DC SUCKS.....Re: Your Turn
Tracey
Kelly Younger wrote:
> Tracey wrote:
> >
> > "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <2C6DD4EF650EF56D.B3AC7785...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > > m...@wt.net says...
> > >
> > > > Free clue: those DNC blast faxes lie.
> > > > What a tool...........
> > > >
> > > > Just for S&G's how about posting why you think President Bush is a
> > > > puppet.
> > >
> > > And how about your pointing out exactly which Democratic claims you feel
> > > are lies, and why?
> >
> > "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN" will live in infamy. That is the all
> > time biggest lie ever told by any US politician anywhere. Go hang your head
> > and cry, ye old democrat socialist.
>
> Oh, OK. That was between him and her though, I couldn't care less either
> way. I *do* care about someone having sex, so to speak, with my wallet.
> Don't you remember "Read my lips, no new taxes!"? That affected every
> single tax payer in the United States of America. Now, which is the
> bigger lie?
>
> The "sex" lie didn't cost Clinton his job. The "lips" lie *did* cost
> Kennebunkport George his...
> --
> Kelly Younger
Sure, "Read my lips, Im lying my butt off" cost Bush the next election. Clinton's
immorality cost him dearly. He's the 2nd pres to be impeached. In history, he
looks like a whore monger.
The socialist democratic party believes that government has all the answers. If
only you'll hand over your rights and money, everything will be just fine.
The Republicans are a mixed bag. You've got the old establishment yankee east
coast globalists who are the epitome of the traditional Pro Big Business, to Hell
with the Employee, types. And there are the neo-Conservatives in the GOP who have
not fully figured out what they want to be. One day, they are truly conservative,
but next day when the mexican welfare pimps/wetbacks scream they are being
ignored, these younger members of the party wimp out and begin to behave like
commie democrats.
The Reagan Republicans have been left swinging in the breeze. They are the true
Conservatives. They are for less government, fewer taxes, no environmentalist
wacko rules/laws, and a much greater emphasis on restraining the Feds per the US
Constitution.
How long has it been since you've heard a politician talk about "Constitutional
Government", or anything similar? They do not want to be held to constitutional
limits.
" To Hell with your rights, we want power!"
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> Sure, "Read my lips, Im lying my butt off" cost Bush the next election. Clinton's
> immorality cost him dearly. He's the 2nd pres to be impeached. In history, he
> looks like a whore monger.
History will treat Clinton the way it treats Andrew Johnson: as the
victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
country for the sake of partisan politics.
Vilani .
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeff.s...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1796a1ce...@news.verizon.net...
That may be true, but Clinton won't find his ugly mug on any money.
Simon
vil...@earthlink.net wrote on 7/10/02 9:23 PM:
> "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeff.s...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1796a1ce...@news.verizon.net...
>> History will treat Clinton the way it treats Andrew Johnson: as the
>> victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
>> country for the sake of partisan politics.
>
> That may be true, but Clinton won't find his ugly mug on any money.
Neither did Johnson. You might, however, be thinking of Andrew Jackson,
who's on the twenty.
gregorio cortez
> victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
> country for the sake of partisan politics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Whether he or his sycophantic lackeys like it or not, the Dope from Hope's
"legacy" was permanently seared into history on September 11th, 2001.
Unfortunately, our country and some three thousand of its citizens were
victims of his focus on diverting public attention from his perjurious
behavior rather than making a sincere effort to seek out and destroy those
enemies that would wish to destroy us...
zmi...@yahoo.com
<sherif...@vivalaraza.net> wrote:
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
>
>Whether he or his sycophantic lackeys like it or not, the Dope from Hope's
>"legacy" was permanently seared into history on September 11th, 2001.
>Unfortunately, our country and some three thousand of its citizens were
>victims of his focus on diverting public attention from his perjurious
>behavior rather than making a sincere effort to seek out and destroy those
>enemies that would wish to destroy us...
