Why Won't Republicans Change They're Spin Even When They're Losing?

[etech]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Banning prayer is making a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Many people quote "separation of Church and State" and do not know what the amendment says or choose to ignore what it says.

law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/
Article I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Article II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article XI.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

[brennan]

etech:

Wrong; it's not that simple. No one is "banning prayer" per se, but rather, banning government officials from publically conducting/leading prayer sessions. BIG difference. You want to round up 5000 people and pray in the stands at a public high school football game? Great! Do it! More power to you! You want to use the public PA, and a public forum, to lead a prayer, and thus have an arm of the government endorse religion over non-religion? Nope. Unconstitutional, as it should be.

I respectfully suggest that you read the relevant Supreme Court cases before dismissing the First Amendment as simple. There's little consensus on how the language actually applies to specific cases, and almost no such thing as a true absolutist. I mean, it says "no law...prohibiting the freedom of speech", but do you know anyone who thinks the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is okay? I dunno, maybe you do; if so, you're in a very very small minority.

-brennan

 

[Phokus]

Awww looks like DefNef won't respond to my second post. Looks like i publicly shamed him yet again. BTW, i really doubt any libertarian would want you to represent them in anyway; i bet they would pay you to not associate yourself with their party.

 

[etech]

brennan_, you said a lot of things and made many assumptions of which most were wrong.

I did not say it was simple, I did say that many people quote seperation of Church and State as though that is what is said in the Constitution, it isn't.

Personally, I don't want to round up anyone for a prayer session, am I so offended that some people wish to that I would restrict their rights to do so, NO.

I respectfully suggest that you read the relevant Supreme Court cases before dismissing the First Amendment as simple.
There's the simple word again, please point out where I used it.

I mean, it says "no law...prohibiting the freedom of speech", but do you know anyone who thinks the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is okay? I dunno, maybe you do; if so, you're in a very very small minority.
Ignored, a simple arguement from...

 

[MrPALCO]

<< Why Won't Republicans Change They're Spin Even When They're Losing? >>



The Democrats align themselves with groups that give an approving nod, to Godless activity.

The greatest victory is in the bag, the defeat of Clinton/Gore, and sending them out to pasture.

We will continue to state our view day by day and to use the power of the Office of the President, with drive and vigor.

The day when lawlessness is celebrated in the White house, is over.

🙂

 

[brennan]

etech:

Okay, you may be right; maybe I made some incorrect assumptions. I'll clarify:

You said: &quot;Banning prayer is making a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&quot; This, to me, implies a very literal reading of the Constitution; that is, you're saying that any banning of any form of prayer is prima facie a violation of the Free Exercise clause. If you don't believe this, I'd ask you to clarify what, exactly, you meant. If you *do* believe this, then with all due respect, I consider it a simplistic interpretation of the First Amendment, and one that has been solidly and almost universally discredited.

By mentioning the Free Speech clause, I intended to point out that identical language is used to apply to speech, but almost no one believes that *any* limitation of *any* form of speech is unconstitutional; hence, the &quot;fire in a crowded theater&quot; example. So, if speech can be limited in certain circumstances despite the exact text of the First Amendment (fighting words, libel, etc.), then prayer can be limited in very specific circumstances as well (government-led prayer).

Better?

-brennan

 

[Red Dawn]

<< The Democrats align themselves with groups that give an approving nod, to Godless activity >>

MrPalco, there may factions of the Democrats that align themselves with groups that give an approving nod to Godless activity, but that statement is a broad generalization and is for the most part false.



<< The greatest victory is in the bag, the defeat of Clinton/Gore, and sending them out to pasture. >>

I would not call it such a great victory. If the Republicans would have had a real leader, lets say some one like Ronald Reagan, it would have been a landslide which also would have given the new President a Mandate. It seems that the reason Gore lost was due to minorities in Florida were disenfranchised. I doubt it was on purpose but it happened non-the less. However, since Gore was not a crowd favorite it was brushed aside with an overwhelming &quot;Oh Well!&quot; If there really is to be a victory it would be for GW Bush to win re-election. Right now it's to early to even suggest how he will do one way or another, but from my perspective he looks rather weak and confused. Of course I readily admit that I'm not a Bush fan though I do like him more than I thought I would have.

