Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.

Posted By: Libby on 2005-09-15
In Reply to: pledge - duck

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.




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

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.
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking.  If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.

I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well.  I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards. 
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
the original settlers

She said, and I quote "the original settlers"


Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original

For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands.  The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side.  I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it.  If he does that keep your eye on the polls.  People will be outraged.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded

the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media.  Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive?  you can't have it both ways.


 


The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.

You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.

Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.

And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.

They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).

So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.


Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.

oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Oldtimer was the original poster
You would have probably gotten that had you not been in such a hurry to jump my post. I have nothing to hide, nothing to get away with and see no real reason to dumb down the phrasology, tone or content of my posts. I respond in kind to to folks who have no real interest in viable political issues, are constantly in attack mode, have pronounced adversions to logic, reason and facts and who haul out the holier-than-thou, pious, elite accusations when trying to avoid any sort of intelligent discourse.

There will always be opposition around who can be as in-your-face as the you choose to be...or not. If I "bother" you somehow, so be it. Right wingers bother me too, but you don't see me going around trying to kick them off the board or telling them they post more than they should.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give respect and get respect. That's the way it works in the grown-up world. It's your choice.
I took the original poster for observing 9/11 ...sm
to be in the same spirit of both Sen. Obama and McCain, and that was to put aside differences, for one day, and be kind to one another, and not make political statements that are inflammatory to one another. To come together and to be one nation, without division, so to speak, on this of all days.

That's all the original poster was asking for.

We are free to choose how we act, as we wish, you are correct in that.

I choose to post today and be kind. I could post about how I feel about certain candidates, but it is not the day for that.

I choose to remember everyone today, you included, I remember that we are one, as we are all Americans, all New Yorkers, on this of all days.


Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated

is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied.  He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.


John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?


Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.


People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.


Maybe you still have your original birth certificate...sm
I sure didn't. When I went to get a passport I had to order a copy from the city where I was born. It was a photocopy. All birth certificate copies come with a seal for authenticity. There are no more "originals filed". Everything is computerized or on microfilm.
and we come back to the original point.
Is it moral to befriend a terrorist?
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.

As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.


See the original summary enclosed

The law that passed is updating the Brady Law.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02640:@@@D&summ2=3&


Are you at all capable of original thought?
used on the forum today at least a dozen times. It has just about as much meaning in this post as it did early this morning....zero. Why don't you confine yourself to speaking on behalf of your own flock, 'cause you sure hs hades don't know what you are talking about when you try to speak for the other 69,456,897 fellow citizens who voted Obama into office.
How about something original...your wonder boy is in deep crap...
and he knows it...just 2 weeks in and already can't remember what he promised. The coming 4 years are going to be great to watch; the Messiah implodes, millions who have been hoodwinked will have their eyes opened and they will STILL blame Bush.
Probably because he never left his original faith
but only stated he was Christian to acquire more votes.

The people who leave that faith know the consequences and some live in fear the rest of his life.

Never believe he changed to begin with.
I saw the original of this earlier today. sm
I was so upset I wanted to call CNN and tell them in no uncertain terms that they needed to fire that wench and get somebody who would let the people talk without being interrupted. Personally, if it had been me she was haranging, I would be in jail because I probably would have swung at her.

That woman is worse than Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and others of her ilk. SHe gives the honest, hardworking reporters a bad name.

No wonder the alphabet soup and MSM groups have lost any and all credibility.


I do know what the original SS draft looked like....
A great great uncle of mine was a friend of Roosevelt and was a long-time military man. He finally retired and went back to the midwest when Roosevelt called him and asked him to please come back to Washington to draft a plan for SS.

We are fortunate to have this to see and I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with freeloaders and moochers but was to look out for the older crowd. Yes, they were taking into account the average lifespan of a man and then their windows, so she could have money to help feed their children if he died early. This was in part because of the stock market crash where so many lost their life's savings. It was never never meant to be what it has turned into. Wealthy older Americans were not to have this money JUST because they hit a certain age. If they had money, they were not to draw SS, only those with extreme need.