>
If in fact Clinton had at the time instigated a massive anti-terrorist
military campaign, conservatives would have accused him of "Wagging
the dog" to divert attention from his sex scandal. No-win scenario.
No one was making much noise about terrorism until Sept. 11.
Conservatives were too preoccupied with oval office hanky-panky to
worry about details like national security.
If the Sun exploded tomorrow, some people would find a way to blame it
on Clinton, who holds a curiously mythical status as some kind of
omnipotent deity responsible for All Bad Things.
Tracey
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
HEHEHEHEH! You wish!
Tracey
Kelly Younger wrote:
>
>
> If you think Clinton's the first philanderer, you are a fool. Please,
> don't say "only Democrats are"...
Point to a Republican president who was busted for philandering while in office.
>
> If a Democrat was proposing to spend all the money that Bush is on new
> cabinet positions, SEC and accounting watchdog agencies, and
> anti-terrorist campaigns that Bush is...why you could hear Rush Limbaugh
> screaming from his palatial estate now.
If you would only listen, you would hear Rush screaming from his studio almost daily.
Don't tell me you listen to Daschole.
>
>
> What about the Log Cabin Republicans and "The (so-called) Moral
> Majority? At least Democrats know what they are.
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Queers.
The Moral Majority: A religious group.
Which way do you think NAMBLA tends to vote?
>
>
> Yeah, sure. You mean like Reagan's Vice President's son? Yeah, it's
> trickling down all right. I think I'll go clean myself.
Typical democrat: Sits around waiting for government to do something for him.
>
>
>
> > " To Hell with your rights, we want power!"
>
> And you are surprised at that? That's funny!
>
No, I wasn't surprised when ol commie clinton stood in a field with a shotgun in his
hands as he said "Why heck, this is all you need!"
Fear the government that fears your guns!
Tracey
"Vilani ." wrote:
Maybe a 3 dollar bill.
Tracey
gregorio cortez wrote:
Remember the last time a commie democrat tried that? Jimmy's Desert Duster
cost the lives of many US soliders.
Tracey
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > History will treat Clinton the way it treats Andrew Johnson: as the
> > victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
> > country for the sake of partisan politics.
>
> HEHEHEHEH! You wish!
My wishes are immaterial; that's what will happen.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
>
>
> Kelly Younger wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If you think Clinton's the first philanderer, you are a fool. Please,
> > don't say "only Democrats are"...
>
> Point to a Republican president who was busted for philandering while in office.
Oh, so in your pseudo-Christian morality, all that matters is whether
someone gets caught.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > > History will treat Clinton the way it treats Andrew Johnson: as the
> > > victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
> > > country for the sake of partisan politics.
> > >
> >
> > That may be true, but Clinton won't find his ugly mug on any money.
Neither has Andrew Johnson. Neither have *most* presidents.
Max Tindell
> History will treat Clinton the way it treats Andrew Johnson: as the
> victim of irresponsible witchhunters who were willing to endanger the
> country for the sake of partisan politics.
Certainly there were some in congress that were irresponsible, and some
that were witchhunters. But endanger the country?!! Hardly. All the
mechanisms are in place in the Constitution to effect an orderly
transition following an impeachment conviction.
In reality, though, it all made good theater.
Max
Max Tindell
> If the Sun exploded tomorrow, some people would find a way to blame it
> on Clinton, who holds a curiously mythical status as some kind of
> omnipotent deity responsible for All Bad Things.
Hmmmm. In the Christian pantheon, that would be the Debil.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> Certainly there were some in congress that were irresponsible, and some
> that were witchhunters. But endanger the country?!! Hardly. All the
> mechanisms are in place in the Constitution to effect an orderly
> transition following an impeachment conviction.
>
> In reality, though, it all made good theater.
Nah, the lighting sucked.
Tracey
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
If you're going to say that Clinton's not the first philanderer, and then Please don't
say "only Democrats are".... you need to back up your claim.
Clay Colwell
> Which way do you think NAMBLA tends to vote?
I'll give you the answer when you answer me this question:
which way do you think the KKK tends to vote?
