ExxonMobil earns Record $10 Billion Profit in Quarter

[Ryan Schaecher]

No need to put words in my mouth, you did a pretty good interpretation.



At my high school, we occassionally got grants for uniforms, equipment, etc for sport, band, choir, etc. We also relied HEAVILY on the local businesses for support/sponsorship.



One of the recent trends is school districts having to defend themselves against the likes of Mr. Michael Newdow and his attempts to rid the vile U.S. of the gastly thing called the Pledge of Allegiance. Just think of how much money the school districts have to spend, even if the lawyers are doing the work pro-bono.



Title IX does cost everyone. High school, College, etc. It's another rediculous social engineering experiment. I agree that there should not be a cut of the girl's soccer program to fund a boy's football program. However, we should not be cutting boy's basketball because the girl's soccer team couldn't generate enough interest to field a team, thus putting the school in Title IX violation (which happens fairly regularly).

 

[John Mastrocco]

Personally I think we should go back to the original pledge - the one used prior to the 1950's when the Congress decided to make changes to "show" those 'godless communists' what a REAL country does.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Why? This country is a religious country. Founded that way. Keep it that way. What's it hurt to have the "Under God" in there? You don't have the right to not be offended. You take it out, you will offend more than 60% of this country without batting an eye. That's minority tyranny, something we fought the King of England to get away from.



Instead of using the courts to force a change, go about change the CORRECT way, put it up for a reforendum or take it to the Congress to change. Judges are not supposed to make law (which, believe it or not they are doing in this case).



If my representatives voted to remove the words "Under God" out of the pledge with 49 others (giving a 51 vote majority) I would say fine. I wouldn't like it, but at least it was done correctly. This current situation is not the way to change law.

 

[John Mastrocco]

We were not founded as a religious country. We were founded as a democratic republic - not a theocracy. Get off that bandwagon if you want to be taken seriously. Most of the people that came to the Americas came mainly for economic reasons with the religious freedom it afforded secondary, if even considered. The majority of the English settlers were and remained followers of the C of E after arriving in the Americas - as they were in England. And the French, Dutch, Spanish Irish, Italian, Russian, German, etc. remained loyal to their home churches as well, with the sole reason for coming here being economic. There were some very early settlers (the Puritans) and some later settleres (Russian Jews) that came mainly for religious freedom reasons, but the vast majority of settlers came due to limited/nonexistent economic prospects in their home country or to find wealth in the new world. This was true from the very first settlers and remains true for the majority of the newest ones.



But if we are so religious, why wasn't it in there to begin with? Why was it changed? What was the real purpose of the change? What purpose did the change really serve? It was a vocal minority at the time that got the change passed (abetted by a majority that didn't really care one way or the other.) Was that "minority tyranny?" The majority of Congressional members didn't really care one way or the other either, except to make a political statement. Do some research and stop using platitudes to support your view.



The type of decision making you complain of so loudly is done all the time and you don't bat an eye when you agree with the results. But that's human nature. And we didn't fight the King of England to get away from 'minority tyranny'. It was to get away from imperial rule. If you look at it from a very narrow view I guess you could say it was tyranny by a minority of one, but that would sound ridiculous. If the King had treated the colonies as more than a source of income they never would have broken away to begin with. We'd be like Canada is today.



The Constitution is mainly supposed to define the mechanics of Government and the Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The three branches of government is also supposed to serve that purpose. The "tyranny of the minority" is another conservative myth along with the "Liberal Media." (The media as a whole is not liberal. Certain parts are, but others are conservative. How come I never hear you complain about them if you think all media should be unbiased? Taken in all it's many forms, the medai as a whole is pretty well balanced between the liberal, conservative and moderate vews. Of course, there is always the problem that too many only partake of one facet and ignore the others, which might lead them to believe the whole media is biased one way or the other. Or are you one of those that only looks at TV, a couple of large Urban Newspapers and one or two magazines when referring to "the Media?")



Now, this has nothing to do with how I feel about using "Under God" in the pledge. I personally see nothing wrong with it and I also believe this decision is a waste of time and will be overturned before it even gets to the Supreme Court. So why get so upset over it? But if it was removed it would make no difference to me as well. IMO, the words of the pledge with or without "under God" no longer have any real meaning to the majority of those reciting them.



I also think it shows a lot of Hubris on our part, as all nations are 'under God'. So the only purpose I can see in the words is we are publicly acknowledging it. Why we would want to do that I don't know, but it must be the only reason. But words mean nothing if the actions don't follow suit. And I don't believe the actions of the USA always show that we really believe we are Under God. (One nation is another concept entirely. I sometimes wonder if we are or ever have bee

 

[Dale Carter]

Rocco - agreed except for two points.



The "all nations are under God". Some have specifically rejected all forms of the Judeo-Christian God referenced in the pledge.



Also regarding the liberal media. Ever seen the voting stats for journalists, editors and j-school teachers and students? 90+% vote on the liberal side of the ticket. It is an absolute impossibility to completely remove personal bias in the reporting and editing process. Yes, there are hundreds of small town newspapers and media outlets, but they don't reach a significant portion of our country. The print news reporting is dominated by the major news services whose articles are regurgitated by all of the major outlets. The impact of the sources you cited is so disproportionate, that they define the media. Network broadcast news is openly hostile to the right (see Dan Rather et al) as is MSNBC and CNN.



