It should only limit them from saying two words in the pledge
Posted By: Reality check on 2005-09-15
In Reply to: I'm not sure of all the formal legal implications, but (sm) - just another democrat
under God which only leaves about about a second of dead air time. It's really a lot of money spent to try to get a second's worth of it out kind of like spending millions of dollars to remove a mole you don't like.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
There is already a LIMIT to how much they get
for prescription drugs - hence, the "donut hole." Most elderly cannot afford their drugs the entire year (I know, my mother can't afford her meds for 4months out of the year) - so, maybe there will be some oversight in how much these drug companies and pharmacies CHARGE for Rx drugs.
I don't think there's a limit to what a good mother will do,
be it grizzly or human, when her child is taken from her, and no valid, truthful explanation is given as to why.
Look at the lengths Beth Twitty is going to in Aruba. She wants answers, as well.
Somehow, though, it seems worse when you entrust your child to your government and then, once the shock and disbelief has passed and most of the other grieving stages have passed, you wake up one morning and realize the man you believed and believed IN, the president of the United States, deceived and lied to you and continues to lie to other mothers all over the country. My heart goes out to this brave woman and all those other mothers who also have lost their children. If Bush had 1/1,000th of her courage, this country might be in a much safer place today.
Bush first ex-prez to face limit on Secret Service protection
By Maria Recio McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush's "after-life," as Laura Bush calls the post-presidency, is shaping up to be pretty comfortable, with a Dallas office, staffers, Secret Service protection, a travel budget, medical coverage and a $196,700 annual pension, all at taxpayers' expense.
However, Bush will be the first president not to benefit from one former lifetime benefit: Secret Service protection.
"He'll be the first one to receive it for 10 years," said Malcolm Wiley, Secret Service spokesman. Congress changed the law in the 1990s so that any president elected after Jan. 1, 1997, and his or her spouse will receive the federal protection for only 10 years.
The Bushes will move to their new $2 million, 8,500-square-foot Dallas home — not paid for by taxpayers — on Jan. 20, and there Bush will be close to his future presidential library at Southern Methodist University.
"We're working on a conceptual design for the building," said Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation. The president will help develop the $300 million structure, which will include a library, museum and policy institute.
Fundraising is just beginning, Langdale said. Once the project is finished in 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration will take over the operation of the library and museum, at federal expense. Construction will be paid for with private funds, and Bush is expected to be involved in organizing the fundraising drive.
"He is enthusiastic about spending a lot of his time and effort working on the programs of the institute," Langdale said.
Bush will maintain an office nearby in space acquired by the General Services Administration, which, under the Former Presidents Act, will pay for the office suite and staff to assist him for the rest of his life.
Bush's pension, which is tied to the base pay of the most senior government executives and increases with federal cost-of-living adjustments, will be about half the $400,000 annual presidential salary. He and Vice President Dick Cheney will receive transition expenses as well for seven months — one month before the inauguration and six months afterward — "to facilitate their transition to private life," according to the Congressional Research Service.
The GSA also covers travel expenses for any official activities attended by a former president, as well as two staff members. Former President Bill Clinton was allocated $50,000 for travel in fiscal year 2008 and former President George H.W. Bush, $56,000.
Former presidents and their families are entitled to health care in military hospitals, although they have to pay a reimbursement rate set by the Office of Management and Budget.
Bush will receive a state funeral upon his death, with full military honors for the former commander in chief.
Pledge
I remember back in high school, when we still said the pledge in home room..A friend's brother was killed in Vietnam and she refused to stand for the pledge or say it..The teacher told her to stand and say it, she refused. She was sent to the principal's office and suspended for not staying the pledge.
pledge
I say if they don't want to say under God, then just don't say the pledge. Our forefathers designed this pledge and it should STAY THAT WAY!!!!!
