Dammit!

Post #43,539 by Brandioch 6/26/02 4:53:07 PM Reply	Dammit! Now how are we going to identify the God-less Communists hiding in our country? The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. So? Change "God" to "Allah" and see how many people have a problem with it. :) "minimal"! Ha!
Post #43,550 by bepatient 6/26/02 6:27:24 PM Reply	Well...we'll just have to.. ...see if their hands tremble when holding money. Actually...I see us having to spend millions retooling the mints... You know...good, common sense investment principles...we don't have anything better on which to spend our bad, nay, >evul< religious currency. Everyone get your markers out...make sure it says "In xxx We Trust" Nope...nothing better to do as a collective but make sure our kids aren't >swayed< by the big bad wolf. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,551 by Brandioch 6/26/02 7:02:42 PM Reply	Ah, once again, you missed the point. Like I posted, supposed it was "Allah" instead of "God"? No, don't suppose. Since you feel so strongly on this point, why don't you have your children replace "God" with "Allah" in the PoA at school and see what happens to them. After all, it isn't such a big thing, is it? Just indoctrination.
Post #43,554 by bepatient 6/26/02 8:19:18 PM Reply	Nope...you missed mine. There was no support given in my post for the recitation of the PoA at school. Just wondering...now that they've whacked that "under God" as unConstitutional...when are they gonna start retooling the mints. >My< point was that we have WAY bigger fish to fry. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,560 by Brandioch 6/26/02 8:27:56 PM Reply	Maybe I was reading that incorrectly. >My< point was that we have WAY bigger fish to fry. Since the article was about the PoA and removing "under God" from that, your response would seem to be about that. While there may be "bigger fish" out there, this is a very simple task to accomplish. And it has already been accomplished. Done. If you're refering to retooling the plates..... That wasn't mentioned in the story. That is something you introduced. So, if you're complaining that we have bigger fish than something that you introduced that wasn't addressed in the article......... Whatever.
Post #43,573 by bepatient 6/26/02 10:32:51 PM Reply	Wow.... ...high density. Or vacuum. Can't figure which sometimes. Whatever backatcha. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,585 by Brandioch 6/26/02 11:43:07 PM Reply	Let me simplify this for you. #1. The discussion was about "under God" making the PoA unConstitutional when kids are forced to recite it in public schools. #2. You spewed various bits which included that this was minor and we had bigger fish. #3. The LOGICAL deduction was that you were addressing the topic of the previous post. #4. The LOGICAL deduction would have been wrong as you were addressing your own spew and claiming that your own claims, which were tangentially related to the previous post, were minor. Great. Whatever. You don't have any comment about the TOPIC of the PREVIOUS POST, but you feel compelled to post anyway. Whatever.
Post #43,612 by bepatient 6/27/02 7:13:59 AM Reply	My my Full of piss-n-vinegar are we? Find out about the guy who filed the lawsuit. He wants 2 things. One of them was legislated yesterday. The other one was referenced in my "spew". Whatever backatcha squared, dood. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,629 by Brandioch 6/27/02 10:51:13 AM Reply	I'll address this in two parts. #1. What he WANTS doesn't matter. What the RULING is is what matters. #2. And for your information, we're ALREADY re-tooling the stupid QUARTERS. 50 times! So, no, re-tooling the REST of money is NOT that big of a deal. #1 (again). And it doesn't matter UNTIL he brings his case to court and UNTIL the ruling is in his favour. Now, to remind you, he has NOT brought that case to court. Also, to remind you, NOTHING has been ruled on that. Also, nothing WILL BE ruled on that UNTIL he brings it to court. Finally, no one CARES what he WANTS. It's what he DOES that matters.
Post #43,630 by bepatient 6/27/02 11:13:10 AM Reply	cackle So he has success and your guess is he'll just quit. Nah...doubt it...he's too afraid of the big bad wolf. You certainly can take a relatively light comment and turn it into a chore, can't you? Later. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,641 by Brandioch 6/27/02 12:37:33 PM Reply	I'll use really small words for you. So he has success and your guess is he'll just quit. He is not the government. (Damn. I had to use a polysyllabic word there. I've probably lost you.) He is not the court. He is not the President. He is not the House or Senate. What he wants does not matter. He must take his case to the court. The judge must rule that he is right. Then that ruling can be appealed. (damn. "appealed" is too big. probably lost you again) If the government (lost you again) has lost all the way to the USSC, then they must change the money. Only when ALL of those things happen, will we have to change the money. At which point, you say it will be too expensive. But we're already changing the quarters 50 times. Pennies Nickles Dimes Quarters Half-Dollars Dollar coins Dollar bills $2 $5 $10 $20 $50 $100 etc. Even if we changed ALL the money, it would STILL be FEWER changes than we are currently going through VOLUNTARILY with the quarters. Again. #1. What he WANTS does not matter. #2. He has to go through the SYSTEM to get his WANTS enacted. #3. Even if he wins ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SYSTEM.....the impact will be less than what we're going through right now. Is there is ANYONE other than Mr. Pathetic who has a PROBLEM understanding the situation?
Post #43,642 by Brandioch 6/27/02 12:45:16 PM Reply	Now, for everyone who doesn't understand what "strawman" is. This is paraphrased. I say that what this person WANTS doesn't matter. He still has to take it through the system, which has to agree with him, before any changes are even contemplated. Mr. Pathetic, instead of addressing my position, skips to another, more easily disproven position and introduces "Nah...doubt it...he's too afraid of the big bad wolf." I didn't say he was afraid. I didn't say he was not afraid. But this is what Bill "Strawman" Pathetic will switch to. And the reason for that is because Bill was unprepared with facts to discuss this issue. #1. The case against the money has NOT been brought to trial. #2. Until it IS brought to trial and ruled upon, discussions about the rulling (which hasn't happened yet) are meaningless. #3. We're already spending MORE than what it would cost to re-do the existing money by RE-DOING the existing quarters.