Tracey
Clay Colwell wrote:
I like how youre suggesting that NAMBLA is a very bad organization.
Tracey
Attorney Generals praise Second Amendment ruling
Troy (Alabama) Messenger | 10 July 2002 | KERRY WHIPPLE
Posted on 07/11/2002 11:35 AM Pacific by 45Auto
Following the Bush administration's reversal of a decade-old interpretation
of the Second Amendment, Alabama
Attorney General Bill Pryor and 17 other state attorneys general have
commended the new ruling.
The letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft praises his "position
that the text and the original intent of the Second
Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear
firearms. We agree that this is the proper reading of
the Second Amendment, and that this policy best protects the fundamental
interest of Americans in security and
self-preservation."
Other states which signed the letter include Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,
Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Prior to President Bush's taking office, the administration held that
the Second Amendment referred to a collective, not an individual, right
to own
guns.
The letter refers to historical research and debate on the meaning of
the Second Amendment, most of which has reached the same conclusion of
the state and federal attorneys general.
It is noted that even those who personally may not favor private gun
ownership rights still have conceded the issue as a matter of legal
scholarship.
The attorneys general concluded their letter to Ashcroft by stating,
"We salute you for your efforts to uphold all of the Constitution, including
the
Second Amendment, and we offer you whatever assistance we can provide
on this important issue."
Tracey
FROM: The Free Republic
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web
rebuttal
AIG | 2002/07/11 | AIG
Posted on 07/11/2002 10:44 AM Pacific by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited
its nemesis—creationism—with a feature
article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly
these were the fifteen best arguments that
evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation.
(National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report
to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers
in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive,
point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this
Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG
of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article
and an
illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’
provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web
site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific
American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be
removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration
of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago.
AiG had also
used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under
‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented
the
text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in
a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting
the
author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why
would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public
arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National
Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly
showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed
a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver
appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response
to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Clay Colwell
> Clay Colwell wrote:
??? I've never given you cause to assume that I *support* it. I
think the elimination of age-of-consent laws is a *bad* idea.
Now: are you going to answer the question?
Tracey
Marcus Taliaferro
stories. Where do you think he got the double meaning name 'father of our
country'?
M
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeff.s...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17973645b...@news.verizon.net...
Tracey
Marcus Taliaferro wrote:
> History books are full of the legendary 'George Washington slept here'
> stories. Where do you think he got the double meaning name 'father of our
> country'?
The same place where Clinton got that "first black president" name from?
Steelthorn
"Clay Colwell" <er...@hagbard.io.com> wrote in message
news:07kX8.44840$Bt1.2...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Amy
> Kelly Younger wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If you think Clinton's the first philanderer, you are a fool. Please,
> > don't say "only Democrats are"...
>
> Point to a Republican president who was busted for philandering while in office.
My sister was going to American University in DC when Reagan was in
office and she says that it was common knowledge that Reagan had a
mistress and the name of said mistresss was widely known.
There is one.
BTW, does the name Jennifer Flowers ring any bells? IIRC, when
Clinton was accused of fooling around during the first campaign
against Bush Sr, Bush's comment was that he had no comment because he
didn't like it when the press confronted him about his affair. He
said he knew just how Clinton felt.
I believe that the only president that we had during the whole of the
20th century that didn't fool around on his wife was Carter and even
he lusted in his heart.
The only difference is that in the old days, reporters didn't see this
as news worthy unless maybe you were reporting for The Sun or The
Enquirer. For the most part, even the tabloids didn't cover the
president's sex life.
What happened with Clinton was that they set him up with a perjury
trap and he fell right into it. I saw a guy interviewed that worked
with the people that did it. He said that was the intention the whole
time. They knew that if he were asked about his affairs in court that
he would lie about it. What heterosexual married man won't lie about
cheating on his wife? Isn't that why they call it cheating? Clinton
was an easy mark because he fooled around all the time with lots of
different women so they figured they could get at least one of them to
come forward (no pun intended...ok maybe it was ;-).