Please Rocco, the liberal bias of media is undeniable, at least that is what a VERY liberal journalism prof taught me in college. Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times does not make the entire media conservative.

 

[John Mastrocco]

When I said "all nations are under God" I was speaking from the POV that if you believe in God at all, then all nations are under God whether they want to believe it or not. Sorry I wasn't more clear.



When I refer to the media I refer to the content of the entire media. Most local newspapers are conservative - I know mine is extremely conservative (The Daily Oklahoman.) They reach more people than any three large newspapers. Radio consists of two basic formats: music and talk. Music is pretty apolitical and even if the DJ's have a liberal bent as a rule, they don't talk politics much because it turns off the listeners. Talk Radio, OTOH, is pretty much exclusively of two types - sports and politics. I won't get into sports, but political talk radio is OVERWHELMINGLY conservative. Air America is dying as we speak, so I don't even bother to count it. The only possible exception is NPR, and that is not 100% talk radio and has a very small listening audience compared to Rush Limbaugh AND some shows with a conservative angle to them.



When you look at the top three media sources, other than the internet which is rapidly gaining ground among the youngest citizens, it is TV, Radio and Local Newspapers. No idea what the order may be, but I bet it's close to the way I listed them. The editorial content is pretty evenly split between those three with National TV slightly to extremely liberal (Fox news the exception), Local TV slightly conservative to slightly liberal (sometimes within the same staff), local newspapers moderate (as in middle of the road, not moderately conservative) to extremely conservative and talk radio moderately conservative to extremely conservative. Of course there are exceptions in all three areas.



While I understand that most people that identify themselves as journalists may identify themselves as liberal, overall the media outlets that have the most influence are pretty evenly split between liberal and moderate. (How liberal the NYT or conservative the WSJ may be is irrelevant since they have relatively small circulations in comparison to the US adult population.)



But to take it one more step: the vast majority of people say they don't trust TV news BECAUSE they are liberal. If that is the case, they either are not influenced by TV news because they don't trust them, which means the "liberal media" doesn't have as much influence as people want us to believe, or they are extremely stupid for letting themselves be influenced by something they don't trust.



Want to take a stab at the one I lean toward?



Then there are the movies. Want to talk schizophrenia?

 

[Tom Schindler]

IMO, Gay Marriage, "Under God", and other political topics should be solved by a vote. Not by a judge or the president, but by a vote. If the majority thinks Gays should be allowed to get married, then so be it. Let them get married. I might not agree with it, but the majority has spoken and that is the way it is. The same goes for "under God". If I get offended by that statement, but the majority says they want to keep it, I guess the majority rules.



We have rights. Maybe I want it to stay "One nation, under God"...maybe I don't. I don't feel my personal beliefs are more important then someone elses.



So if there is a room of 10 people and 9 people want Pizza, but I want Chicken, we are going to eat pizza. If I don't like it, let me buy my own chicken. Now, if I were MADE to eat pizza, then I have a problem.



Nowhere does it say that I must salute the flag. If I were someone that was offended by the statement "one nation, under God", then I don't have to salute the flag if I don't want to. If I am required to salute the flag, then that is a different story.





Tom



<Font color=RED>Fixed a spelling error</Font>

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Well stated Caymen.



Rocco-

Sorry, your still not convinceing me that we were not founded in Judeo-Christian values, in a Judeo-Christian manner, being a semi-faith based country and still are.



You can spout off about not being taken seriously, but history is on MY SIDE. From the beginning the courts have opened with prayer, the congress has opened session with prayer, the presidents have almost always invoked God in either their retirement speeches and innaguration speechs. There is a National Day of Prayer. There is the National Cathedral (which is not limited to use by Catholics or Protestants). The orgional declaration for Thanksgiving was a Day of Giving Thanks to God and of Rest. Sunday is recognized in the government as the day of rest. Biblical verses can be found on the stone in the White House fireplace. Treaties recognize God. The president swears on a bible (even liberal presidents like JFK and Clinton). The Declaration of Independanced declairs the goodness of God. The first amendment states:

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

Finally, the 10th Amendment states:

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.

Where does it say that Judges shall rule with an Iron fist?



Just the facts.

 

[Dale Carter]

Rocco - TV is by far the leader in news distribution, there might as well not even be a second place. Agreed, NYT and Washington Post have a small circulation, but their influence is huge. How many times do we hear them quoted by newscasters, print journalists and news services.



So the vast majority of people say the media is liberal? But it really isnt? Huge numbers of people, even a majority, say the MSM is liberal. Hmmmm....They must have been duped by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. What idiots.



Tom - I agree with the sentiment, but the country isn't set up that way. I think referendums can be a very dangerous thing. I have agreed with several in CA (subsequently knocked down by the courts), but another term for democracy is "mob rule". I think our representative democracy is by far the best method, but I share your frustrations.



How about this, referendums can be taken and then our reps use the results in an advisory capacity to cast their votes? Then they can explain their votes to their constituents, rather than hiding from responsibility behind referendums, voice votes and court decisions.