-of-view? I see little evidence of that.
Yes, far more frequently than liberals.
You know, anon, and that’s the basic purpose of this ginned-up scandal which gave rise to this post: Now they know that NBC is AGAINST GOD – and by extension so is the rest of the Lamestream Media – that is, everyone except FOX and certain approved talk-radio hosts and websites – they have even more reason to stay inside their safe, truthful, patriotic, Christian citadel.
And I just noticed that one of the tags GW included at the top was “Anti-American”. When you link that with the subject of his post, how can he deny that he views not mentioning God in the pledge as “Anti-American” or “Un-American”? Or less than “American”? I mean, he can deny that linkage all he wants, but it’s right there for all to see.
Folks, if you review the writings over the last few weeks of the author of this post you will probably conclude, as I have, that he is a fellow whose mind is made up about most everything and not open to change. Given that, engaging in dialogue with him will produce nothing but retorts, often unsubstantiated or quoting from works of far right organizations with an agenda like his, or he turns silent. So, if you enjoy beating your head against the wall, or just seek good entertainment, carry on, but don’t think you will ever hear this fellow say – gee, I guess you are right and I was wrong.
Exactly. Or that maybe, just maybe, an issue is more nuanced than he’s presenting it. The need for everything in life to be seen in black and white, right/left, American/Anti-American, and the list goes on.
anon,
I often wonder what is wrong with people like GW, Newbie and junior, these “modern day” conservatives, they seem so extraordinarily stingy, petty and self centered.
Their justification behind their narrow views; that THEY are so hard working and self reliant and that taxes for our government services are just a drag on their potential (never-mind the fact that they have benefitted mightily from those same government services). They begrudge and belittle other workers contributions and hard work and they are so worried that someone will get-something-for-nothing that in order to prevent it, they are willing to destroy our social safety nets and even our government itself in the process.
I know plenty of successful people who have come from nothing, who struggled and overcame the odds and who still manage to be magnanimous.
One can be self made and still value and respect other people’s labor and contributions to society, one can still be successful and not begrudge the poor, the sick and the elderly, dignity.
I believe in the two-party system (or 4 to 5 party system) we NEED both conservatives and liberals for balance and to stem corruption by either side, but these “modern day” conservatives don’t seem to give a damn about anyone but themselves and their partisan agenda, they are destructive force in our society.
It makes me wonder if they suffer from a genetic defect.
The funny thing is they’re mostly nice people when you meet them, they give to charity, and generally most of them aren’t real racist any more…
They just have a crimped conception of what it means to be part of a nation, and a real difficulty accepting inconvenient facts.
I agree Vern, one of the nicest people I know is a republican, I think he, like a lot of republicans, don’t pay close attention to policy and bottom line; they just don’t want to pay taxes.
I accept that, I think it’s short-sighted, counter-productive and really, detrimental to their own well-being, but most republicans aren’t out to destroy the country and other people.
I don’t know GW, Newbie and junior personally, but I do believe based on their writings that they are in a different category, a hyper-partisan, win-at-all-costs and purely self-centered type of conservative.
Right now on this blog Geoff has three(?) posts up, this one, where he takes a poorly executed and accidental edit and tries to whip it up into an orchestrated attack on god and christians and two posts with the INFLAMMATORY words ” OBAMA MURDERGATE” in the title.
Geoff is a flame-thrower, he’s not concerned with facts, perspective or accuracy, he is only trying to inflame partisanship, and the truth-be damned.I know you sometimes have inflammatory titles on your posts for laughs, but their content aims for accuracy, Geoff’s do not.
The deceitfulness that is the trademark of Geoff’s posts, coupled with his pompous and condescending tone, create an ugly picture, one that doesn’t fit with my concept of a “nice person”.
Anonster, please reread your post. Now, based purely on the words and rhetoric that you have used – who is the flamethrower? nuff said.
” Now, based purely on the words and rhetoric that you have used – who is the flamethrower?”
Please, point out my inflammatory rhetoric in the above post. Unlike you I don’t MAKE STUFF UP in order to smear people and organizations.
I do try to hold you accountable and find out the truth, admittedly with more success sometimes than others, but you just post any right-wing crap that’s burning up the internet without bothering to fact check or even give it the smell test, like this post for instance.