Amy
Earl Cooley III
wrote:
>Answer me this.... In which direction would you expect a communist to vote?
I would expect a communist to vote for the most horrifically evil
conservative repressive candidates possible, in order to foster a
political atmosphere of oppression and instability, thus hastening the
day when the masses rise up in revolution. I wouldn't expect a
communist to actually vote for communist candidates; that would be
pointless.
--
e=sc^3 (sh...@io.com) Earl Cooley III
vonroach
True, your wishes are immaterial and irrelevant. History records long
records of those that have reached a position of authority. The latest
fad is the imagined sexual exploits of T. Jefferson. Peccadillos are
recorded in the history of many figures, for examples: Grover
Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight
Eisenhower, John Kennedy (and his whole damn family), Lyndon Johnson,
among many others such as ex-candidate Gary Hart. Condit is too
insignificant, but the record will remain along with Wilber Mills of
Arkansas. Clinton will be remembered as a minor governor before
election with a long record of scandals involving personal and
official misbehavior. Behavior in the White House closets has been
seen and recorded.
vonroach
<jeff.s...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Oh, so in your pseudo-Christian morality, all that matters is whether
>someone gets caught.
Just as in your pseudo-Jewish shop-keeper morality, all that matters
is whether one can get away with it?
Kelly Younger
...not to mention Newt.
--
Kelly Younger
tracey12
Amy wrote:
> Tracey <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D2D2D3A...@yahoo.com>...
> > Kelly Younger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you think Clinton's the first philanderer, you are a fool. Please,
> > > don't say "only Democrats are"...
> >
> > Point to a Republican president who was busted for philandering while in office.
>
> My sister was going to American University in DC when Reagan was in
> office and she says that it was common knowledge that Reagan had a
> mistress and the name of said mistresss was widely known.
>
> There is one.
Amy, no matter what your sister might think or have told you, no one really cares.
Will such BS (Barbara Striesand) be placed in history books because you and your sister
knew something?
Please.
If the commie democrats had any available dirt, they would have used it against Ronald
Reagan. Like you, they hated Reagan because he was undoing the lefts agenda.
> For the most part, even the tabloids didn't cover the
> president's sex life.
Why should they have, Amy? Ever news program on earth was doing it for them after it was
obvious that clinton had lied bold face to the American public.
>
> What happened with Clinton was that they set him up with a perjury
> trap and he fell right into it.
>
> Amy
I know. As clinton once said "I feel his pain". Now, if only I could see him in pain in
a federal prison.
The poor man. He said he read five books per week, but he couldn't see that he was
walking into a trap. He only thought he could tell lies to the public and get away with
it. When he sat in those hearings, the court was just waiting for him to begin telling
lies, and of course, he did! HAHAHA!
Marcus Taliaferro
Not that I agree with breaking the law, but if you don't get caught, well,
you got away with it. So, the thief will yell no harm... The difference is a
blow job or a piece of ass won't destroy 1,000's of lives by striping them
of their life savings. Whereas, corp raiding does. Blow jobs don't effect
the economy, corp raiding does. Neither are right, but one won't hurt me.
M
"vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3d3610ae...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
Steelthorn
he shares your same sick beliefs about abortion etc.
"Amy" <ato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8af53531.02071...@posting.google.com...
Steelthorn
the country. I dont' want my child growing up thinking that its ok because
the president did it.
"Marcus Taliaferro" <m...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3d2e1...@newsa.ev1.net...
Monte
brain doesn't suddenly become functional. For if it does you will
certainly die instantly from sheer embarrassment for all the claptrap
sheer nonsense you have spouted and spread.
m
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:17:17 GMT, Tracey <trace...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>FROM: The Free Republic
>
>
>Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web
>rebuttal
>AIG | 2002/07/11 | AIG
>
>Posted on 07/11/2002 10:44 AM Pacific by ZGuy
>
>The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally
>discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature
>article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002).
>Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that
>evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation.
>(National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report
>to the article.)
>
>Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in
>Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive,
>point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this
>Web site.
