"Under God" in Texas Pledge Upheld

[kd5icr]

I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like: If you give up liberty for security you dont deserve either one.(pra-phrase)
If some think this a good idea then maybe you should pack up and move to China or North Korea because thats how they do things.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
He was transferred off the Arizona sometime in November of '41. It was only a matter of weeks later that the Japanese attacked Pearl. So he knew a great many people aboard. And considering what a friendly guy he was, I can imagine he knew a lot of people.
He was a communications officer, and after Pearl he went on to other assignments. Somehow he ended up working with the French underground in Europe. He never elaborated on that and he wasn't the sort to be pushed. If he didn't want to talk about something, you somehow knew it. I sure it would have been a great story though.

Thanks, that's an amazing story, he just made prior the dec 7, I bet he was quite sad knowing about many of his friends had parished. I was a radio man myself my officer was the communications officer, unfortunately the gear we used then became obsolete just when I got out of the Navy. Ya know every sunday at 7 am you can hear the reminding warning sirens and they play it very loud just as a reminder.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
We are being pro active. Taking your shoes off and surrendering your nail clippers, before you board a civilian airline, is proactive. Submitting to getting a National ID (Real ID) is being proactive.
The thousand and one little incursions into our privacy. Whether by our employers (NYC puts GPS trackers into city issued cell phones), Schools (some schools will start monitoring "My space" for mention of the student's activities that "may" be illegal). Cameras monitoring your every move (at one time Baltimore wanted to make it illegal to wear a mask on the street because it thwarted the cameras). A judge in Britain thinks it's crazy that they aren't collecting DNA from every citizen. He admits it would be a civil liberties problem. A civil liberties problem; as though civil liberties are something that they've got to find a reasonable sounding, way around.
We are being pro-active up the wazoo. At the same time we are being trained to accept ever more government incursion into our every day lives. It's not a conscious training. Congress isn't secretly meeting to plan the next intrusion or to bug our phones (wait,they do that already, just kidding, I'm in favor of the NSA program,oh shit, I'm trained already).
And even with all this pro-activeness going on; we will be hit again. The law of averages demands it. They've been damned good at catching these bastards. But only one has to get through.

You listed many forms of being pro active but you left out the part of political correctness when we search 80 year old ladies or me all the time at the aiports and are afraid of racial profiling. My terms of pro active is a little more aggressive than what you had mentioned, you can imagine what it is but genocide for terrorists will be considered as genocide for muslims by the liberals through out the world so we just wait until they hit us again and again.

[kickback]

kd5icr wrote:

I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like: If you give up liberty for security you dont deserve either one.(pra-phrase)
If some think this a good idea then maybe you should pack up and move to China or North Korea because thats how they do things.

Ben Franklin did not have to worry about Global Terrorism that is becomming nuclear capable either.

[Dinah]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
If that were the practice of the entire religion (we're talking about Muslims in this country,now) then I could agree. If being a Muslim meant that you are dedicated to killing everything that you viewed as offensive. Then I would agree, hang 'em all. But the problem is that that is not what all the Muslims here believe. It's a small faction that use the rest as cover.
Should all Italians have been rounded up because all Mafia are Italian?
Should all Germans have been rounded up because the Nazi's were German?(some would say that it was only because they weren't instantly recognizable that they weren't)
Once we start suspending the Constitution in favor of perceived safety, we're in trouble. The Constitution is not something that can be turned on and off. Or applied today but not tomorrow. Ya either got it; or ya ain't and when it's gone, there'll be an army over here keeping trying to keep peace among all the factions vying for power.

You misconstrue. I was speaking of the religion end only.

And I think you missed my point. We never "suspend the constitution". We just don't seek to APPLY IT TO FOREIGNERS. The preamble says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union......" That point STILL has not been adequately explained to me.

[Dinah]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
We are being pro active. Taking your shoes off and surrendering your nail clippers, before you board a civilian airline, is proactive. Submitting to getting a National ID (Real ID) is being proactive.
The thousand and one little incursions into our privacy. Whether by our employers (NYC puts GPS trackers into city issued cell phones), Schools (some schools will start monitoring "My space" for mention of the student's activities that "may" be illegal). Cameras monitoring your every move (at one time Baltimore wanted to make it illegal to wear a mask on the street because it thwarted the cameras). A judge in Britain thinks it's crazy that they aren't collecting DNA from every citizen. He admits it would be a civil liberties problem. A civil liberties problem; as though civil liberties are something that they've got to find a reasonable sounding, way around.
We are being pro-active up the wazoo. At the same time we are being trained to accept ever more government incursion into our every day lives. It's not a conscious training. Congress isn't secretly meeting to plan the next intrusion or to bug our phones (wait,they do that already, just kidding, I'm in favor of the NSA program,oh shit, I'm trained already).
And even with all this pro-activeness going on; we will be hit again. The law of averages demands it. They've been damned good at catching these bastards. But only one has to get through.

Reminds me of that saying I can't remember word for word from Ben Franklin in this security case.

[kd5icr]

kickback wrote:

<quoted text>
Ben Franklin did not have to worry about Global Terrorism that is becomming nuclear capable either.

Really you dont think the brit would play dirty?

[kickback]

kd5icr wrote:

<quoted text>
Really you dont think the brit would play dirty?

Sure but the fact remains nuclear capable terrorists did not exist at that time. Politicians make laws and statements according to the present surroundings, I don't really think some quotes from more that 200 years ago fit in today's picture as now we live in different times and extremely different scenarios.

[MJayM]

Dinah wrote:

<quoted text>
Reminds me of that saying I can't remember word for word from Ben Franklin in this security case.

I can.

