12clicks

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ourt_pledge_dc


It's about time these asshats were given the bumb's rush.

__________________

candyflip

They didn't address anything. They threw it out on a technicality, not based on the complaint.

__________________

Spend you some brain.
Email Me

Juicy D. Links

LOL amzes me that shit flowing in the us legal system

AsylumN

12Clicks, are you obsessed with bringing down morons?

__________________
SexSearch

12clicks

all justices who talked about it said they would have ruled against this dope if it was a proper complaint.

__________________

Tom_PMs

He's not qualified to present the case. no drama.

"Under God" is not original to the pledge anyway. When I was a child, they allowed us to simply not say those two words which were added by politicians if we didnt want to.

Live and let live.

Tom_PMs

Quoted for illustrative purposes only.

Communism in the USSR, and the USSR itself, is a dead issue.

Whats it about now? China?
Nah, that cant be it.

Elli

Cuba, of course!

__________________
email: [email protected]

Tom_PMs

AH yes, those cubans and their swarthy looks and big fat cigars.. curses!

hey, theres something different about your face in your sig.. more cleavage maybe? hehe

Manowar

trying to fight religion when Republicans are in power just isnt gonna work

milehighclub

LOL... It's funny watching pornographers argue about god...

__________________
Fuck in an airplane - "Mile High Charter" Get Info

AnalProbe

twistyneck

As my lawyer once told a judge: The law is not a technicality.

I won.

airpal

"Under God" is a joke, and was never the intention of the pledge's original author.

If you care to inform yourself about the reality of the matter, read:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Or if you just want the pledge to support whatever you like, move along.

dig420

I'm so sick of fucking conservatives, especially pornographer conservatives, that I don't want to even participate in this thread.

Let's just say that I hope all you fucks end up living under the kind of government you think you want.

Madd

how stupid can people really get?

__________________
sig 4 sale. ICQ: 229 692 772

FlyingIguana

uhm they didn't rule against him...

neewwman

I couldn't have said it better.
Unfortunately, if they live under the kind of government they think they want, then I have too also.

__________________

Porn Wealth Everything the newbie adult webmaster needs to know. Buy it, or sell it through our 50% affiliate program!

baddog

what does one have to do with the other?

baddog

the technicality being that he did not even have custody of the child he was filing on behalf of

baddog

Sometimes the saying that "a man that acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client" rings very true.

This guy can't even get joint custody, he really should hire a pro if he can't accomplish what is normally a given.

cherrylula

One Nation Under Satan

<IMX>

Tom_PM yep...Eisenhower wasn't particularily religious either, but he wanted any God as opposed to being godless. An interesting time in both the Cold War and American religious history.

dig420-- yeah, I often wish some conservatives, especially the ignorant trailer park / fish would receive exactly what they think they want.

__________________
$$$ Check out NICHE PAY the leader of Micro Niche Sites! They offer $1 Trials! $$$
$$$ Check out 10 FREE TRIAL SALES equals 1 FREE LAP TOP ! $$$

atmclick

gosh, ive never seen anyone so tirelessly filter every story to fit his perspective, instead of rationally and intelligently form a perspective from the facts. 12clicks, it wont hurt to take a look other than that of rush limbaugh conservative politics at an issue facing us today. fact is, the founders of this country you profess to love so deeply intentionally and deliberately sought a complete seperation between orthodoxy and the government. the motivation was to prevent the splintering, discrimination, and argumentation they had seen in England, and that which we see today- this shouldnt even be an issue to be fought about.
I guess I would ask you 12clicks, why would you want the pledge to retain the words "under God"?

detoxed

B/c who really gives a fuck?

Holly

__________________
War National Damn Champions Eagle

dig420

It was just a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect. I actually wouldn't wish that on anyone. Eventually the lunatic right will be so discredited that they'll be back on the fringe and these guys will once again simply be considered 'eccentric' rather than dangerous.

Hopefully there won't be too much more damage done in the meantime

sacX

believing in God is like believing in magic.

Joe Citizen

"Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

Newdow also said, "I want my belief system to be given the same weight" as those with a particular religious faith. He said using the pledge as written amounts to having the government tell his daughter "her father is wrong" because of what he believes."

He's not an asshat. He's right.

And you know it. That makes you even more pathetic.

12clicks

poor diglet and his irrational misunderstanding of the world around him.

diglet, its not conservatives trying to overturn the status quo, its lunatic liberals like yourself.

__________________

sacX

it's.

sacX

Sounds like he might have a bit of a God complex himself, an ER doctor who has a law degree, is probably just a little bit egotistical. ;)

scoreman

The pledge of allegiance issue seems petty and ridiculous to many folks, myself included, but the underlying issue I believe Newdow wanted decided was whether it was proper that a parent with sole custody be able to make exclusive decisions about the raising of a child.

One can change the scenario just a bit and have the Mom wanting to have the child actively practice being a heavy duty Scientologist or Moony or Hari Krishna member against the desires of the Dad and this issue suddenly doesnt seem so petty. The Supreme Court merely pushed this issue to the backburner. It will return in a different form one day.