This last election was all about picking the lesser of two evils. The Fabricator (Gore) or the Incompetent (Bush). The Incompetent can always surround himself with those who are competent making up for his incompetence where as the Fabricator would have to surround himself with honest men which was not likely to happen as Honest men in either party are few and far between. The nod went for the Incompetent as his faults seemed less debilitating (and not by much)



<< The day when lawlessness is celebrated in the White house, is over. >>

The Outlaw is dead, long live the Incompetent

 

[etech]

&quot; I consider it a simplistic interpretation of the First Amendment, and one that has been solidly and almost universally discredited.&quot;

It has been interpreted and defined by the courts up to and including the Supreme Court, the Exclusion Clause. But I will disagree with your statement that it has been &quot;solidly and almost universally discredited&quot;.

I also reserve the right to disagree with the courts in this instance. By banning all rights of expression of religion anywhere a federal dollar may have been spent they are swaying to supporting the religion of secularism.


&quot;fire in a crowded theater&quot; has the possibility of danger to the patrons thereof. I personally do not know anyone that has had themselves placed in danger by hearing someone else profess a belief.


-better-

 

[MrPALCO]

<< We will continue to state our view day by day and to use the power of the Office of the President, with drive and vigor. >>



Amen.

🙂

 

[DefRef]

Phokus: I'm ignoring you because you're an idiot. You've shamed NO ONE BUT YOURSELF.

You act like someone who walks around yelling, &quot;I won the Lottery!!! I won the Lottery!!!&quot; and then goes into a Ferrari dealship and asks for a car. When they ask for the money, you yell, &quot;I won the Lottery!!!&quot; and then get all sniveling when they won't give it to you.

You didn't win the Lotto and you didn't prove me wrong about anything. Here's a quarter. Go call your Mommy and tell her to pick you up at the mall.

BTW: Read sig.

 

[jjm]

Quaggoth:

&quot;jjm wrote ---> Which party wants to permit Christian religious practices to occur in schools, even if they offend
the members of non-Christian religions?


Ummm, I suppose you think that NOT practicing MY religion because it offends someone else IS freedom??
You, sir, are quite moronic. If I saw a group of satanists practicing at school I would walk on by. Do you know
why???? Because &quot;I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;. That
was a statement made by one of our founding fathers (Can't remember which one), and you need to think about
it. What gives ANYONE the right to tell me what I can and can't do just because it offends someone????
Whether or not something offends someone or not DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA! What matters is that you
let others be free so that they will hopefully do unto you, what you have done unto them. There's two ways to
look at that, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, OR, You leave me the F alone and I'll leave you the F
alone! Get a freakin clue.

Oh, and BTW, I WILL defend your right to say what you want to say, but don't you EVER try to step on one of
my freedoms. That's just not right. It's real sad that you don't see that.&quot;

You ignore the fact that what has been struck down is officially-sanctioned religious expression in schools. I support strongly a moment of silence. It is wrong to tell people that the moment has to be used for a specific purpose, such as prayer. And I have no problem with schools making space available for any group to meet separately on its own, particularly after school time. I don't think the courts have restricted this either. And if students choose to gather on their own, even during school hours for a prayer, all the power to them. But if a school administration tries to orchestrate any kind of religious observance, that crosses the line.

If you are a Christian, would you support the school requiring your child and the rest of the school body to participate in a Jewish prayer? I doubt it. Would you accept a moment of silence, and would you, as a responsible role model, encourage your child to use that moment of silence for prayer? I hope so.

I don't think you even bothered to read the full context of my posts. Otherwise, you would not have made what is so obviously a misplaced attack without justification. I will avoid the childish name-calling you seem to enjoy.

 

[jjm]

Tex - Please list every question or point that you think I failed to answer.

Now, for good measure, please answer all the questions you avoided and I will gladly answer any that I may have missed.