>....more inanities mercifully snipped
Monte
"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore Vidal
John Hattan
>http://sio.midco.net/sdpatriot/bite.jpg
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, bite my ass and just leave,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I like it!
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Me
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:07:15 GMT, "Steelthorn" <steel...@attbi.com>
wrote:
>Immoral blow jobs to a married man by and unmarried woman will indeed hurt
>the country. I dont' want my child growing up thinking that its ok because
>the president did it.
And I don't want any child who isn't intelligent enough to know the
difference between right and wrong unless someone points it out to
him. Do you hold his dick when he takes a leak, too?
Earl Cooley III
wrote:
>Tracey <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://sio.midco.net/sdpatriot/bite.jpg
>
> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
> and to the republic for which it stands, bite my ass and just leave,
> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>
>I like it!
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation that will kick the ass
of all the piss-ant little ingrates who oppose it, indivisible, with
liberty, justice AND security for all.
I'm sure others will have their own favorite versions of the Pledge.
Earl Cooley III
>Tracey, you certifiable twit. You should pray to whatever that your
>brain doesn't suddenly become functional. For if it does you will
>certainly die instantly from sheer embarrassment for all the claptrap
>sheer nonsense you have spouted and spread.
I don't think that Travid will ever become a born-again intellectual.
heh.
Me
if people believe in Creationism? Wake up. They already do.
Me
clinton did anything wrong when he had an affair with "that woman".
Me
Earl Cooley III
>Its immoral any way you look at it. But, Democrats will still not admit that
>clinton did anything wrong when he had an affair with "that woman".
Certainly it was wrong; however, it was ultimately irrelevant except
for the unwarranted expense wasted on behalf of the taxpayers in
pusuit of the matter by the Republican party. I would much rather have
seen the Iran-Contra scandal pursued to a reasonable conclusion than
MonicaGate.
JETman
But, but, but most constitutional attorneys held the opinion that no
*real* illegal activity took place regarding Iran-contra.
In fact, those convicted were guilty of lying to Congress, hardly a
crime in itself...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
Mike Smith
additional work>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:52:47 GMT, sh...@io.com (Earl Cooley III)
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:36:26 GMT, Me <m...@me.com> wrote:
>
>>Its immoral any way you look at it. But, Democrats will still not admit that
>>clinton did anything wrong when he had an affair with "that woman".
>
>Certainly it was wrong; however, it was ultimately irrelevant except
>for the unwarranted expense wasted on behalf of the taxpayers in
>pusuit of the matter by the Republican party.
(you meant to say "Congress and the independent council", right?)
And there lies the difference between lying sleazy libs and normal
rational conservatives. Just because he flushed his oath of marriage
doesn't mean he would flush his oath of office, right? What a tool....
Then you whine about a paltry $50 million when he spent that much of
our tax dollars on just one of his numerous globe-hopping vacations.
Mike Smith
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
<9037579753B7F234.82F20338...@lp.airnews.net>,
m...@wt.net says...
> (you meant to say "Congress and the independent council", right?)
Right. That well-known "independent", Ken Starr.
<chortle>
Juan Jimenez
"Me" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:3D2E7969...@me.com...
> Are you that afraid of the Creationist's point of view? Will it ruin your
world
> if people believe in Creationism? Wake up. They already do.
>
> Monte wrote:
>
> > Tracey, you certifiable twit. You should pray to whatever that your
> > brain doesn't suddenly become functional. For if it does you will
> > certainly die instantly from sheer embarrassment for all the claptrap
> > sheer nonsense you have spouted and spread.
> >
> > m
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:17:17 GMT, Tracey <trace...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >FROM: The Free Republic
> > >
> > >
> > >Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web
> > >rebuttal
> > >AIG | 2002/07/11 | AIG
> > >
> > >Posted on 07/11/2002 10:44 AM Pacific by ZGuy
> > >
> > >The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally
> > >discredited its nemesis-creationism-with a feature
> > >article listing '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense' (July 2002).
