testtest

I pledge allegiance to the flag......

cico7 said:
Removing the slogan, no it would not devalue the US dollar. Letting the cancel culture rewrite the
Pledge of Allegiance would probably eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance.

Back in the days when the constitution was written a non believer would have been stoned and
labeled a devil worshiper.
Click to expand...
And there’s a lot of conservatives that would like to see that again…

Which makes removing the line all that much more important.
 
Bellamy’s intentions are kinda irrelevant. He was a propagandist and he wrote something patriotic. Great. The addition of “under God” was also political, okay.

It doesn’t really matter because the under god debate was settled when the States ratified the Constitution. The country was formed with the acknowledgment of a higher power. It’s the basis of our rights. Not only “natural rights”, or only God given rights. It’s both. And, seriously, they’re the same thing. But the founders weren’t playing checkers, they were playing three dimensional chess. Their personal beliefs about God were strong but they also knew that keeping the concept of a king or king-like figure out and having a rule set with a basis beyond the reach of man was critical. Go back to the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph is probably the best remembered and the first paragraph has been reduced to a sound bite. But the beginning isn’t just a “yo we’re breaking up” it sets the foundation for everything to follow.
“..to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Btw- If anyone come at me with “but the Supreme Court said..” I will dig up Betsy Ross and sling shot her your direction🤣.
The federalized and judicially hobbled Constitution as it exists today is a bastardization and I refuse to accept any questions on, or to debate the merits of, my statements in regards to reality. The last word!
 
I’ll digress back to the OP:

How can an American born citizen with all its liberties, forego that and decline an invitation to be an Olympian for the USA, but then join the Chinese Olympic team.
Then win Gold, on the merits of training in the USA.

Citizenship should be revoked

“I pledge Allegiance to the United States of America”
 
KillerFord1977 said:
I’ll digress back to the OP:

How can an American born citizen with all its liberties, forego that and decline an invitation to be an Olympian for the USA, but then join the Chinese Olympic team.
Then win Gold, on the merits of training in the USA.

Citizenship should be revoked

“I pledge Allegiance to the United States of America”
Click to expand...
BINGO!!!
 
KillerFord1977 said:
I’ll digress back to the OP:

How can an American born citizen with all its liberties, forego that and decline an invitation to be an Olympian for the USA, but then join the Chinese Olympic team.
Then win Gold, on the merits of training in the USA.

Citizenship should be revoked

“I pledge Allegiance to the United States of America”
Click to expand...

Help me out, I haven't been paying any attention to the Olympics. I agree with what you said but who are you talking about?
 
I'm going back to the Pledge. First, there wasn't one. Then there was one without reference to God. Then a reference to God was added. So? Changes happen. No matter how you write it, someone will object to something, or lack of something. It's good the way it is. I'd rather live in a country under God than not, even if I didn't believe in God.

Which values would you rather? "Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust," OR "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?" The way I see it, those are the choices.
 
Ranger715 said:
I'm going back to the Pledge. First, there wasn't one. Then there was one without reference to God. Then a reference to God was added. So? Changes happen. No matter how you write it, someone will object to something, or lack of something. It's good the way it is. I'd rather live in a country under God than not, even if I didn't believe in God.

Which values would you rather? "Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust," OR "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?" The way I see it, those are the choices.
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t “E Pluribus Unum”—“Out of Many, One” mean the same thing as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”?

Many = Diversity, no? Equity and inclusion is necessary to make those Many One, no?
 
HansGruber said:
Why doesn’t “E Pluribus Unum”—“Out of Many, One” mean the same thing as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”?

Many = Diversity, no? Equity and inclusion is necessary to make those Many One, no?
Click to expand...
No.

E pluribus unum means unifying many diverse elements under common principles and values. You can be Jewish, Indian, Norwegian, Nigerian, Catholic, etc. while still being united as "American" with all those others in your reverence for the values and principles described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Diversity, as it is currently used in the political context, means identifying everyone's separate little racial, ethnic, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, economic class etc. groups and assigning them either a privileged or oppressed status. It emphasizes division, not unity. It means walking into a room full of people and immediately counting how many of this type or that type of person there are compared to how many there "should" be. It disregards individual character in favor of superficial traits.

Equity, again in the context of current politics, does not refer to equality under the law. It means making everyone the same, regardless of behavior, ability, accomplishment, etc. No one is allowed to excel. Liberty always results in inequities, because free people live their lives unequally. Equity cannot coexist with liberty.

Inclusion actually means the exclusion of anyone who fails to conform to the leftist ideological dictates. Just ask any prominent conservative speaker or professor on a college campus how much "inclusion" they experience from the people who espouse these values. Many people have been excluded from social media, universities, corporate boardrooms, their jobs and even their families by those flying the banner of "Inclusion."

Sorry for the diatribe, but you asked, no?
 
HansGruber said:
Why doesn’t “E Pluribus Unum”—“Out of Many, One” mean the same thing as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”?

Many = Diversity, no? Equity and inclusion is necessary to make those Many One, no?
Click to expand...
You are stretching quite a bit here. Many doesn't mean diverse by any rational stretch of the imagination. 1000 white, male landowners are many, they are not diverse. Equity? Another stretch depending on just what exactly you actually mean by the term equity. People living in the same space can be united by a common theme ( i.e. The USA on 9/12/01) but that by no means infers equity.

To address the idea that many conservatives would like non believers to be stoned and labeled devil worshippers:

I don't think very many people at all would be okay with ANYONE being stoned to death for what they believe in or don't believe in. I also don't think too many people left alive today think that people who don't believe in god are actually devil worshippers.

I suspect you were employing a little tongue in cheek to infer that many conservatives are self righteous, bigoted Christians. That's true, though I would argue that A) the majority of Christians are not self righteous bigots and actually DO believe everyone has a right to believe what they want and B) there is an ever growing population of American conservatives who aren't Christian at all, myself included.

To address the idea that the current vernacular printed on US currency should be changed:

It's like everything else on your wish list brother. When you are the majority and have the strength and numbers to legally inflict change, you will. You should be careful what you wish for though. Using an extremely vocal minority aided by a willing media to affect change and more specifically to infringe on people's 1st amendment rights is a very dangerous thing. In 1950 the shoe, so to speak, was on the other foot. It's short-sided and ridiculously stupid to assume that shoe won't ever switch feet again.
The founding fathers weren't ignorant men. They set up the government with specific rules for affecting change and trying to take shortcuts to make the changes you want sets precedent. Precedent that will almost certainly come back to bite you in the ass at some point. (i.e. Harry Reid and the nuclear option). This manipulation of the public narrative through infiltration of the media, which was frankly achieved by indoctrination through the "Higher education" institutions, has been very successful so far. That's because for the most part the right in this country has been unwilling to drop down into the mud with the left. As any intelligent person can see, that is beginning to change. The "Populist movement" isn't going anywhere. The Orange menace was not the culmination, it was the origination. You now have an ever growing number of people of the opposite ideological persuasion beginning to use the tactics you pioneered. And run of the mill, moderate conservatives are defecting in larger numbers every day. If you think dispatching the bad orange man means things will go back to the way they were before you are in a mental institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top