&quot;Alan Blinder one of Davis' own advisors.&quot;

Better look that one up, bud. Kindly show that he is an economist specializing in energy issues. According to your earlier statement, only energy specialists can offer unbiased economic analyses of the energy predicament. And please show that he is an advisor to the governor of California. Here is a link to help you...Blinder bio.

You also stated that I offered no links for proof of my assertions. Please see my second post in this thread.

Wow, you criticize someone who you think might not be American? Well, now I think we all see where your
respect for others is. You should really stop embarrassing yourself. I guess there are certain states that are
more &quot;American&quot; than others too, right?

You still have not answered the last question in the paragraph.

&quot;LOL OF COURSE there are energy economists! LOL Even the HEAD of California's Energy Department said it
isnt the answer! LOL And he's IN California.&quot;

Really? Is there a link to a source that shows us that this person is an energy economist?

You still have not answered this question either.

You have not once answered the point directly
that if the Republican goals are achieved, Americans would have less freedom than they have today. True or
false?

Still no answer.

And where did I state that I am a Democrat? I have no idea if you're a Republican, and I don't care. Do you just
like to fabricate more lies in a vain attempt to make your sinking credibility look like something above sewer
scum?

Still no answer to either question.

Do you know what the commonly held educational requirements
are to assert that someone is an economist?

Still no answer.

Tex - Please provide a source stating that Democrats are opposed to a moment of silence.

Still no response.

And you still have not provided any proof that the foul books you cited were being pushed by any Democrats for school reading.

Hey, myself and others in this thread simply asked you for proof of your assertions. I mean, come on, an adult wouldn't make such imflammatory accusations without proof, right? Why, that would be bold-faced lying!

 

[Doboji]

<< I should not have to Accept a way of life if I dont want to. Dr. Laura learned this the hard way when she said she didn't believe in the Gay lifestyle and the Democrats and Gay groups leaned on her advertisers until they gave in.

Thats called censorship.

And there are groups around the world that cut out the cliterius in young women so they will not stray from their future husbands. Should that be Tolerated?

Or when some men die in a culture, their wife is expected to join them. Should that be tolorated? >>



Ok here we have a logical fallacy I think it's called comparison or something like that... the jist of it is... you compared... Female Mutilation, and that wife dead too thing to a sexual act between two xonsenting adults. Homosexuality is indisputably not harmful to other people... thereby not comparable.... therefore we can, and should FORCE people to be tolerant of people who are different in a non-threatening way. Think whatever you want... by all means... be a rude bigot if you must... but be aware that if you discriminate against different people.. we will come down hard... and I think that is as it should be.



<< Perhaps not for you but when a public liberian in Massecutes cought a child for 6 years old looking at pornorgraphy and stopped the child, the ACLU took her to court for violating the child's rights. >>



hmmm thats pretty crazy... couldya give me a link to that, I'd love to read about it.



<< How does it harm them? Are they forced to pray? Is someone watching them? Why are you so quick to deny the rights of the majority because one person disagrees with it? Hell many things make of us unconfortable but we dont try to deny other's rights if they disagree. >>



Well I'll tell you from experience... I am a Jew, and have gone to christian dominated schools all my life... in several instances... I have encountered situations where my football team for example.. knelt in prayer, and bowed their heads. I as a Jew am not supposed to bow my head... and the prayer included the name Jesus... it seperated me blatantly from the team, and were I a less strong person... this would make conversion to christianity EXTREMELY appealing.. it would allow me to be included as opposed to excluded... this situation is true of atheists as well. The majority has a right to pray silently... but to express their religion as part of public ceremony is in a vey real sense destructive to other religions.

That said.. I have no argument with a moment of silence... so I'm not as yellow dog as you thought huh?... 🙂

And back to the faith based initiatives... this same argument applies here... if faith based organizations in any way &quot;push&quot; their faith or they would probably say &quot;share&quot; it again potentially damages other faiths. I think faith based funding CAN be provided... so long as their is a watch dog system to ensure that these organizations interactions with people based on these funds is non-religious. In other words... a Muslim organization can hand out blankets to poor people... but they can't sit down for a bible lecture while they're there. If there is an adequate watch dog system... then I can support it.. otherwise.. you're just asking for trouble?