> > >Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that
> > >evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible's account of Creation.
> > >(National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report
> > >to the article.)
> > >
> > >Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati-a resident scientist at Answers in
> > >Genesis-Australia-had written a comprehensive,
s...@nospam.unt.edu
> But, but, but most constitutional attorneys held the opinion that no
> *real* illegal activity took place regarding Iran-contra.
Oh please... I can't tell if you're serious or being sarcastic here,
but Iran-contra was the most serious disrespect for the checks and
balances of the constitution just past... well.... the actions
of the current administration, and Ashcroft in particular...
You'd think Republican presidents would rather be dictators -- they
seem to view the legislative and judicial branches as annoyances to be
skipped around at every available opportunity, rather than equal
branches of government to work with.
--
Steve Tate - srt[At]cs.unt.edu | "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster
Dept. of Computer Sciences | than any invention in human history with the
University of North Texas | possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
Denton, TX 76201 | -- Mitch Ratliffe, April 1992
Tom Spillman
>
> You'd think Republican presidents would rather be dictators -- they
> seem to view the legislative and judicial branches as annoyances to be
> skipped around at every available opportunity, rather than equal
> branches of government to work with.
>
This is hardly a Republican fault -- politicians of all stripes seem to have
this problem. Remember FDR and his "court packing" attempt because the
Supreme Court overturned some of his pet projects? How about LBJ and the
start of his buildup in Viet Nam (the Tonkin Gulf resolutions)? Among other
items, FDR also started the lend-lease programs in WWII since congress
wouldn't come up with programs that did what he wanted. Woodrow Wilson also
had big problems with the Senate and his League of Nations. Then, of
course, there is Clinton and his recess appointments to get around
opposition in the Senate.
I'm sure I can also come up with some for the Republicans, as well, but
*politicians* are the guilty parties, not just Republicans. FWIW, I'm a
Libertarian, myself...
Regards...
Tom
JETman
Tom Spillman wrote:
>
> >
> > You'd think Republican presidents would rather be dictators -- they
> > seem to view the legislative and judicial branches as annoyances to be
> > skipped around at every available opportunity, rather than equal
> > branches of government to work with.
> >
>
> This is hardly a Republican fault -- politicians of all stripes seem to have
> this problem. Remember FDR and his "court packing" attempt because the
> Supreme Court overturned some of his pet projects? How about LBJ and the
> start of his buildup in Viet Nam (the Tonkin Gulf resolutions)? Among other
> items, FDR also started the lend-lease programs in WWII since congress
> wouldn't come up with programs that did what he wanted. Woodrow Wilson also
> had big problems with the Senate and his League of Nations. Then, of
> course, there is Clinton and his recess appointments to get around
> opposition in the Senate.
>
> I'm sure I can also come up with some for the Republicans, as well, but
> *politicians* are the guilty parties, not just Republicans. FWIW, I'm a
> Libertarian, myself...
>
> Regards...
>
> Tom
>
>
You nailed it Tom... Neither political party reeks of innocence.
Of course, I tend to look at Iran/Contra as a side benefit to the
release of hostages in Beirut, something the previous Carter
administration was ineffective....
JETman
The Clinton administration appointed Starr.... And his history as a
republican supporter was well known.
Try again...
Larry G
world
> if people believe in Creationism? Wake up. They already do.
When I was a child, I used to believe Superman was
real, and that cows could jump over the moon. I
trusted my sources, and had no reason to doubt them.
But then I grew up. Hope you do to.
Cheers,
Larry G.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
tspi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> >
> > You'd think Republican presidents would rather be dictators -- they
> > seem to view the legislative and judicial branches as annoyances to be
> > skipped around at every available opportunity, rather than equal
> > branches of government to work with.
> >
>
> This is hardly a Republican fault -- politicians of all stripes seem to have
> this problem. Remember FDR and his "court packing" attempt because the
> Supreme Court overturned some of his pet projects? How about LBJ and the
> start of his buildup in Viet Nam (the Tonkin Gulf resolutions
At least LBJ -- as you indicate by your citation of the GOT resolution --
gave lip service to working with Congress.
tracey12
tracey12
Larry G wrote:
Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
result of answered prayer.