In the post in which you evidently claim you do not use inflammatory rhetoric you say
1. “Unlike you I don’t MAKE STUFF UP in order to smear people and organizations,” and “you just post any right wing crap that’s burning up the internet without bothering to fact check or even give the smell test”
-You fail to identify anything that you think that I have MADE UP.
-Everything in this post is factually correct and supported by multiple mainstream sources or is my opinion – nothing is false or “made up” – I have not smeared any person or organization.
2. “It makes me wonder if they (Geoff and Newbie) suffer from a genetic defect.”
– Nothing personal or inflammatory there. I am sure that you have tests back from the lab for both of us to back up your point.
3. “GW, Newbie and junior . . . seem so extraordinarily stingy, petty and self centered.”
– No factual support, untrue and using inflammatory language.
4. “Their justification behind their narrow views”
-Completely a personal attack using inflammatory language
5.”They are willing to destroy our safety nets and even our government itself in the process.”
– This is one of my favorite techniques of the “politically correct” called “stake raising.” To cut off any debate equate your opponents argument to sedition aimed at overthrowing the entire democratic process and replacing it with a fascist state. In this way you can avoid actually dealing with your opponents arguments and just scare everyone into submission. Of course this is horribly inflammatory and COMPLETELY MADE UP since none of the three of us has EVER advocated either destroying social safety nets and certainly not destroying “our government itself.”
6. “one can still be successful and not begrudge the poor, the sick and the elderly, dignity.”
– Both purely inflammatory and wholly untrue. I advocate dignity and equal treatment for all – always have, always will. You define anyone that opposes the government as the sole source of sustenance to be evil and want to stamp out anyone that dare oppose your view.
7. “Conservatives don’t seem to give a damn about anyone but themselves and their partisan agenda, they are a destructive force in our society”
– Replace “conservatives” with “Jews” and this is inflammatory enough to be taken directly from a script for Hitler.
Anonster, my challenge to you to go back and read your own words to see the venom oozing from the page. If you truly can’t see it you are the type that sees you own viewpoint as “absolute right.” Through that lens everyone else MUST be wrong and any arguments contrary to your thinking MUST be made up.
First off Geoff, if you mean posts, plural, you need to say so, my mistake was to interpret your words literally.
“Anonster, please reread your post. Now, based purely on the words and rhetoric that you have used – who is the flamethrower? nuff said.”
My post directly preceding that, was NOT inflammatory, being a mind-reader is above my pay grade.
Now my rebuttal;
1)”-You fail to identify anything that you think that I have MADE UP.
-Everything in this post is factually correct and supported by multiple mainstream sources or is my opinion – nothing is false or “made up” – I have not smeared any person or organization.”
****************
WHERE did back up your contention that NBC purposely edited out “four little words” with any FACTS?
NBC within minutes apologized for their error, yet WITHOUT ANY PROOF you are certain that this was an intentional “stunt” and a “politically correct” ommission.
Oh, and if you want to back up your story with “multiple mainstream sources”, next time, CITE THEM.
2) I will concede that the “genetic defect” comment could be construed as “inflammatory”, although I was not aiming it strictly at you, but rather the whole crop of you “modern day” conservatives.
3) “GW, Newbie and junior . . . seem so extraordinarily stingy, petty and self centered.”
******************
My informed opinion, based on your (and others) posts and comments, unfortunately you are interpreting my words as being specifically aimed at you, I meant them more broadly.
4) “Their justification behind their narrow views”
***************
Again, my informed opinion, based on your (and others) posts and comments, unfortunately you are interpreting my words as being specifically aimed at you, I meant them more broadly.
5)”They are willing to destroy our safety nets and even our government itself in the process.”
**************
Sigh, again not specific to you, although you did make my point with this comment;
“I DO NOT want to destroy “social safety nets” and recognize that there are a few folks that we need to take care of that can’t take care of themselves. I would hope that private philanthropy could take care of that and for the first 170 years of U.S. history that is exactly how it was taken care of.”
The “destroy our government itself” comment was in reference to the foolish and very partisan game the republicans are now playing with the debt ceiling, they would trash our economy to tarnish Obama. That too, is my opinion, based on what I have read and heard.
6) “one can still be successful and not begrudge the poor, the sick and the elderly, dignity.”