<< Dont buy the propeganda bud, Christianty is far from being the only religous group represented in Faith Based Organizations. >>



I have no hatred towards christians... my concern is who gets left out.. not who gets let in.



<< I'm pro-choice. Does it suprise you? >>


yep that surprised me... I respect you as you clearly are not just another party liner...



<< I recycle cans and plastics every week? eyes widening yet? >>


nahhh... unlike some I don't subscribe to the &quot;republicans are out to destroy the planet&quot; theme...



<< But there is no balance on these issues and many others with the democrats. Its all or nothing. There is no middle ground. >>



Perhaps it's time to change that?... I'm in if you're in... lets try and reach some middle grounds shall we? I think we're already off to a good start...

-Max

 

[etech]

Today, the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to forbid a Colorado public school teacher to keep his own Bible on his desk and read it silently during school hours. By 1990, the law in Colorado (and throughout the country) was quite different as the Supreme Court of the United States had overturned the earlier law of the First Amendment.
In 1986 and 1987, a fifth grade teacher in a Denver public school had been ordered by his principal to remove his Bible from his desk, to stop reading the Bible silently during the 15 minutes each day that he set aside for silent reading in the classroom, and to remove two books from his personal, 239-volume library which he maintained within his classroom for the free use of his students. The two books were The Bible in Pictures and The Story of Jesus. The principal was unconcerned with the teacher's books on the Greek gods and American Indian religions, and she was not concerned with the teacher's silent reading of a book on the life of Buddha.
The federal courts held that the principal's order was required by the Constitution of the United States. Whereas formerly a teacher could read Bible passages to his students, now the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was construed to mean that it is unconstitutional for a public elementary school teacher to have a Bible on his desk for his own reading! Today, the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to forbid a Colorado public school teacher to keep his own Bible on his desk and read it silently during school hours. By 1990, the law in Colorado (and throughout the country) was quite different as the Supreme Court of the United States had overturned the earlier law of the First Amendment.
In 1986 and 1987, a fifth grade teacher in a Denver public school had been ordered by his principal to remove his Bible from his desk, to stop reading the Bible silently during the 15 minutes each day that he set aside for silent reading in the classroom, and to remove two books from his personal, 239-volume library which he maintained within his classroom for the free use of his students.
The two books were The Bible in Pictures and The Story of Jesus. The principal was unconcerned with the teacher's books on the Greek gods and American Indian religions, and she was not concerned with the teacher's silent reading of a book on the life of Buddha.
The federal courts held that the principal's order was required by the Constitution of the United States. Whereas formerly a teacher could read Bible passages to his students, now the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was construed to mean that it is unconstitutional for a public elementary school teacher to have a Bible on his desk for his own reading!

 

[Quaggoth]

>>but do you know anyone who thinks the proverbial &quot;shouting fire in a crowded theater&quot; is okay? I dunno, maybe you do; if so, you're in a very very small minority.

Brennan - I don't believe that &quot;shouting fire in a crowded theater&quot; is OK. But do we need a law that tells us not too?

jjm - The original quote from you was about &quot;Christian Religious Practices&quot;, not &quot;Moments of Silence&quot;. That's why I chose to use something a little more overt than a moment of silence as something I would walk by. I agree with you that a moment of silence is a good solution. My point was that it is wrong for someone to tell someone they can't do something just because it affects someone elses life. If there is another reason, a more practical one, like &quot;You can't use that PA system as you are because we can't let everyone do the same&quot;, then so be it. It's the difference between discrimination and an attempt to treat everyone equal. If there was a Public PA system just &quot;sitting in the middle of the street&quot; (bear with me) and a group of Christians gathered around and started worshiping God, would it be right to make a law that makes all these people NOT do that, because of that guy that walked by and was offended? No, you tell the guy to get his EGO checked because it's either too big or he is so insecure about his own doings that he takes it as a threat. This isn't just a religios issue either. It also applies to gun control. the facts show that in &quot;Shall Issue&quot; states, the crime rate drops. This is because the criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. But people who are against guns decide that &quot;I don't use a gun, I don't like guns, Nobody else should either and I am going to take steps to make it that way&quot;. That's wrong. Anyway, to get back to my point, people should realize that it's just wrong to force their will on others. &quot;Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you are right.&quot; Yes, I realize the same goes for me.