You surely won't believe me because it will shatter your little world. You've
made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it.
Chris
EVIL....muahaaahhaahha
Steelthorn <steel...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:_1pX8.5275$uw....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
> result of answered prayer.
...And what were they?
Hint: you won't answer.
Larry G
news:3D2F7ECC...@yahoo.com...
To the contrary, personal experience is of greatest
importance in life.
If you have an experience, then you have good reason
to believe. However, I have had many more prayers
go unanswered or answered in the negative. So, I
go with my experience, and disbelieve the existence
of your god.
Cheers,
larry g.
Thomas A. Paine
wrote:
You've never described those events to us in other than vague terms,
Tracey. Describe something miraculous that happened due to prayer.
Hint: It can't be something that *could* happen. It has to be
something that can't happen according to the laws of science.
A loved one who recovers from a grave illness doesn't count. The sun
"stopping" in the sky does.
---------------------------------
"The simple believeth every word:
but the prudent man looketh well
to his going."
Pr.14:15
Marcus Taliaferro
I have seen some 'interesting' things happen as the result of prayer. Maybe
even a prayer or two answered, but Tracey, you got to shut up this trying to
stuff God down everybody's faces. I'm not saying stop trying to convert, but
ease off. You alienate everyone with your ranting, me included and I am a
believer.
M
"tracey12" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D2F7ECC...@yahoo.com...
>
Dusty Rhodes
>
> > "Me" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:3D2E7969...@me.com...
> > > Are you that afraid of the Creationist's point of view? Will it ruin
your
> > world
> > > if people believe in Creationism? Wake up. They already do.
> >
> > When I was a child, I used to believe Superman was
> > real, and that cows could jump over the moon. I
> > trusted my sources, and had no reason to doubt them.
> > But then I grew up. Hope you do to.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Larry G.
>
> Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
> result of answered prayer.
If you are in any way the beneficiary or result of prayer, there is no God.
Or, God has an extremely weird sense of humor.
Cheers,
Dusty
--
Check out my Weblog, 'Everything...Possible...Happens...' for news and views
from more than 2000 different news feeds updated hourly.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0105714/
JETman
Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>
> "tracey12" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D2F7ECC...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Larry G wrote:
> >
> > > "Me" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:3D2E7969...@me.com...
> > > > Are you that afraid of the Creationist's point of view? Will it ruin
> your
> > > world
> > > > if people believe in Creationism? Wake up. They already do.
> > >
> > > When I was a child, I used to believe Superman was
> > > real, and that cows could jump over the moon. I
> > > trusted my sources, and had no reason to doubt them.
> > > But then I grew up. Hope you do to.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Larry G.
> >
> > Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
> > result of answered prayer.
>
> If you are in any way the beneficiary or result of prayer, there is no God.
> Or, God has an extremely weird sense of humor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dusty
>
>
<choke, gasp, snort, giggle...>
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com says...
> Giving a bye to the Clinton administration for being the most corrupt
> administration since US Grant's
Harding.
vonroach
wrote:
> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
> and to the republic for which it stands, bite my ass and just leave,
> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Yeah Johnie, it is the real you in all your stunning ignorance, you
moron.
Clay Colwell
> Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
> result of answered prayer.
Let me guess: your cat came back home, right?
I've got a dead dog buried in my back yard. How about praying
to your God to resurrect it? There's a laddie.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>I've got a dead dog buried in my back yard. How about praying
>to your God to resurrect it? There's a laddie.
Lord, If Clay is living his life the way You want him to; resurrect
his dead dog......................... AMEN!
Well, is your dog back from the dead, Clay?
Mike Smith :-)
(Yea, it was an easy shot....... so what..............)
