Will NBC Be Suprised - VOTE

[Darin Jordan]

I'm not putting this up for discussion, just for your own information. Do with it what you see fit...

MSNBC.com is having a live vote:

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

[H&MWill]

What a joke! Everytime I think what next.

[Doug Smock]

How long is it going to take before good people start "Going Postal"??

[Steven Vaccaro]

Just voted. This is starting to become ridiculous.

[AndyKunz]

86% say "keep it" right now. Hmmmm, almost sounds like a mandate! (A mandate being 50.1% according to the current thinking).

Andy

[egneg]

I voted on this quite some time ago - I am in the majority.

[domwilson]

Personally, I think these people got it all wrong. I think the separation of church and state was to discourage religious influence in the operation of the government. I don't believe it meant removal of any reference of God on every piece of government owned, paid for, representation, etc. Then there is the historical and tradition aspects....Don't these people have better things to do? Like donating their obvious free time to help someone in need, volunteer work at a hospital, feeding the homeless, making me a sandwich....

[Bill-SOCAL]

Personally, I think these people got it all wrong. I think the separation of church and state was to discourage religious influence in the operation of the government.

Actually it was just the opposite, the Founding Fathers were most concerned about the interference of government in religion. The whole idea was to set up a system where the government did not and could not influence religion. Sadly, many have turned that around and seem intent on having religion influence government.

It might interest people to know that the Founding Fathers did not use this term, it did not appear on money until 1864 and did not become the National Motto until 1956.

The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S. 302, which provides: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

Sort of like "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The guy who wrote it, a MINISTER, did not use the term. It was added by Congress in the 50's to make certain people knew we were not a bunch of God-da%*ed Commies!!

MSNBC has had this, or similar polls running for a few years now. Pretty much the same results every time.

[domwilson]

Actually it was just the opposite, the Founding Fathers were most concerned about the interference of government in religion. The whole idea was to set up a system where the government did not and could not influence religion. Sadly, many have turned that around and seem intent on having religion influence government.

It might interest people to know that the Founding Fathers did not use this term, it did not appear on money until 1864 and did not become the National Motto until 1956.



Sort of like "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The guy who wrote it, a MINISTER, did not use the term. It was added by Congress in the 50's to make certain people knew we were not a bunch of God-da%*ed Commies!!

MSNBC has had this, or similar polls running for a few years now. Pretty much the same results every time.

You are correct. My mistake. I should have wrote to discourage government intervention in the practice of religion. Should have remembered why those people came over here on the Mayflower in the first place.

[NorthernBoater]

The only thing that mentions religion is in the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. The founding fathers did not state that religion should be taken out of the government entirely, only that people should be free to choose whatever religion they want to.

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.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Again, you have this backwards, they were trying to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. But once you separate them it does not matter which direction you come from to try to introduce one into the other.

They made them separate and I cannot see any good reason to question their good judgment in this case.

[RCprince]

We should have impeached BUSH for saying "GOD" sent him. HIS "GOD" cost a lot of people to lose their lives.

[domwilson]

So Bill, If MSNBC has run this poll before. What do you think their intent, if any, may be?

[Darin Jordan]

We should have impeached BUSH for saying "GOD" sent him. HIS "GOD" cost a lot of people to lose their lives.

So did Bin Laden's and Sadam Husain's... And theirs struck first... and are still striking... are are RESPONSIBLE for ours that have died...

You know... these same type of lame, isolationist attitudes existed in the early part of the 20th century... Right up until it cost a whole mess of other American lives at Pearl Harbor... And I suppose Bush is responsible for the Japanese doing that too...

GOD Bless AMERICA!

[RCprince]

Let me see where this 6 degrees of separation lies.



Oh Sh** that's GW secretary of defense meeting with Saddam (what a nation to nation handshake) Under his father GHWB administration. I bet I can find a connection to Pearl harbor with grand daddy, Prescott Bush

[Bill-SOCAL]

So Bill, If MSNBC has run this poll before. What do you think their intent, if any, may be?

The one and only thing any media outlet is concerned with, ratings.