 

[Doboji]

we've really got two issues here not one....

1. Private practice of religion is being violated in some instances

2. Private freedom from public religion is being violated in some instances...

In my view we must sit down and set clear guidelines as to what activities we deem acceptable.
here's a few.. lets get some opinions on em.

1. Prayers over loudspeakers at school events.

2. Prayers in a classroom led by a teacher

3. Private prayers said quietly by students

4. Moment of silence

5. Reading passages from bible in class

6. school sporting teams saying a prayer before games

7. Teacher reading from a bible to him/herself quietly

8. Teachers praying quietly in class

My votes:

1. Not OK
2. Not OK
3. OK
4. OK
5. not OK
6. not OK
7. OK
8. OK

-Max

 

[Raspewtin]

My Votes-

1. Prayers over loudspeakers at school events. - Nope

2. Prayers in a classroom led by a teacher - Nope

3. Private prayers said quietly by students - No in classroom. they can do it in their head though

4. Moment of silence - Okay

5. Reading passages from bible in class - depends on the context

6. school sporting teams saying a prayer before games -no

7. Teacher reading from a bible to him/herself quietly -not during classtime

8. Teachers praying quietly in class -not during class time

 

[chainbolt]

Repubs are repubs, why should they change?

 

[etech]

Democrats are democrats, why should they change?

 

[Quaggoth]

I think you both just hit the nail directly on the head.

Then why do they attempt to change each other?

 

[jjm]

Quaggoth - I appreciate your leaving out the emotion this time. I agree that we can disagree, and I think it's healthy. And I would defend your right to publish that disagreement. 😉

Actually, if you look a little closer, our positions are not that far apart. We both seem to acknowledge the same extremes as to what constitutes inappropriate encouragement of one religious view or another. It's the less severe examples where we may disagree. In fact, I think that's true of the large majority of Americans. The far right, which Jr, Lott and the more fervent party loyalists have been cowing to since Jr got crowned, has been advocating more overt practices. I think most Americans view that as too extreme.

Hey, Tex, we are all still waiting for the proof of the accusations you made about Democrats. And, have you figured out what an economist is yet? Relying on one of your earlier statements, just being a government employee and heading some agency makes you an economist. That's an awful lot of people who might be surprised that they should be describing themselves as economists.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< . I was repsonding to the maker of this thread and the posts that followed that lumped All republcians in one group. >>

The Republicans, just like the Democrats, are made up of different factions. The Democrats have the Moderates and the Tree Hugging Liberals and the Republicans have the Moderates and the the Religious Right and other Whacko's. There is one thing common about both parties, they are being manipulated by these extremist factions of their respective groups. The Moderates are the ones who are being pushed aside when it come to policies. When the Moderate Democrats rail on about the Republicans, it is the Ultra's they are criticizing, not the Moderate Republicans. The same holds true for the Moderate Republicans. It is not Demo Moderates they are critisizing, it?s the leftist Tree Huggers like those philanderers Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy. The main difference between the Moderates from each party is who they lower themselves to align with. >>



Yes you are right, there is a big difference between certain republicans and liberals vs traditional democrats. But no one here had separated the group, just the stereotypes for each one.

Democrats comaplain republcians are a bunch of &quot;religious wakos&quot; and Republicans complain Democrats are getting too liberal. This isn't new.

Well it depends on what you call Moderate. If you are talking about Moderate republicans in the Senate, you are talking about Republicans who vote for more Democratic issues than some Democrats and sometimes defect the party when promised Democratic money. Those are not Moderate Repuibicans. Moderate republicans are those who dont agree with everything th GOP says ie abortion, etc. But still agree with the Core values. Smaller government, lower taxes, Stronger family values etc. But people like James M. Jeffords were never moderate Repubicans and have now denied the representation of the people in Vermont by changing parties for some Democrat campaign money.