__________________

12clicks

son, the onlyissue facing us today is that some lunatic with an agenda 99% of the people disagree with wasted the supreme court's time with his bullshit.
The *issue* is the lunatic fringe being ignored by the people, the legislature, and the executive branch of the government, wasting our tax dollars with the help of the ultra liberal california court. nothing more.

only half right. next time you read a book, finish it. The first amendment was a protection from the state endorsing one religion over another because of the religious strife in england caused by the back and forth flip flopping of state religions by such manipulative rulers asEdwardVI, Henry VIII, Bloody Mary (do you know how she got her name), ElisabethI, etc. from catholic to protestant to church of England.
In spite of this prohibition, religion was a central part of almost everyone's life during the time of our founding fathers. Thus, the word "God" which favors no particular religion, was used liberally. It's only now where idiot atheists pretend atheism is a religion, that we have a problem with the pretend infringement of the constitution by "in god we trust" or under god" or "so help me god"


we see government backed "splintering, discrimination, and argumentation" ?
lets see the links, liar.


you're right. you idiot liberals should get a job.
Because at its time of inclusion into the pledge, the public was happy to have it, in all of the time its been included, no one has been hurt by it, and the vast majority of
Americans want it to stay in there today.


You see, its ok to be a dopey liberal, just don't expect intelligent people to go along with your lunatic fringe ideas.

__________________

scoreman

I don't think you can accurately categorize this case as one done with a liberal agenda. The desire of one parent to prevent the other parent from imposing religion on their child would seem to be equally a conservative agenda as it could be a liberal one.

__________________

12clicks

The courts, for reasons we don't know, felt that *SOLE* custody (a VASTLY different and more telling condition than SHARED custody) should be given to the mother. The courts felt that HER lifestyle (religion included) was what was best for the child.
And considering the lunatic actions of the father, I'm sure the courts were correct in giving the mother FULL custody.

__________________

scoreman

Sole custody is often awarded to the parent who is not the most stable. In many jurisdictions the mother gets sole custody, even if the father is more stable. Here is another real life example of someone i know. He has a child with a woman who has become a jesus thumping freak. Because of the child support he gives to her, she is now funding the child's education to go to a serious bible thumping school where the child is told they are bad and going to hell regularly. The man in this situation is more closely aligned to your own beliefs 12clicks and I think your attitude on this matter would do a 180 if you were this fellow.

__________________

12clicks

with all due respect, that's nonsense. He went before the court with the sole purpose of getting "under God" removed from the pledge. A very far left dopey idea. Nowhere does the argument rest on parent's rights.

__________________

sacX

idiot atheists? they're not the ones who believe in magic.

12clicks

This just isn't true. shared custody is always given unless the father doesn't want it or doesn't deserve it.

__________________

scoreman

To get an issue with standing before the high court he had to tailor his argument narrowly. The underlying issue is a family law child custody issue that is being driven by a constitutional issue. If the constitutional issue were decided in his favor the child custody law he was challenging would have been redirected back to the lower court on a reversal.

With all due respect, you are not seeing this issue for what it is.

__________________

12clicks

no, they're the ones who believe saying "under god" harms them.
Maybe they think its a magical saying?

__________________

sacX

ah so one guy represents all atheists.
Might as well say "under Santa Claus" it's equally as ridiculous.

scoreman

More and more this is true, but there are still many many MANY jurisdictions where the judges give sole custody to the Mother and have liberal visitation rights and $$$ support directed to the father.

__________________

12clicks

this just isn't true. you're basically saying that he tricked his way infront of the supreme court. striking down "under god" from the pledge has NOTHING to do with child custody. Thinking it does just shows how misguided this clown is.

__________________

Gunni

If this government is not as conservative as they want then... fucking hell, what do they want?

12clicks

standing in front of the supreme court trying to stike down "under god", yes.
and equally harmless which is the point these dopey atheists don't get.

__________________

scoreman

This case is rooted in Child custody issues. Look at the history of the case.

a) Newdow and mother are seperated.
b) Newdow is an atheist, the Mom a born again Christian
c) Newdow doesnt want his daughter saying the pledge because he believes its supporting religion.
d) Mom says sorry your screwed Newdow because in California sole custody means I get to make the call here on this matter.
e) Newdow cannot get what he wants because the Child custody laws in California bar him. Newdow decides to pursue the constitutional issue because it would make the child custody law unconstitional. The child custody law is what is preventing him from achieving what he wants.
f) Newdow gets review of the case by the 9th COA under the issue that 1) He as a father gets the right to decide religion for his child (lots of case law on that) 2) the pledge requirement violated his constitutional right to decide religion for his child.

He didnt trick the court, what he did was he needed to make the issue revolve around the pledge because of the child custody laws in California prevented him from having a decision in his childs upbringing.

Newdow definitely makes an unsympathetic plaintiff. Atheists as a whole arent highly regarded in American society.

__________________

12clicks

only because we have trouble making assholes in our ranks.

__________________

sacX

troublemaking? if that phrase was removed from the pledge it would be equally as harmless by your reasoning. How is that trouble making?