[NorthernBoater]

Again, you have this backwards, they were trying to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. But once you separate them it does not matter which direction you come from to try to introduce one into the other.

They made them separate and I cannot see any good reason to question their good judgment in this case.

Show me where they made them separate. All I know is of just one letter by Jefferson and that later became interpreted as law by our judicial branch. Why in our public school system can we talk about Muslim, Buddhism and other religions but talking about Christianity is taboo. Our society is full of double standards.

[Bill-SOCAL]

So did Bin Laden's and Sadam Husain's... And theirs struck first...

First, these two guys had nothing to do with each other.

bin Laden is a religious zealot. Hussein (can we at least get the guy's name right after all this time?) ran a secular government that shunned religion until towards the end when he embraced a sort of religion as a means of controlling his people. But keep in mind that even then he was a Sunni, which is the minority in Iraq.

What I still want ot know is why 4,000+ Americans are dead in a country that did nothing to us while the guy who killed 3,000 Americans in the Twin Towers still walks the earth a free man.

[RCprince]

. Hussein (can we at least get the guy's name right after all this time?) ran a secular government that shunned religion until towards the end when he embraced a sort of religion as a means of controlling his people.

Sounds like the Republican party and Christianity.
.

[RCprince]

Didn't the U.S. Under Who?... sh** G.HW.Bush train Bin laden to go after the Soviets.


Darin, for your viewing pleasure... Don't tell Hannity... http://www.viddler.com/explore/endgamenow/videos/127/

[Darin Jordan]

What I still want ot know is why 4,000+ Americans are dead in a country that did nothing to us while the guy who killed 3,000 Americans in the Twin Towers still walks the earth a free man.

I'm not sure I'd say he was "walking"... like Sadam, he's crawling around from cave to cave...

If the Russians couldn't get him in 10-years of fighting, you may conclude that it's a little more difficult to get him than it was Sadam...

Hey, look... I'm all for just letting this countries fight amongst themselves... fine... if we want to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, I suppose I can live with that... But when they bring it to our doorstep... Them's fighten words...

[Bill-SOCAL]

If the Russians couldn't get him in 10-years of fighting, you may conclude that it's a little more difficult to get him than it was Sadam...

You do realize of course that one of the major reasons the Russians failed was due to the support of the US government. The irony is that we in essence created Bin Laden and the Taliban.

And again, Iraq was no threat to the US. They had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Hussein hated Bin Laden and was scared to death of Islamic Fundamentalism in his country. Yes, he was a brutal dictator. Yes, he killed his own people (with weapons we provided in more than one instance), but he was not a threat to you and yours. And now we have 4,000 dead Americans with many still in harm's way (including my brother), and for what??

Walking, crawling, whatever, Bin Laden has not been caught. And I want to know why.

[Darin Jordan]

Walking, crawling, whatever, Bin Laden has not been caught. And I want to know why.

I may not have my facts straight here, but isn't one of the reasons he's still around is that Clinton had him in his sights, then refused to pull the trigger... so to speak??

I'd like to know why they haven't gotten him yet either... But let's remember... the chase for Bin Laden is NOT a U.S. chase... it's a U.N. chase... Of course, as usual, we are asked to pull the weight there...

[Bill-SOCAL]

Well, here are some facts:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/...dTerrorism.htm

Also keep in mind that during the time Clinton was President that it was illegal for a President to order a "hit" on anyone. But despite all that, Clinton actually did make a work around of the ban to authorize action against Bin Laden. But blaming what happened on 9/11 on Clinton for not acting preemptively is a real stretch

Also, it is no small amusement for me that it was the Republicans who criticized Clinton the harshest when he did authorize military actions against terrorist camps because they said it was to divert attention from the Lewinsky situation. Now of course he is criticized for not doing more.

Kind of makes you wonder what would have happened had he not been diverted with all the BS the GOP and Kenneth Starr came up with almost from Day 1 of his tenure.

And I also find it amusing that nobody ever seems to remember that it was during Clinton that the first Trade Center bombing took place. And the perpetrators were caught, tried, and are in jail.