 

[jjm]

Tex! Glad you're back. Good to see you, buddy.

Now, about all those unanswered questions and statements made without proof?

 

[Texmaster]

&quot;Tex - Revealing your true intelligence has been fun, but I gotta go. I see you still are evading several direct questions regarding economics qualifications, and the like.&quot;

LOL Evading? You asked for the name, I gave it to you. I ask you for proof of your points and you run away. Very amusing but I'm sorry to say typical of you.

&quot;I said quite clearly that Democrats (and I) oppose anyone who would actually act on any disgusting &quot;how to&quot; books, but I defend to the death their right to print it. And the Constitution and the Supreme Court and all the patriots who died defending this country completely agree. Only restrictive governments practice censorship.&quot;

But the how to books should be made availiable? LOL

Boy is that ignorant. Should how to build a pipe bomb be available as well? Its just as illegal to do and deadly.

So you dont ever believe in drawing a line huh. Boy is that scary.

Well then you should be for people who sell your private information, credit cards, social security numbers and post them on the internet for hackers. Is this ok too? Its just information right?

Wake up. There are limitations to Free speech if it puts others at risk. Yelling fire when there is no fire is illegal in a crowded building. Same principle works here.

&quot;I still request you to show me where anyone has requested that the specific books you mentioned should be added to curriculums. The more correct statement, which you simply ignore, is that Democrats oppose governments making rules forcing schools to pick any books.&quot;

I've already given you specific infomation about your requests and received nothing. Before I go hunting for those strories I expect you to return the curtiosy and provide some links for your arguments.

This isn't a one way street. Lets see some of your evidence.

&quot;Last I checked, children were citizens too. Parents should oversee their children. In a free society, published works are freely available. Parents, not governments, should control their children's access to morally offensive material.&quot;

Should parents have to worry that a child will stumble into pornorgraphy in a library? Obviously you do not have children. Parents should control what their kids see at home but they shouldn't have to worry about explicit sexual material in public schools or libraries when they drop them off. This is exactly why home schooling is rising so fast in the US today.

&quot;I probably won't get back to this until tomorrow, but I am sure you will have evaded any direct answers through then as well. &quot;

LOL I provided names when you asked for them. You have provided ZERO. You cant even give me one link to support your positions. And only recently have you started to address my specific points. Too bad its all your opinion with no links to back anything up.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< It was a valid question considering &quot;ah heck off&quot; is only used in England. I dont know why you took such offense. >>

&quot;Hmm.. It's used rather often on the internet. I also didn't take any offense to you asking me if I were American. Now if you were to ask if I were Texan I might be a little annoyed🙂&quot;

Annoyed or Jealous 😀

&quot;I'm for the Death Penalty, I'm against Welfare, I'm against the War of Drugs to start out with. I also don't believe we should support Renegade countries lik Isreal with our money.&quot;

I understand the first 2 but your against the war on drugs? Are you a libertarian? I agree with you wholehardedly about Israel.

&quot;I guess you haven't been paying much attention to the transcision of power in the Senate. &quot;

I've been on an Alaskan cruise. Not exactly the place to keep tabs on politics. 😀

&quot;Trent Lott released a scathing memo last weekend where he said that the Republicans are declaring war on the Democrats whom he said &quot;didn't earn any Mandate&quot; (as if the the Republicans did). On Monday some more of the level headed Moderate Republican Senator called for Lott to tone down the Rhetoric and try to work with the Dem's in the Spirit of Bipartisanship as doid GW (well he didn't say anything to Lott as I hear he can't stand him, but who can?)&quot;

Lott can be a blowhard but thats not exactly uncommon in the Senate LOL

&quot;I guess it's not as prominent in our states as it is in Texas.&quot;

God, we were having a good conversation then you throw out a 3 year old remark. How very small of you.