– Both purely inflammatory and wholly untrue. I advocate dignity and equal treatment for all – always have, always will. You define anyone that opposes the government as the sole source of sustenance to be evil and want to stamp out anyone that dare oppose your view.”
******************
More whining and dodging, Geoff, you DON’T advocate dignity and equal treatment for all (unless atheists, government workers, union bosses and anyone needing government assistance (you prefer they should be dependent on charity,that’s sooo dignified) aren’t included in your “all” ), you just give those concepts, lip service.
7)“Conservatives don’t seem to give a damn about anyone but themselves and their partisan agenda, they are a destructive force in our society”
– Replace “conservatives” with “Jews” and this is inflammatory enough to be taken directly from a script for Hitler.”
**************
When you play the “Hitler” card, you automatically LOSE the argument.
*****************
“Anonster, my challenge to you to go back and read your own words to see the venom oozing from the page..”
What you consider “venom” I consider a different opinion, a healthy dose of snark and yes, disgust with the conservative agenda.
But enough about me, let’s look at you, every time someone disagrees with you, you dismiss their opinions with accusations of “censorship”, “political correctness”, game playing, or some other put down;
“Anon, I refuse to continue to play this game. You are trying to censor speach, you want to be the sole arbiter of where I can pray and where I can’t pray. Not going to happen and stop the juvenile tactic of telling me what I am saying.”
My advice, look in the mirror Geoff, all your projections are in reality, a reflection of yourself.
You all (starting with Geoff) need to be more precise with your use of “post” vs “comment” to avoid further confusion.
The post is the story Geoff wrote up at top.
Then we all wrote COMMENTS.
I HATE the disintegration of language. And blog-talk is still in flux. We have a responsibility here, to future generations.
Duly noted Vern, I will try and do my part for the preservation and advancement of internet linguistics.
Is it possible to get the ‘recent comments’ section reinstated?
dunno what happened to it, I will ask our brilliant webmaster Travis Kiger.
Annonster, here is the problem with virtually all of your responses – instead of directly dealing with the topic at hand you bring an ad hominem attack.
I don’t have any stats, but I would be willing to bet real money that philanthropy from GOP members far outstrips philanthropy from Democrats. Democrats are always willing to be “generous” as long as it is with someone else’s money.
Anonster believes that the source of all should be government. If we have a weak or disenfranchised group – let’s get the government to fix it. If there is a disparity in income – let’s ;let the government fix it. If there is a problem with the economy – let’s get the government to fix it.
I believe in the private sector. I do not “belittle other workers contributions and hard work” at all. I want everyone to be fairly compensated and I believe that the value of those services are properly determined by the market. I DO NOT believe that Anonster or the government should be the sole arbitor of what THEY beiieve to be fair value and I DO NOT believe that I am being petty or selfish if I disagree with their small minded selfish view that they are the sole arbiters of work value. I DO begrudge an attitude that says “I should get something for nothing,” or that “I am owed.” I think those attitudes are definitionally self centered and selfish.
I DO NOT want to destroy “social safety nets” and recognize that there are a few folks that we need to take care of that can’t take care of themselves. I would hope that private philanthropy could take care of that and for the first 170 years of U.S. history that is exactly how it was taken care of.
I won’t wallow in silly self serving “worries” about the genetic defects in Anonster – I have seen the myopic, self-centered liberal world view too often that says that they are simply right and everyone else is simply wrong far too often.
” I do not “belittle other workers contributions and hard work” at all.”
Right Geoff, this is how you describe folks who are fighting to hold onto their jobs during a time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment;
“The newest lawsuit brought by the “beleaguered” employees of Costa Mesa is just another in a long train of selfish lawsuits brought by public unions in a continuing effort to protect their fiefdoms. “
Anonster, while you do correctly correct my words, your mischaracterization of their meaning is almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. “The newest lawsuit brought by the “beleaguered” employees of Costa Mesa is just another in a long train of selfish lawsuits brought by public unions in a continuing effort to protect their fiefdoms. “
Given your “government will cure all ails” viewpoint, I could see how you could get confused by the difference between bloated, self-serving public unions and the working employees that the leviathan public union is supposed to represent.
“mischaracterization”?
