US Politics: I Pledge Allegiance to the...

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

It's interesting that the Pledge is one of the few cases where an action of Congress explicitly added religious wording something. That, in my opinion, is an explicit rather than an implicit violation of the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." That's exactly what it did in adding "Under God" to the pledge. Not that the pledge is any less a blind loyalty oath without "under God".

Yeah, pretty disgusting that.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yeah, pretty disgusting that.

Only that part is "disgusting"?

In other news, the Justice Dept. is apparently making moves to "correct injustices and ease prison crowding." Baby step in the right direction http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-justice-clemency-20140424,0,1617703.story#axzz2zlsQaUfH

Also, why did they edit the thread title?? :crying:

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Only that part is "disgusting"?

In other news, the Justice Dept. is apparently making moves to "correct injustices and ease prison crowding." Baby step in the right direction http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-justice-clemency-20140424,0,1617703.story#axzz2zlsQaUfH

Also, why did they edit the thread title?? :crying:

Well, I'm not a U.S citizen, I'm pretty naive when it comes to the controversy regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I do rather dislike the idea of religion weasling its way into civilized society though.

The separation of church and state, along with free speech are some of the only things I would consider to approach a level of "sacred" - pretty disgusting when they're trampled.

[1918me]

In other news, the Justice Dept. is apparently making moves to "correct injustices and ease prison crowding." Baby step in the right direction http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-justice-clemency-20140424,0,1617703.story#axzz2zlsQaUfH

This is definitely good news, and hopefully a sign of significant improvement to come.

[Ormond]

Who's "they"?

Cause the only people I remember talking up the "permanent republican majority" back in the 2000s were delusional republicans basing it on nothing.

Now that's a little bit unfair. The Chait article linked to itself says:

(Many people believed 9/11 would play just such a role on behalf of the Republicans, but the effect faded, or arguably backfired, when it drove a Republican administration to launch a bungled invasion of Iraq.)

....and I certainly don't get the idea from his article that the "many people" he's referring to were all Republicans. If I remember correctly, a lot of general political commentators were indeed making comments like this after 9/11 and even as part of the explanation for explaining Bush's 2004 victory over Kerry.

If the Neocons hadn't used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq, the percentage of young people who identified with Democrats during probably wouldn't have been nearly as big, and the prediction of an emerging Democratic majority would be a lot less secure. I think Bush, Cheney, and company really did squander a big opportunity for a future Republican majority because of how they handled Iraq.

....

[grumdin]

Who's "they"?

Cause the only people I remember talking up the "permanent republican majority" back in the 2000s were delusional republicans basing it on nothing.

I don't know, the dudes talking about it at the time in the media?

The current meme of a permanent Dem majority seems based on the increasing numbers of Hispanics in the country. They currently trend Democrat, this is assumed to be written in stone forever or something? I would think another economic downturn, and the next one is likely to be severe, will leave the Dems holding the bag. Anyway aren't you Canadian??

[Ormond]

We forgive this freudian slip because you are a Nebraska man. :)

Sorry, I've now fixed that.

One of my close friends in Omaha was a major volunteer for Bob Kerrey's Senate campaign in 2012 and made so many connections in the local Democratic party that he's going to be working as a full time paid employee of the Dave Domina campaign (the Democratic candidate for governor) starting July 1. So I probably am even a bit more into gravitating toward the Kerrey spelling than even the average Nebraskan is.

[Shryke]

Now that's a little bit unfair. The Chait article linked to itself says:

(Many people believed 9/11 would play just such a role on behalf of the Republicans, but the effect faded, or arguably backfired, when it drove a Republican administration to launch a bungled invasion of Iraq.)

....and I certainly don't get the idea from his article that the "many people" he's referring to were all Republicans. If I remember correctly, a lot of general political commentators were indeed making comments like this after 9/11 and even as part of the explanation for explaining Bush's 2004 victory over Kerry.

If the Neocons hadn't used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq, the percentage of young people who identified with Democrats during probably wouldn't have been nearly as big, and the prediction of an emerging Democratic majority would be a lot less secure. I think Bush, Cheney, and company really did squander a big opportunity for a future Republican majority because of how they handled Iraq.

....

Again, who's this "many people"? Cause "general political commentators" means blowhard TV pundits and other assorted doofuses who are at best DC-Centrist to me. The demographics were forming against them back then too.

And saying "if the GWB admin hadn't fucked up with the youth vote" is like saying "if my father were a women, he'd be my mother". Their policy, by it's very nature, precludes their ability to win the youth vote of that and this time.

