The Pledge of Allegience

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
This country was a good country, no longer though. It's by the corporations and for the corporations now, with politicians in their pockets.

We're losing freedoms steadily, and people are becoming dumber and more apathetic by the day.

I'm not sure I'd agree that any of these things are the worse they've been, and it seems to me that ultimately they serve as proxies for quality of life -- which has certainly not degraded terribly. We may have fallen behind in the clip at which our quality of life is improving versus the rest of the First World, but I still think technological and medical advances are outpacing this enough that our quality of life is certainly not degrading significantly.

But all of this is pretty subjective unless you can be more specific about the source of your measurements.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm not sure I'd agree that any of these things are the worse they've been, and it seems to me that ultimately they serve as proxies for quality of life -- which has certainly not degraded terribly. We may have fallen behind in the clip at which our quality of life is improving versus the rest of the First World, but I still think technological and medical advances are outpacing this enough that our quality of life is certainly not degrading significantly.

But all of this is pretty subjective unless you can be more specific about the source of your measurements.

Since Bush and through Obama, the administrations have destroyed the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment most noticeably with the PATRIOT Act for example, but everyone should know all this already.

We as a nation support despots around the world, install dictators, support terrorism and oppose democracy the world over. Citizens United allowed Corporations more power than ever after the travesty that was allowing them personhood.

I could go on for days if you wish.
 

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
since bush and through obama, the administrations have destroyed the bill of rights. The fourth amendment most noticeably with the patriot act for example, but everyone should know all this already.

We as a nation support despots around the world, install dictators, support terrorism and oppose democracy the world over. Citizens united allowed corporations more power than ever after the travesty that was allowing them personhood.

I could go on for days if you wish.
no!!! Noo!!! For the love of god no!!!!!!!!!!
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So wouldnt a rule requiring you to worship the god of the american flag be a state imposed religion and thus unconstitutional?

It doesn't require you to do anything. Successive court decisions have held public school children (or anyone for that matter) can't be forced to recite the pledge or salute or anything.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
People should recite the pledge (though a hell of a lot less). It's meant to unify a diverse immigrant nation. - they can always leave out "under God". It's better than one nation divided.

What next? Are Witness oaths & affirmations unconsitutional too? They certainly violate liberty & privacy, especially if you don't want to testify & are compelled by the legal process to do so.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Since Bush and through Obama, the administrations have destroyed the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment most noticeably with the PATRIOT Act for example, but everyone should know all this already.

We as a nation support despots around the world, install dictators, support terrorism and oppose democracy the world over. Citizens United allowed Corporations more power than ever after the travesty that was allowing them personhood.

I could go on for days if you wish.

Yes, and I would challenge you to find me a way a Great Power could operate without allowing for a laundry list of diffuse complaints. I'm not saying your concerns are invalid...just a little naive that you think this behavior is new on the part of the U.S., putting aside whether or not it's grievous.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
People should recite the pledge (though a hell of a lot less). It's meant to unify a diverse immigrant nation. - they can always leave out "under God". It's better than one nation divided.

What next? Are Witness oaths & affirmations unconsitutional too? They certainly violate liberty & privacy, especially if you don't want to testify & are compelled by the legal process to do so.

I really don't understand why you can't see the difference
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yes, and I would challenge you to find me a way a Great Power could operate without allowing for a laundry list of diffuse complaints. I'm not saying your concerns are invalid...just a little naive that you think this behavior is new on the part of the U.S., putting aside whether or not it's grievous.

Where did I say it was new?
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
"This country was a good country, no longer though." I inferred that the stuff you were listing explained why are no longer a good country. Isn't the reasonable conclusion there that the stuff you were listing was mostly, or at least in significant part, new?

New in a relative sense, post WW2.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I really don't understand why you can't see the difference

There is none. Giving forced testimony in court wouldn't help my pursuit of happiness:biggrin1:, & as you well know, all that "the whole truth & nothing but the truth" is meaningless because that isn't what happens.

Testimony can be curtailed at any time, & further evidence cannot be self evinced. Therefore, the contract between court & witness isn't one at all, because the court may proscribe performance, which isn't even mentioned in the court/witness contract.

You're doing law. Help me out with that one. How can one accept jurisdiction without it being explicitly defined? A reliance on defence & prosecution attorneys to do their job, let alone "bargained for" admissable evidence, have led to many miscarriages of justice.

It should be "the whole truth, insofar as the court will allow me to give it". But that wouldn't result in many convictions would it? Before the 18th century, evidence just carried on till all relevancy was believed given - by both court & witness - not the pantomime farce we have now.
 

parr

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
433
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Age
71
Location
Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's bothersome to some people, plus these same people don't
give a damn.:rolleyes:
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There is none. Giving forced testimony in court wouldn't help my pursuit of happiness:biggrin1:, & as you well know, all that "the whole truth & nothing but the truth" is meaningless because that isn't what happens.

Testimony can be curtailed at any time, & further evidence cannot be self evinced. Therefore, the contract between court & witness isn't one at all, because the court may proscribe performance, which isn't even mentioned in the court/witness contract.

You're doing law. Help me out with that one. How can one accept jurisdiction without it being explicitly defined? A reliance on defence & prosecution attorneys to do their job, let alone "bargained for" admissable evidence, have led to many miscarriages of justice.

It should be "the whole truth, insofar as the court will allow me to give it". But that wouldn't result in many convictions would it? Before the 18th century, evidence just carried on till all relevancy was believed given - by both court & witness - not the pantomime farce we have now.

Put down the bong and back away slowly my friend