You think that I am the one confused between your characterization of the “bloated, self-serving unions” and the “working employees”, well here are MORE of YOUR compassionate words for those poor folks who are worried and afraid of losing their jobs;
“Evidently viewing their jobs as permanent entitlements the public employees first howled at the moon and then sought an injunction to stop the City from having the ability to decide to save the taxpayers money.”
Yes, your articulate and “supported” arguments show that you have an open minde TILIRI – as your name shows you have done a good job of perfecting Orwellian doublespeak. Check out my response above about McCarthy to see if I am willing to admit issues with conservatives or consertive causes. I never see admissions like that out of anon or anonster (I will give Vern credit, he does occasionally show that he both hears and listens).
Gosh Geoff, You’re willing to admit that a black period in american history committed by conservatives over FIFTY YEARS AGO was wrong and that that proves that you’re open-minded and balanced, well, let me (and I bet anon would agree with me) admit that interning the Japanese-Americans during WWll under FDR was wrong.
Now we’re all fair and opened minded (eye-roll).
Right, and anon, anonster, and the other hard left liberals on here – they’re totally open minded.
GW, to go back to your professed Christianity, and nothing wrong with that, how do you equate the current Republican practice of rewarding the wealthy at all costs, and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor — of any age or race. What is so Christian about that?
He’s gonna come back with “the rich pay much more taxes than the poor.”
Which of course isn’t true.
Vern, we are talking income taxes – almost half of American’s pay ZERO while those in the top brackets pay 51% or more in INCOME taxes – how can you cling to your theory that high earners (which is very different from the “rich”) pay less tax?
If you are talking about sales tax, gasoline tax and other related “consumer” taxes, I am all ears on how to make that more “fair” (although consumptive rate seems like a pretty fair guide to me).
First of all, Christ would not have turned to the disciples and said “the Roman government should take care of the poor and the infirmed, please lobby them to change their taxing methods.” He taught that we should take care of those that can’t take care of themselves – NOT that the government should take care of those that can’t take care of themselves.
I’m also glad to hear that Jesus was more concerned about the Roman government and their tax code than he was about the poor.
I recall “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” which, for the time meant, “Just shut up and pay yer damn taxes.”
So much more true when we’re living in a democracy, not under a foreign occupier like Caesar.
Rapscallion. Before making statements about Jesus let me suggest you open a Bible where you might discover that Jesus dined with both tax collectors and sinners.
When asked why Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners Jesus replied “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” Mark 2v 17.
Unlike many people in our state he actually paid taxes (to the Jewish leaders who imposed a tax for upkeep of the temple).
Two thousand years ago there were Pharisees who tried to test Jesus as you apparently are trying now with regard to payment of taxes to the Romans. Jesus said “Bring me a denarius (coin) and let me look at it.” The brought the coin. And he asked them, “whose portrait is this? and whose inscription? Caesar, they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Let me now shift gears to point out his compassion toward the poor. Read Mark 19v21 “Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”
Check it out. Jesus did not arrive in a LAX limo nor did he live in a grand palace.
Let me close quoting with James 2v 2-4. NIV.
Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say , “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet.” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
So Rapscallion are you judging Jesus Christ attitude to the sick and the poor with your comment?
Umm… that’s a lotta bible quotes Brother Larry, but I’m not sure you’re making any point that you want to make.
I already did the Caesar thing. It kind of suggests that you should pay your taxes.
Vern. At the rate this thread grows it will probably continue through the 4th of July at which point we will have another opportunity to see if those two missing words, Under God, are again edited out.
Larry, I think you misconstrued my point. I was taking a sarcastic approach with our Christian friend Geoff who prefers a revisionist Republican Jesus who was more concerned with taxes than the poor.
Rapscallion. Thank you for the explanation. I do not take lightly to sarcasm relating to Jesus Christ
He wasn’t being sarcastic about Jesus Christ, he was sarcastically pretending to agree with Geoff’s vision of Jesus Christ.
This is what happens when you react to one comment without seeing its context in the whole thread.
Vern. We have each moved on and look forward to future debate on other issues.
Except you signed off with “I don’t take kindly,” which showed you were still being unfair to Rapscallion. OK. This is done now.
Vern. That was a blanket statement not directed solely to Rapscallion.
Let’s move on. No, that’s a bad choice of names.