Post #43,648 by bepatient 6/27/02 12:59:46 PM Reply	>2< Posts this time...way cool! And I knew you wouldn't be able to get through this without starting with the insults. You're getting predictable. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,646 by rsf 6/27/02 12:58:14 PM Reply	More than retooling quarters If the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" were ruled to be unConstitutional, not only would we have to retool the dies used to press coins, all U.S. currency in circulation (I think this might also include all government backed securities too) would have to be recalled and replaced with the Court approved equivalent. Of course, we could just worry about the currency that will be pressed and say they currency already in circulation is ok. But that would be too pragmatic for the 9th Circut and would also dilute the weight of their ruling. Paper money can last for decades, coins forever. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry. Ray
Post #43,649 by bepatient 6/27/02 1:02:06 PM Reply	Ah... ...don't stop him now Ray...he's on a roll! Quarters..roll...get it??? I'm killin myself here! :-) :-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,654 by Brandioch 6/27/02 1:54:54 PM Reply	Depends upon the ruling. Just as having that phrase in the PoA is not "unConstitutional". But requiring that children in public schools recite it is. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry. Ah, but I'm not the one that brought the subject up. I've pointed out in a previous post that there are a number of steps that must happen before we even get to the point of considering whether to recall old money and replace it with new. Bill "Strawman" Pathetic was the one that went off about a ruling that hasn't happened yet for a case that hasn't even been filed yet. I was pointing out that this is standard practice from him.
Post #43,663 by bepatient 6/27/02 2:22:30 PM Reply	Even better... ...he spreads the insults to responses to >other< posters. Talk about making a mountain of a molehill. You're on Everest. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,676 by rsf 6/27/02 3:30:47 PM Reply	Re: Depends upon the ruling. Just as having that phrase in the PoA is not "unConstitutional". But requiring that children in public schools recite it is. Having the name 'God' on currency is not un-Constitutional. However, having the name 'God' on currency that is produced by and backed by the U.S. Federal Government can be, and probably will be, construed by the 9th Circut as an endorsement of religion by the Government. BTW, did you know that the guy who filed the PoA suit is intending to file to have the name 'God' removed from currency? Bill's 'strawman' is relevant to this issue because this PoA case, if it stands, pretty much breaks down the barrier to removing any hint of religion or omnipotent beings from any institution, event, or object that has any connection with government. Ray
Post #43,685 by Brandioch 6/27/02 5:01:35 PM Reply	But that's the issue. This case has to withstand the legislative might of the current Congress. They CAN pass laws that are unConstitutional. And the USSC can support laws that are unConstitutional. AFTER THAT..... He still has to bring the other case to court. And it has to be accepted. And the judge has to rule on it in favour of him. And THAT case has to withstand the Congress/USSC. And THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become an issue. Depending upon how the court mandates that it be handled. Which I am not going to speculate upon as we're already into TOO many levels of "IF". And that's the whole deal. At any point along this, the Government can just say that they're removing "In God We Trust" from the NEXT plates. There. End of discussion. Or the Congress could pass the "Defense of Currency Act" and claim that "In God We Trust" isn't "religious" but "historical" and that carrying coins with it upon does NOT violate Church/State separation. (Yes, they can do that and the USSC can uphold it (and later generations can overturn it).) And so on and so forth. So I'm sticking with what has been ruled and the consequences of that and the processes that follow that.
Post #43,647 by rsf 6/27/02 12:59:05 PM Reply	More than retooling quarters If the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" were ruled to be unConstitutional, not only would we have to retool the dies used to press coins, all U.S. currency in circulation (I think this might also include all government backed securities too) would have to be recalled and replaced with the Court approved equivalent. Of course, we could just worry about the currency that will be pressed and say they currency already in circulation is ok. But that would be too pragmatic for the 9th Circut and would also dilute the weight of their ruling. Paper money can last for decades, coins forever. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry. Ray
Post #43,632 by deSitter 6/27/02 11:45:31 AM Reply	In Dog We Strut Dylsexic? Me?
Post #43,660 by bepatient 6/27/02 2:19:08 PM Reply	Heh... Dyslexic >and< a bad speller ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,607 by bluke 6/27/02 6:17:07 AM Reply	While you are at it ... the Declaration of Independence needs to be scrapped as well, as it states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
Post #43,616 by jb4 6/27/02 8:54:06 AM Reply	I guess reading is a skill... ...that many of us, at least, are not endowed by our Creator with.... To Sen. Byrd and his Merry Band of Dumbshit Demagogues: The Pledge of Allegiance was not...repeat, NOT ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Court of Appeals. Requiring school students to recite said Pledge was ruled to be unconstitutional. So, Senator Moron, the Court will not come to arrest you (although I sorely wish it could find something to arrest you for...if only there were such a thing a Criminal Stupidity, you'd be in line for a Class I felony charge)...at least, not yet.... Go ahead and recite it to your hear's content. Put it in big bold letters at the top of your semi-annual mailings that you waste taxpayer money on. But to answer bluke, who seems equally as devoid of reading skills as is the Good Senator, The Declaration of Independence is safe...so long as you don't require schoolchildren to recite it every moring before they start the real work of Corporate Droid Indoctrination. jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #43,682 by Simon_Jester 6/27/02 4:35:20 PM Reply	I just think that the pundits... needed something to bash. This is already pretty humorous -- considering that the JW's have already fought (and won) when schools required students to say the Pledge of Allegience (PoA) - something to do with religious freedom. Now, apparently this case merely extends it (slightly) so that students can't be required to stand and listen to the PoA.

Welcome to IWETHEY!