Unfortunately, over the decades government has turned SS into anything but its intended use.
Have you ever had an original thought in your head?

I mentioned above that a few weeks ago, someone had suggested that JTBB and I get a room, as follows:


What a suckup


Posted By: Get a room on 2009-05-31
In Reply to: Thank you for that, Marmann. s/m - the truth is out there


You've got something on your nose there, Skippy."


Now in today's ONE THREAD, the same "suggestion" was made twice.  So that's THREE times in two weeks that this weak "shot" was aimed towards me and/or JTBB.  If that old recycled BS is the best thing you can come up with, then you're beyond pitiful.


I don't need to "get a room" with anyone simply because I agree with that person, but it sounds like some of you could benefit greatly by placement in an asylum.


 


Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
This is great. I liked the original by Chris Martin sm
and Cold Play the first time I heard it. Chris Martin wrote this song for his wife Gwenyth to console her after the death of her father, when you lose something, you can't replace...I will try to fix you...tears stream down your face, when you lose something you cannot replace, tears run down your face and I will fix you... It truly sounds like he was with his wife during a really dark time for her. Really touching.
Original poster is well informed and did the research
This is total Hogwash!!!! Please provide a link that I can view the document showing he voted against giving medical care to babies who survive abortion. This is just rubbish being spewed by the (oh how I hate to say this word) right wing in favor of McCain. I won't believe it until I see the document with his signature against medical care.

Obama has devoted his entire life to helping people. This idea of how he is for abortions (torturing of innoicent babies) telling people they need to leave them sitting on a bare table to rot in the same room as some filthy toilet is pure GARBAGE!

Obama is for helping people in the community, the less fortunate, the needy, the hungry, the unemployed, the children, the education system, the elderly, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. To spread this type of smear is about as low as the republicans can go.

So all I say is prove it. Provide a link showing Obama's signature.
To the poster who asked the original question.
BDAyes response. I realize that my concept of this is biased by a leftward lean. Nevertheless, I am not alone in this viewpoint and she has said it better than I ever could because I DO get very passionate on the subject of Katrina refugees.

My best friend lost 2 family members in that storm because they could not get out in time. In any case, I thought it was best to frame the question in this format so you could get a broader perspective than my own and hear from all sides. I tried my best to fend off the bashes and innuendo I myself was giving into yesterday. I had three hours of sleep the night before, stocking up, boarding up, and calling relatives who live closer to the Gustav's bullseye to tell them to come on down to my place.

Next day, I spent several hours posting in the middle of the acidic environment of this forum to which I was vulnerable. By the time late night rolled around, I was not exactly in my top form and never really am when it comes to this subject.

You see, my best friend still wakes up in the middle of the night being tortured by the memory of her own near-death experience and the loss of her grandmother and father. I tell her to call me whenever it happens. She does. I listen. For some of us, it is WAY personal and we are still living out the aftermath of that tragedy and the way it was handled.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
Perhaps the original poster naively thought
if not just for a moment, and share in a common human experience? Probably realized the post would be open to attack, but was hoping for the best to show itself....just once.
Was referring to original link about OOPE.
I did take look at her section about alleged McCain attack, where Obama was contrasting his tax policy to McCain's and simply stated the truth. This is not attack. It is a statement of the obvious.

Malkin is the poster child for PMS, trite and petty. That's what makes her articles so easy to overlook.
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
I mean ignore the original posters message
Not mine of course. :-)

I am all for freedom of speech and letting us decide for ourselves. Obviously the OP is not.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
my original comment was about whether I would vote for him next time or not -
I know I can complain, but that is not going to get him out of office. I was talking about giving him time to see what happens before I decide to vote for him, against him, or against the next person.
Follow the thread back up. The original question was not about CS's son. nm
.
That was not a personal potshot...it was a joke and the original poster got it....
even if you didn't. The original poster....did you look at that post? Obviously tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Take that as you will through your personal filter. :)
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.