I don't think so.

True, the politicians are in it for the votes.

A plague of patriotism infected this statehouse and they decided to send a message to the voters.

That's my point. Why was this NEEDED?

Not why was it suggested.

You can get just about ANY law passed by claiming "it will protect the children".

This law didn't get passed with subverting the constitution as a goal. It got passed with winning votes as a goal.

Maybe not the overt goal. Maybe not even conciously. But the message is the same.

The children will be pressured to swear an oath to us (the politicians ruling this country).

We can only rely on the separation of powers that gave us a judicial branch to get this overturned, as it has overturned all previous attempts.

Yep. All previous attempts.

Yet the attempts keep coming.

Like I said, those idiots are arguing about how to get this passed.

None of them are saying WHY we need the children to recite an oath.

They're looking at how to get it passed.

That provision may well allow this to stand.

Okay, this is something that is completely against my political beliefs.

That this law is even SUGGESTED without CLEARLY specifying the PROBLEM it is to address.

What PROBLEM does this law address? That some children are NOT swearing allegiance to their country every morning? That we don't have sufficient indoctrination for nationalism? That some of these children might QUESTION whether their government is right?

I thought Republicans liked keeping government out of peoples lives.

Ummm, no. They want government out of business (while keeping government there to protect business).

They are completely for monitoring and regulating your personal life.

Post #63,184 by Brandioch 11/16/02 5:11:28 AM Reply	I don't think so. True, the politicians are in it for the votes. A plague of patriotism infected this statehouse and they decided to send a message to the voters. That's my point. Why was this NEEDED? Not why was it suggested. You can get just about ANY law passed by claiming "it will protect the children". This law didn't get passed with subverting the constitution as a goal. It got passed with winning votes as a goal. Maybe not the overt goal. Maybe not even conciously. But the message is the same. The children will be pressured to swear an oath to us (the politicians ruling this country). We can only rely on the separation of powers that gave us a judicial branch to get this overturned, as it has overturned all previous attempts. Yep. All previous attempts. Yet the attempts keep coming. Like I said, those idiots are arguing about how to get this passed. None of them are saying WHY we need the children to recite an oath. They're looking at how to get it passed. That provision may well allow this to stand. Okay, this is something that is completely against my political beliefs. That this law is even SUGGESTED without CLEARLY specifying the PROBLEM it is to address. What PROBLEM does this law address? That some children are NOT swearing allegiance to their country every morning? That we don't have sufficient indoctrination for nationalism? That some of these children might QUESTION whether their government is right? I thought Republicans liked keeping government out of peoples lives. Ummm, no. They want government out of business (while keeping government there to protect business). They are completely for monitoring and regulating your personal life.
Post #63,192 by Silverlock 11/16/02 5:49:23 AM Reply	Damn I got parsed. And I'm too tired to do a point by point response. I thought my point (admittedly longwinded) was that the "opt out" provision in this bill is what makes it so objectionable. What exactly is it about this observation you are disagreeing with?
Post #63,269 by Brandioch 11/16/02 5:31:10 PM Reply	My objection. #1. That ANY oath is being administered to CHILDREN. #2. The "opt-out" policy MIGHT be enough to get this passed. #3. But, back to my original point.... WHY is #1. NECESSARY? And THAT is the part that no one can answer. Not "well, would you accept it with THESE restrictions?" Not "well, it MIGHT pass the USSC with THESE restrictions". But what SPECIFIC PROBLEM is this supposed to address? I understand why we have speed limits. I understand why we have laws against stealing. I understand why we have cops. I do NOT understand what this law will PROTECT anyone from.

Welcome to IWETHEY!