But you are right, 9/11 is Clinton's fault (I hope I live long enough for the day to come when the right finally stops blaming EVERYTHING on Clinton!!). Certainly Bush bears no fault, I mean it wasn't like he got a security briefing title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Oh wait a minute, he DID get that!!

But this does nothing to try to explain why after nearly 8 years Bin Laden has slipped through our fingers. Frankly I am amazed that we have not Rush start blaming Obama for not catching Bin Laden yet. I mean it's been over 60 days now, whet the he!! is he doing??

[domwilson]

Bill, I am impressed with your memory. I recall the same things.

[AndyKunz]

But you are right, 9/11 is Clinton's fault (I hope I live long enough for the day to come when the right finally stops blaming EVERYTHING on Clinton!!).

You know what, Bill. I remember 1977-1981 very well. I remember gasoline prices not too distant from where they are now, and mortgage interest rates that today is considered high even by credit card standards. President Carter was blamed for a lot of it (some rightfully), but one thing I learned firsthand while working for the gov't was that he was personally responsible for some of the classified projects staying alive during those years, only to be used by President Reagan against a number of enemies.

So while I disagree with how the former President acts today toward others who have since held the office, I do commend him for several things:

a) Because he had the experience as a military officer, he made the right decisions for the future of the country.

b) Because he had a Christian background, he chose to overlook (forgive?) certain of his critics who didn't know better.

c) Because he knows his life is in God's hands, he chose to forego his lifetime right to Secret Service bodyguards.

d) Because he was public about his faith (remember, that's when most folks heard "born again" for the first time), he had respect from both sides simply for his openness.

e) Habitat for Humanity - need I say more? It's not a government program. It's how "welfare" should work. People helping people, not government doing for people.

I don't think his policies were all his own; I think he knew he had to please certain Democratic policy makers. But I also know that even when they tried to shut down certain projects, he flat out ignored them. THAT is very respectable.

I only hope that in 20 years you learn enough about President Bush to realize he wasn't quite as bad as the left thinks. I think historians in the future will look favorably on him.

Andy

[Bill-SOCAL]

OK. I was talking about the Right's obsession with blaming everything on Clinton, so I am not sure what your point is.

And you seem to have glossed over the vitriolic attacks on Carter for his "botching" of the Iran hostage rescue. It was sad to see how easily the right allowed a guy who made B movies in the war to attack the military credentials of a guy who actually served in the Navy. Carter was a nuclear trained officer. I went through the same program he did (I was an enlisted man) but I will put him up against a movie actor any day of the week.

We've got another Republican actor as our governor out here. Sadly we are paying the price for him to learn that playing the Terminator and actually governing the 5th largest economy in the world are very different things.

[AndyKunz]

Actually, I thought you guys had a Kennedy in charge. His speeches sure sound Kennedy-esque, although with the wrong accent.

And don't tell me his predecessor was on the right track. Nobody is that stupid.

Andy

[Bill-SOCAL]

And don't tell me his predecessor was on the right track. Nobody is that stupid.

Andy

Yes Gray Davis was totally off base. He borrowed money to try to balanace the budget, raised taxes, and took loads of special interest money.

Fortunately Arnold is TOTALLY different.

Arnie has shown how different by borrowing record amounts of money to try to balance the budget, raised taxes, taken special interest money (from different special interests) at a record rate.

He is completely different.

[Darin Jordan]

Arnie has shown how different by borrowing record amounts of money to try to balance the budget, raised taxes, taken special interest money (from different special interests) at a record rate.

He is completely different.

Maybe you guys need to take a lesson or two from Mrs. Palin... Her state has a balanced budget, BILLIONS put away for a rainy day, including a couple billion specifically for education, and is all setup to weather this storm...

Yup... she's just a "Moose Hunter"... Not qualified to run anything...

Our governer here isn't much better than yours..., and, in fact, our per-capita deficit is about the same as yours... or close to it...

Arnie isn't really a republican anyhow... very little he does even resembles anything "conservative"...

Regan cleaned up Carter's mess... I'll take someone with common sense over a degree in Nuclear Physics and high "ideals" any day...