Geoff, you have to be kidding when you put this steaming pile up:
“I DO NOT want to destroy “social safety nets” and recognize that there are a few folks that we need to take care of that can’t take care of themselves. I would hope that private philanthropy could take care of that and for the first 170 years of U.S. history that is exactly how it was taken care of.”
A few folks? With millions living under the poverty level? What will you say next–“Are there no workhouses? No debtors’ prisons?” You hope that private philantropy will take care of these unfortunates? What a pile. And Jesus apparently was not in favor of programs in which the rich were certainly implicated? (You know the famous quotes.) Have you no shame?
Christ also railed against the religious hierarchy, and the Old Testament prophets consistently railed against governments that treated the poor and oppressed among them unjustly.
Yeah! That was the rockin’ religion I dug.
Being a Christian I don’t get the big hoopla…the pledge of allegiance is a godless pledge anyways…you’re not pledging to God when you say it, you’re pledging to a piece of cloth (which, by the way, is known as idolatry by the God of the Bible) that represents what this nation offers and that is worthless money, war, materialism, greed, ignorance, complacence, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite…all of which are American Dreams! Our nation is so jacked up we tote freedom yet we’ve become a police state and don’t do anything about it. We have Halliburton, FEMA, etc, building concentration camps to exterminate dissenters and the general populace yet nobody is doing anything about it except maybe Jesse Ventura and Aaron Russo. See UTUBE Jesse Ventura Tru TV on police state and FEMA camps.
This can go on and on! Agree to disagree. No, I do not agree with changing the Pledge of Allegiance and quite frankly I am tired off all the ignorance that I hear.
Yes, I am a Republican and I actually grew up with OUT a lot of money so, figure that one out. I believe in helping the poor and for that matter, helping everyone better themselves! Give a man a fish and he will survive for a day or two, teach a man to fish and he will survive a lot longer. That is what republicans stand for and what I believe, to be quite honest.
I am a Christian and I will stand up for what I believe as well. I am sick and tired of everyone stating that we should be politically correct forcing us to take God out of everything. Leave it as it is. If you do not like it then don’t say it. Taking God out of something that has been in it for years seriously offends me, so honestly why should I cater to you? If you want, don’t add him in the ‘current’ leave history as it is.
This country was founded by people who believed in God, obviously, read a history book and you will see. If you don’t like it, that is too bad, stop trying to change what we have grown up with and what we know. The End.
Bye the way I see some of you to argue back and forth, don’t really care what is posted about opposing what I have written, so please do not waste your time. God bless you all.
“stop trying to change what we have grown up with and what we know. The End.”
“Bye the way I see some of you to argue back and forth, don’t really care what is posted about opposing what I have written, so please do not waste your time. ”
Don’t worry SH, one can easily recognize that you have a childish and utterly closed mind, any discussion with you would indeed be a total waste of time.
“Indeed” Mr. Anonster
Let me rephrase, God bless you more, Geoff for trying to talk some sense into this ruffian, when his main source of come back is some form of disrespect.
Obviously he sits behind his computer all day and awaits some type of response. Thus wasting his time, instead of doing something useful, he is living in his own small unprincipled world, where he knows all.
Our four fathers were not God less and all of our laws stem from that fact, I am sorry mr. anonster that is what our nation stands for. It is our History my dear.
By the way if one thinks it is better to live in another nation, maybe one should go reside there for a few years and see if they would rather live there than our FREE nation. It is, in fact FREE no matter what anyone of you say.You are free to do what you want. No one tells you what to do, you have a choice, you do not have to say the Pledge of Allegience no one makes you say it. It is part of our history and something that should be preserved. We should keep it the way it is and the way it was intended to be addressed.
Is it really that bothersome to you people? That you have to make such a big deal about it. Is not other things in life a bigger deal? Like harsher punishment for criminals, or helping the poor, or rising gas prices?
If you care so much about the Pledge being part of our history, and not changing it, then you really shouldn’t be saying “Under God.”
But I don’t really give a damn.
“Our four fathers were not God less…”
Some of them were. Some of our Founding Fathers were agnostic…or at the very least, secular. Some were Deists…they acknowledged a “higher power” but did not worship Christ. In other words, they weren’t Christians.