PLEDGE AGAIN
I STAND CORRECTED -STILL THINK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY UNDER GOD, THEN JUST DON'T SAY IT! HOW MANY SCHOOLS ACTUALLY SAY THE PLEDGE ANYWAY?
pledge
Under god was put into the pledge only in the 1950s..our forefathers did not create a pledge with under god in it..It should go back the way it was..If someone wants under god, say it to yourself, not in a pledge that is supposed to represent ALL Americans, even those who do not believe in a god.
Pledge...sm
I love #1, but personally don't agree with 8 or 9.
Erase Michael Moore (because that name drives some people wild) and I think this is the direction Pelosi wants to go.
Pledge
Well, there it is in print. You think that is the direction Pelosi wants to go. Please to put her name in a Google search and read all she has had to say up to the elections and tell me again how much she loves conservatives and wants to work with them. In other words, pull the other leg. She could have worked with Republicans for the last 8 years if she really believed that. What she means is, she wants Republicans to come to her side to push forward the most liberal agenda known to man whether that is good for anyone but Nancy Pelosi or not. You don't have to be in control to work with the other side. Why on God's green earth would anyone believe her now? Sigh. Conservatives got tired of Republicans not doing the job too, that is why they are out. Democrats are not in because they are doing a stellar job. They are in because conservatives were sending a message to Republicans and if you will note, it is mostly moderate Democrats who were voted for, not the liberal far left. That is my opinion of the vote this time. I do not see it as an endorsement for Democrats. I see it as a wakeup call for Republicans. P.S. Come back to this board in about 10-12 months and let's talk about what Nancy Pelosi is saying and doing. Her true colors will come out. It already has...supporting John Murtha over a moderate Democrat and wanting to appoint a fella who was impeached as a judge (and who she voted to impeach by the way). Sigh. I do not find her very trustworthy.
Maybe we all need to say the pledge every once in a while...
to remind ourselves that it is "one country, under God", not one country under whomever happends to be president.
While I have not been a Bush supporter for a long time, this article was really just another slam at Bush, the "wanna-be-facist", and could just as easily be turned around to say Obama, the wanna-be-socialist.
As a country, we are the great experiment, but if we fail, what are we left with?
Maybe we should all say the pledge next time we pass a flag.
Pledge unconstitutional
Federal Judge in Calif. Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional |
 |
 |
Kindergartners at Mayfair Elementary recite the Pledge of Allegiance Thursday, June 27, 2002 in Fresno, Calif. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional, but one of the two judges who issued the ruling came out with another order that will keep the decision from taking effect, until the full appeals court can reconsider it. (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian) |
09-14-2005 1:43 PM
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words under God was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation under God violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,' Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.
I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made, said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance, Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation and added that his opinion will satisfy no one involved in that debate.
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words under God was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis, Newdow said.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment. |
leave out god in the pledge
Why not say the pledge which we have been brain washed to say but leave the two words out? Let those who want to hook up god with country to say in god to themselves.something I may say our forefathers did not want us to do..to put together state and church..
No one should ever be required to say a pledge to anyone or anything.
Pledges are personal choices. Being forced to recite one is the opposite of freedom.
Every child in every classroom has the right to refuse to pledge.
god was added to the pledge of allegience
in the 1950s, during the Red scare, it wasn't originally written that way.
Those types of words are unnecessary and actually ARE racist words. sm
Those types of phrases are offensive and are intended to be offensive. This election should not be about race. If it is about race for you, then you are probably one of the ignorant people using those words. Very rude!!
I didn't know "under God" was not in the original pledge. sm
And I don't know the circumstance underwhich it was amended, but yeah you make a sound case and I can't help but agree that it should be taken back out and separation of church and state is a good thing.
When you make the case this way it makes sense to me because I have been very neutral about the 10 commandments in government buildings and the pledge being recited in the classes. But, people can spread the Word and fellowship on private time, but this should be off school property, off government property, etc. That would be true separation of church and state.
Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives sm
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, Blessed are the peacemakers, Love your enemies, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
You're right....words are just words...so are Obama's...
...and don't/won't mean anything to many people, myself included.
He is no MLK.
It is a historic moment, of that I have no doubt. And yes, he has come far.
However, one still needs to have strength of character to back the words up for true meaning, and he is sadly lacking in that area.
Nothing but words hon, and we know how Obama's words
nm
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Just a few words
For you to even think something like that shows you have it in your brain. I would never post some of the derogatory posts you and your friends from the conservative board have posted to me and to others. Does it bother you that much that I post strong opinions and refuse to be cowed by nasty responses? I have thick skin and I can roll with the punches. Seems to me every time I post you and your friends just have to respond, no matter what I post. By you responding so forcefully shows you are threatened by my ideology and the bigger picture, the liberal/democratic ideology. Be happy with your beliefs and espouse them but stop attacking people for their beliefs..In other words, chill out..you will do your heart a favor. This is a free country, my opinions are mine and I will continue to have them. Nothing you say will change my beliefs..so dont waste your time trying..I also must say, if you want to talk about people sounding like lunatics, re-read some of the conservative posts. A few profess to never attack or call names, yeah right, there is so much back biting and name calling on that board..but hey, its fair game when you are dealing with politics. they are all just words, nothing more. My bigger quest is to help turn this country around to the country I knew and loved through grass roots politics, belonging to the local democratic party and making sure the right ones get in mid year elections and in three years. This is just a politics board, LOL, nothing that gets my blood pressure elevated, that is for sure..The majority of Americans feel we are headed down the wrong track and our priorities are wrong. The latest poll shows the people losing faith and trust in Bush and his credibility is going down. The majority think Iraq was a mistake and worry that attacking Iraq made us less secure and more prone to attacks. Seems to me my opinions and those of most that post on the liberal board (save for the few conservatives who post here to attack and disrupt) are in the mainstream of American thought, fears and concerns. Now, I would hope the attacks will stop, as I will not respond to them anymore. If you want to debate, post the debate and Im sure many will join in but no one wants to be part of a board where crazy accusations such as you and yours have been posting about me keep getting posted.
Yes, among other words. NM
These were your words.
Still on this board!!! Tell me how what you said below is the same as:
As far as Iraq, of course, you twisted that all out of context. Lurker asked if I would go to Iraq to help rebuild and I said yes, if I could I would, but please don't tell the truth and continue to twist because you are twisted.
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all. NM
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Liberals]
Posted By: MT on 2005-08-24,
In Reply to: Ridiculous...I think not - Lurker
There are no words, only
thoughts and prayers. I am so very sorry.
HER words (yet again):
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all.
Not *would* join.... WILL JOIN. WILL GO AGAIN. WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those who believe in telling the truth can easily see the distortion.
The key words are
*announced* and *Bin Laden.*
Clinton announced to AMERICANS that he was specifically targeting Bin Laden. Remember him? HE was the guy responsible for 9/11, and HE is the guy that Bush ignored to instead invade Iraq.
Clinton wasn't targeting average Americans who are trying to pay off their J. C. Penney bills, and Clinton never used intimidating tactics towards American citizens.
Bush doesn't know how to do anything BUT use secrets, intimidation and fear tactics.
Words
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I would choose to have an abortion, or choose to end life (which to me, are still 2 different things). I said that I believe in choice.
I have two words for you. SM
Walid Shoebat. I am willing to bet he knows way more than your professor about the Middle East and he doesn't agree with either one of you.
Wow! In her own words no less. I do not want any
.
Two words
There is a word spelled choose and a word spelled chose. They certainly are confused a lot these days.
Choose is present tense and chose is past tense. They are pronounced differently.
I'm not picking on the poster; just making a general observation about a term many people misuse.
what a way with words . . .
guffaw.
WOW, you use BIG words, just like O!
I am so happy for you!