Ben Franklin: "Beer is evidence that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

I hope this helps the freedom and security issue.

[Cibil War]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
when 99% of the population agree that there is a god. And chooses to acknowledge that existence and declare that their nation operates under it's ideals, well, you just gotta kinda go with the flow.
Those who demand that the god reference be removed are, in a sense, asking that the country and all the people in it be made over in THEIR image.
They refuse to understand that they are in the minority. They are not being asked to sit in the back of the bus, or drink from lesser fountains. They are not being asked to do anything that is detrimental to their health. Or being forced to wear anything that they would otherwise choose not to wear. They are not even being forced (hopefully) to say the pledge. But, that's not good enough for some, they have to have it their way. Regardless of how it affects the majority.

Thats not true. No one is claiming people shouldn't believe in God. It shouldn't be forced on kids at school. Thats what church and home is for. How about they start forcing it in restaurants and movie theaters. Maybe there should be laws created forcing families to pray at bedtime and before each meal. Religion should be a choice. The U.S claims to have religious freedom.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
Then how far do we go in relinquishing our right to privacy? In the interest of security?

That's the million dollar question ooops, I mean billion dollar question (inflation ya know). I guess it really depends on how successful we are at defeating terrorists or the threat of third world countries producing weapons of mass destruction. In the long run I would rather have my phones tapped, internet wired, bugged, or hell they can even have a camera in my shower if they want if that would help to prevent genocide. I enjoy privacy just as much as the next guy but some people don't really understand there are millions of Middle Easterns, terrorists including children that want to blow America off the map and now becomming capable of doing so. Maybe it's just me, but I'll do anything to preserve my life and my family even if it means a lack of privacy, it's easy to state otherwise unless you have come close to death with eye to eye contact before. People can pretend to be macho or have false pride but we will beg for our lives when they find out it's soon to be compromised with death, at that point people will change the tune of the privacy act song in a heart beat.

[kickback]

MJayM wrote:

<quoted text>
I can.
Ben Franklin: "Beer is evidence that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
I hope this helps the freedom and security issue.

With a shot of JD.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, they are not forcing religion on anyone. The rote repetition of "...under god..." cannot be construed as a religious practice.
Secondly, It is not prayer that is in question. It's a pledge of allegiance to the State of Texas (which in it self is fairly silly in my opinion)
It sounds to me as though what you are advocating is precedence of the minority OVER the majority.

It's worse then that, she takes everything out of context on every issue.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to disagree with you on this. Life without freedom, and constant surveillance precludes real freedom, whether the surveillance is active or passive, would not be worth living.
I don't know what you'd consider "close to death with eye to eye contact" but I've been robbed at gunpoint in my cab, does that count?

I was stabbed in my back and in my neck during a fight, they ambulance came shortly after my friend called them. When I arrived at the hospital I was begging for my life constantly as blood was squirting out of control. I was saved by a great thorasic surgeon and I asked him if I will live and he told me I'll be fine. It was at that point I realized how important my life means to me. Perhaps for some having a lack or intrusion of privacy may not be worth living but life to me is more important than anything.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess that sort of experience would put life in a different perspective for you. But we all have to form our opinions on what we surmise for ourselves. And that, of course affects our vote.
Glad you pulled through though.

Thank you, I still had and still do have many things to do for one everyone's goal in life should be to be successful, I'm not as of yet but that's the plan Stan. Successful to me is a combination of being content with life as well as the career, it's alot to ask but it can happen.

[kickback]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
I've no doubt, you'll make it.

Hopefully I make it on a fishing trip tomarrow for rockfish. Looks like we had some free time today, I get hooked on these blogs sometimes with many different people with many perspectives all in which are pretty damn interesting.

[Dinah]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to disagree with you on this. Life without freedom, and constant surveillance precludes real freedom, whether the surveillance is active or passive, would not be worth living.
I don't know what you'd consider "close to death with eye to eye contact" but I've been robbed at gunpoint in my cab, does that count?

I totally agree with you.

This is my feeling on the matter. When you have simple laws to benefit the populace and you don't enforce them but make them a joke; this is what you get. Funny thing is people don't seem to realize that LAWS do not protect them. We have LAWS out the wazoo. It's when they are not enforced, and people are unaware that some may already exist in a simpler form that we get MORE oppressive laws.

[Dinah]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps if you would define, for me, what you mean by "foreigners"? In the context of this discussion.

I'd beg your patience a little longer.

I mean, those who are NOT citizens of this country; naturalized or born. We HAVE separate laws for them; and in some cases they have diplomatic immunity, right? That is if they are visiting here with the state department.

I have lived in Germany following my husband in the military for 6 years and THEIR constitution did not apply to us. The only things that applied to us were the traffic and basic moral laws. Before we got an international driver's license there, we had to go through a course to earn the license. And we were to make certain our car (which was rarely needed) was in tip top shape to be legally able to operate on their roads. And heaven help us if we were ever to drive drunk and kill a citizen. They didn't have a police brutality thing like they do here. But, that is moral law; or civil all over the world; however you like it.

Their country's other laws did not apply to us; just as OURS in our constitution shouldn't apply to them.

[Dinah]

RICHARD X wrote:

<quoted text>
Then how far do we go in relinquishing our right to privacy? In the interest of security?

I don't know the answer to that one. I would guess it is slightly different for each individual. I know one thing. I was QUITE incensed when the schools started interferring with family privacy in their so called 'creative writing'classes. They asked questions no one had any business knowing. We were taught some basic manners growing up; and it seems they have tossed them to the wind. We were raised not to be "nosey".

[Dinah]

The government doesn't NEED a person's life story for security purposes.