SH,
If you (and Geoff?) really have “four fathers”, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on god, but rather on getting Prop. 8 repealed, after all you don’t want to remain a bastard all your life, c’mon help your dear old dads make their union (and you), legal.
Ooh Anonster you are wasting your time? On my “childish and utterly closed minded” thoughts?
Figure of speech… Who has childish tendencies here? Prop. 8? Really? It is a different topic all together and I choose not to discuss it with you. You would not be able to handle my opinion.
Anon, I see your dispute. I was generally speaking. I believe at least 77- 83% of America today are Christians and you can not deny that. Non religion is 13% and 4% are all non Christian religions. The ancestry of this nation did have influence on that.
“I believe at least 77- 83% of America today are Christians and you can not deny that.”
Yes I can. 76% identify themselves as “Christian”…that doesn’t mean that they are.
Case in point…many say they believe in God, but they don’t follow the teachings of Christ. They aren’t Christians. But they identify themselves as such. Those folks are included in that 76% figure.
Sh,
I must admit, it’s not everyday one gets to parley with a genuine bastard, an opportunity I just couldn’t pass up.
I don’t believe SH is getting your joke. SH, you wrote that you had “four fathers” instead of “forefathers.” If this is the case, there’s no way your “four fathers” could be married.
Still, anonster, I bet there are more of us bastards out here than you would imagine.
Yes, but how many bastards have four fathers? I guess I should’ve been more accurate; bastard², a rare, fair thing indeed.
Imagine the sexual scenes the poor dear must have had to witness at such a tender age; the ostracism and whispering at school events; oh, the humanity!
Vern. I saw her forefather typo and corrected it earlier today.
That wasn’t a typo. It was one of many eccentric misspellings. You shouldn’t be correcting people’s comments Juice Brother – you deprive them of a lot of their flavor and (unintentional) humor.
Vern. A valid point in this example.
My goodness, such comedians! I can not believe how the misspelling of a word put you all in a state of delirium. Of course Anonster had a moment of glory… considering he was doing what he enjoys the most.
Yes, Vern, thank you for clarifying, although, did not expect the sexual innuendo/fantasy from you. It was very amusing.
To go way back, to the actual subject matter, Anon, they still identify themselves as being Christians. If they are professing that they are Christians, then I am sure they believe in God, and in Christ. Whether they follow all of his teachings or not, I do not know.
Ah, you know that most Americans are just conformists. And a lot of them will just answer that they’re “Christian” because it seems like the right answer. How many of them actually go to church, or can quote the Bible to you, or behave in a remotely Christlike way? Not the percentage you cite, that’s for sure.
And you’re right that we do like to sometimes be comedians here. Try it with me – FOREFATHERS. Like, the ones who came beFORE. What did you think, it was the four guys on Mt. Rushmore?
“Try it with me – FOREFATHERS. Like, the ones who came beFORE. What did you think, it was the four guys on Mt. Rushmore.”
No Vern, I did not, although two of the four presidents depicted on Mt. Rushmore, among being the greatest, were founding fathers. Try it with me – WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON….
You are trying to hard to insult me. You take joy in being a buffoon, I understand. Let’s move forward, Vern.
My rebuttal to your statement (before your insults) is that Christians do not claim to be perfect, nor always act Christ-like, that is because we are all imperfect beings. This does not prove that they are not Christians. Most people just naturally believe in a higher power – God. The percentage is not as exaggerated as you make it seem.
SH,
Please acquaint yourself with the English language BEFORE you try and use it.
YOU are the very definition of the word “buffoon”;
buf·foon noun \(ˌ)bə-ˈfün\
1: a ludicrous figure : clown*
2: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person*
*bingo
Anonster. See my reply to SH. As a regular contributor you, of all people, know our Juice rules
You know Larry, I’m having trouble keeping a CIVIL tongue with you, YOUR childish behavior over the last few days makes me think that YOU shouldn’t be chastising ANYONE right now!
Yes, because disagreeing with the righteous Annonster definitionally means you are being uncivil.
Anonster. Chastizing? So sorry that my providing a recap of our few Juice blog rules bothers you.
If I were you I would I would simply ignore Larry Gilbert’s posts in that you have so many others to select from, or should I say criticize.
Geoff,
Having trouble with your reading comprehension again?
I never said Larry was being “uncivil”, nor was Larry “disagreeing” with me.