In their own words
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
I'd love to know why I should have to bail out anyone. If my husband and I overextended ourselves and spent like drunken sailors we'd have nobody to blame but ourselves. So in that same concept we should turn to someone and essentially hand the bill for it over to him/her?
Also, as a Texan, we'll now be on the hook for billions (per the radio) from Ike. My husband and I don't HAVE a billion here, a billion there. They throw around million, billion, and trillion like it's petty cash!
In your own words. sm
The middle class disappears...money at the very top, and that's it. The middle class and the lower class become the same. Can you not see that is what has happened already in America?
your words
"and this notion that the democrats ruined everything since they took over - excuse me, we are not supposed to have 1 party in total power, remember that one? when you get all sides represented and respected, you have more freedom." Those are your words. What do you think we will have if Obama wins?? A democrat for president and a democratic congress. That would be one party in power, and that is not a pretty picture at all.
In other words........... sm
everything except his experience.
He was not addressing all the issues you listed in the video. Did you even WATCH it?
Yes, he might have known the words, but
But, you are supposed to repeat the oath given to you,word for word, and this would have been the "wrong" oath, so the justice had to correct himself, so the right oath was administered.
Do the words......(sm)
great depression and new deal ring a bell? I guess Econ 101 was too much for ya, so let's go back to high school American history. 
In other words....(sm)
there are no facts to support your claim. You guys just spout out anything...LOL.
In other words....(sm)
They don't want to admit that they get their info from Fox. They seem to be very anxious to spread all the crap that Fox comes up with, but when they are confronted to show facts they seem to be embarrassed about their source (assuming there is one)......Hmmmm...
So in other words
UAW = good. Insurance companies = bad?
The key words here are.............. sm
OPPORTUNITY versus REQUIREMENT.
I will use you as an example since you have said that you and your husband were married before a JP.
You have, in your scenario, met the qualifications of being able to have the benefits of marriage in terms of taxes, etc. You have the OPPORTUNITY to be married in a religious ceremoy if you so choose (which will be highly unlikely given that you and your husband are both atheists).
Conversely, my husband and I who were married in a religious ceremony would be REQUIRED to obtain a union in order to have the same benefits that you and your husband hold.
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree with everything you said.
I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious. Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be. If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?
What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war. They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad." But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war. The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation. One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.
It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls.
So in other words, God offends you.
/
They were just using one of your favorite words
or do you own the copyright of the word liar?
Your exact words....
(quote)Believe me, If Scarborough is upset with Bush, there's a reason. He's always supported Bush.(unquote)
Actions vs words.
Bush cannot recommend a constitutional amendment defining marriage as taking place between a man and a woman without a healthy respect for the Constitution itself. One does not merely walk into Iraq on the basis of a **** piece of paper. This story is a year and a half old. The publication who broke this story is about as far left as one can get. If the reputable publications from both sides of the fence felt it was a real story, they would have certainly run with it. They didn't. That' s my take on it after examining it.
Yes, they are very fine words..
written by some very fine minds. Ghandi says much the same. I think I'll stick with the great minds. Cat bites and scratches dangerous ?...sometimes...people who mistreat animals or wish them harm dangerous ?...always.
Those are really fine words.
However, if the cat is harming human life, and everyone knows how toxic a cat scratch or bite can be, and the owner refuses to maintain her animal, what is the solution? Maybe a new home.
Words of this century...sm
Stay the course.
It's hard work.
Liberate the Iraqis.
I'm a patriot (and you're not).
Did I mention *it's hard work, staying the course to liberate the Iraqis because I'm a patriot (and you're not).*
Any ring to those words? Boy, if Peewee were still in the playhouse now.
Anywho, the point is and you said it yourself, Fox is a conservative leaning network. And the liberal guests can debate, you may feel they can't because they are double teamed by the anchor/pundit and the conservative guests.
You know my game? You don't even know your own words.
I responded directly to your post and quoted your own name calling words, but you don't know what I'm talking about?!
|