[Ormond]

Again, who's this "many people"? Cause "general political commentators" means blowhard TV pundits and other assorted doofuses who are at best DC-Centrist to me. The demographics were forming against them back then too.

And saying "if the GWB admin hadn't fucked up with the youth vote" is like saying "if my father were a women, he'd be my mother". Their policy, by it's very nature, precludes their ability to win the youth vote of that and this time.

I did not use the "f" word in my post and I would thank you not to put that in my mouth.

And I don't get your second paragraph as an argument against what I'm saying. The explanation for the big shift in identification of the younger generation toward the Democrats that is given in the article is precisely the Iraq policy. To think that it was inevitable that any Republican President would have done exactly the same thing in regard to Iraq as GWB did is something I would disagree with.

[Shryke]

I did not use the "f" word in my post and I would thank you not to put that in my mouth.

And I don't get your second paragraph as an argument against what I'm saying. The explanation for the big shift in identification of the younger generation toward the Democrats that is given in the article is precisely the Iraq policy. To think that it was inevitable that any Republican President would have done exactly the same thing in regard to Iraq as GWB did is something I would disagree with.

I don't see anything of the sort in that article. No where I saw is the liberalness in the youth vote attributed directly and solely to the Iraq war. Regardless, the GWB is not an anomaly. It is a natural outgrowth, in a general way, of decades of political movement on the right. There's simply no reason to believe that republican policy as it exists and existed would be substantially different enough to make any difference in capturing the youth vote. The Iraq war may not be inevitable if Cheney et all weren't in control, but Iraq is not a lone issue of contention in a sea of things the youth would otherwise agree with. It's just part and parcel of a larger pattern.

On top of that, the book referenced in Chait's article is from 2002 and predicting the same thing based on data from before that point. So it's not like GWB was the turning point here.

The idea of the permanent republican majority was always a fantasy that didn't stand up to the data about trends in demographics.

[1918me]

I think the argument is that Republican policies on same sex marriage and other issues are so anathema to millennial voters that there is little chance they would gravitate to the Republican Party.

It certainly seems like they're going to have to shed some of those policies if they're going to attract younger voters.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It's interesting that the Pledge is one of the few cases where an action of Congress explicitly added religious wording something. That, in my opinion, is an explicit rather than an implicit violation of the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." That's exactly what it did in adding "Under God" to the pledge. Not that the pledge is any less a blind loyalty oath without "under God".

Not that weird. After all, we print "In God We Trust" on our money.

[Shryke]

Well, turns out the right's new favourite is exactly as racist as anyone who thought about the issue for more then 2 seconds would expect him to be:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

The question is how fast and how far are they gonna run from this.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

That last bit of quote is more than a bit ironic. The subsidy that Mr. Bundy has decided to take from the government is liable to earn himself a bit less freedom sometime in the near future.

[1918me]

Well, turns out the right's new favourite is exactly as racist as anyone who thought about the issue for more then 2 seconds would expect him to be:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0

The question is how fast and how far are they gonna run from this.

The only thing that surprises me about this stunning revelation is the sheer audacity of saying something of that magnitude in public. Was his behavior so greatly reinforced that he felt like he could say whatever piece of racist shit that came to his mind? Or, is he just stupid?

[Shryke]

The only thing that surprises me about this stunning revelation is the sheer audacity of saying something of that magnitude in public. Was his behavior so greatly reinforced that he felt like he could say whatever piece of racist shit that came to his mind? Or, is he just stupid?

All signs point to yes.

[grumdin]

“He calls himself a patriot, and says he loves America,” Mr. O’Neill said. “And yet he says he won’t follow any federal laws. You just can’t let this go by, or everybody is going to be like, ‘If Bundy can break the law, why can’t I?’ ”

If bankers and politicians don't have to follow Federal laws why do I?

[Shryke]

If bankers and politicians don't have to follow Federal laws why do I?

So you think it's ok that bankers and politicians don't have to follow the law?

[TrueMetis]

So you think it's ok that bankers and politicians don't have to follow the law?

Does it matter? Two wrong don't make a right. Or are we using six year old on the playground logic here?

[Shryke]

Does it matter? Two wrong don't make a right. Or are we using six year old on the playground logic here?

That's my point. If bankers and politicians don't follow the law, the answer is not "let's have more people also not follow the law", it's "let's stop those bankers and politicians not following the law".