So your point was?????
Larry,
Your “few Juice blog rules”, that you selectively enforce and that YOU are one of the main violators of;
“How about staying on the thread or more specifically how does your list relate to the topic?”
NO ONE on this blog careens off the thread as much as you do.
Face it, this is just your juvenile way of retaliating against me for making you look foolish on another post.
Anonster. The Juice rules were created by our founder. And yes, I do go off thread.
That will no longer occur. Let’s see if others comply.
No, come on, don’t not go off the thread. There’s really nothing wrong with that. Just stop scolding other people for going off the thread.
No Vern. Let the geriatric Pearl Clutcher scold everyone for his hypocritical behavior. It’s the comedic ammunition we all need to ridicule his recent foray into 700 Club style political paranoia.
3-1 odds say Pearl Clutcher’s “pledge” lasts no longer than 2 weeks. 2-1 for an entire month.
I must say, GF, that I am intrigued by your “pearl clutcher” imagery.
I can’t decide if I should picture Larry clandestinely clutching at his own pearls that are hidden under his Fruit-of-the-Loom white t-shirt, or if Larry is clutching his wife’s pearls while simultaneously holding on to her apron strings and moaning “mommy,” `a la Ronnie Ray-gun.
Pearl Clutching Puritans know no political affiliations.
Anonster,
Please acquaint yourself with what you are…
geek [giːk]
n Slang
1. a boring and unattractive social misfit
2. a person who is preoccupied with or very knowledgeable about computing
3. a degenerate
*bingo
SH. Perhaps you are not aware of our simple rules for adding comments on this blog.
Let me start with a few easy ones. No personal attacks or use of profanity.
How about staying on the thread or more specifically how does your list relate to the topic?
SH,
Sigh, the rules for asterisks;
Put in asterisks when you want to reference a source. An asterisk tells the reader to look for the reference source elsewhere*
*You are MISSING a “reference source elsewhere”.
See; buffoon
Larry, I apologize
I am done with the discussion. Anonster and Vern are more interested in holding an English class rather than to stay on the subject matter anyway.They can discuss this subject among themselves.
Thank you Anonster, for the grammar lesson. To clarify, I meant the whole definition, no need for the use of asterisks. I was just imitating you.
“*bingo”
SH,
Thank you, I’ve always believed that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Thats because the only thing that old girl and the old man have is their second rate education! No matter what they say about grammar, spelling etc….The misspelled words if the truth are still the truth!
Liberals come from Harvard, Oxford, USC….But the end of the day, an education is only as useful as the person who was lucky enough to have been given the money for it! Any idiot can learn from a book, year after year, it’s the natural wit and intellect of the person that matters with or without an education. So I cannot critique a persons spelling, but on world affairs and wit, I am your girl! Don’t listen to old shite dealer, she has had way too many champagne brunches! 🙂
An Larry, for God sake, it’s not fu$%ing play ground, our feelings won’t get hurt if personal attacks are used against use…I have know the source for a while…Right over my head mate!
Good morning MQ. The policy, which I support, dates back to Art and for good reason.
We can all make our argument without the need to resort to personal attacks which add nothing to the post topic.
Bye the way, NBC our a bunch of twits who can’t even get that our DNA is so complexed that it could not have possibly been created by nothing. Who cares if the twits leave out what they cant possibly understand. As long as you DO!!
K! Night, nite:)
I am a Christian and I have a strong belief in God and his Son, Jesus. I have been taught to be blind when it comes race, religion, sexual orientation/preference. I do not judge…it’s not my place too. I KNOW what MY beliefs are. While I respect others opinions and views, I would never back down from what my beliefs are. I will NEVER change how I feel, act, speak, write when dealing with another that has different beliefs. I would expect the same from them. I will NEVER be disrespectul to someone who has different beliefs. We live in a world that is divided by differences. If it were dark and we could not see eachother….we are all the same. It’s how we look, how we act and what are beliefs are that make us individually unique.
NBC did what they did….doesn’t make a difference why they did it….it doesn’t change the way I feel about God. Just like if someone tells me “Happy Holidays”, I will say “Merry Christmas.” I don’t mean to be disrespectful, it’s just what I believe in and I won’t change my responses to accomodate someone else’s belief.