Earl Cooley III
<mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>sh...@io.com (Earl Cooley III) wrote in news:3d2e631b...@news.io.com:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:56:21 -0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tracey <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://sio.midco.net/sdpatriot/bite.jpg
>>>
>>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
>>> and to the republic for which it stands, bite my ass and just leave,
>>> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>>>
>>>I like it!
>>
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
>> to the republic for which it stands, one nation that will kick the ass
>> of all the piss-ant little ingrates who oppose it, indivisible, with
>> liberty, justice AND security for all.
>>
>> I'm sure others will have their own favorite versions of the Pledge.
>
>There is nothing more murderous nor stupid than nationalistic ferver and
>pledging alligence to bits of meaningless cloth that represent a certain
>land mass inhabited by a certain people who will all be speaking Chinese in
>100 years anyway.
It is possible to be patriotic without being jingoistic. I was merely
expressing a bit of frustration. Also, you really shouldn't read too
much into just about anything I write here, because it might not be my
real opinion: it might just be an example of satire. I don't always
feel the need to make it too obvious.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com says...
> But, BUT, Clinton's is the most corrupt administration in a legal sense,
> having the most indicted, the most convicted, the most resiegned under fire
> etc.
The Reagan administration had 2 convictions.
The Cliton administration had...one.
tracey12
Clay Colwell wrote:
He might after he resurrects you, but that depends on you, doesn't it?
If you are saved by the blood of the Lamb, you may well see your laddie again.
If you're not saved.....you know what you will see.
tracey12
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHA! Wait a minute..How many of Clintons' friends were accidentally
killed before they could testify? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....How long is that list of
The Dead? Remove half just because there must be some mistakes listed there, and
how many remain? Ohhhh! Golly!
Earl Cooley III
<mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>sh...@io.com (Earl Cooley III) wrote in
>news:3d30ed32....@news.io.com:
>If you see yourself as a man with goat horns and a body of a horse, fine!
>
>But why do you keep refering to satires and such? Is this a sickness with
>you?
Bzzzt! That joke's been used already, fairly recently.
JETman
mapanari wrote:
>
> sh...@io.com (Earl Cooley III) wrote in
> news:3d30ed32....@news.io.com:
> If you see yourself as a man with goat horns and a body of a horse, fine!
>
> But why do you keep refering to satires and such? Is this a sickness with
> you?
>
> Would a night in Tijuana at one of "those" clubs help you?
>
> mapi
<snort> It may be that Earl's ramen count may be down...
JETman
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
>
> In article <a%3Y8.26221$nZ2....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>,
> mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com says...
>
> > But, BUT, Clinton's is the most corrupt administration in a legal sense,
> > having the most indicted, the most convicted, the most resiegned under fire
> > etc.
>
> The Reagan administration had 2 convictions.
>
Um, Jeffrey.... I'm surprised at your lack of facts. Didn't 29
convictions occur during the Reagan years after appeals???
> The Cliton administration had...one.
Gee, someone who finally spelled Slick Willie's name right!
vonroach
<mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>Nobody really cared about the blowjob except the fucking christian assholes
>who believe this country is run by a Christian god to the exclusion of all
>other gods or non-gods.
>
>This is a very simular case to the OJ trial.
>
>On one side are morons, uneducated, idiots who believed OJ was innocent and
>on the other side were intelligent, educated people who knew he was guilty.
>
>The same sides took up the Clinton debacle....the morons kept saying "It
>was only sex" and the intelligent kept saying "It wasn't the sex, it was
>that he lied under oath about it."
>
>The fact is, you can lead morons to water but you can't prevent them from
>falling face foward and drowning.
>
>The whole question has always been the simple diference between the stupid
>and the smart and always will be.
>
>And arguing with morons who still say like a broken record recording of
>40,000 African parrots all screaching at once at sundown in the Ruandian
>Jungle screaching out "It's only sex" is futile, assinine and makes the
>arguer just as stupid as the arguee.
>
>mapi
Gee mapi thanks for pontificating on your third world philosophy. Now
everyone can see where you are coming from. Did your folks come from
Rhunda?
vonroach
<mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>There is nothing more murderous nor stupid than nationalistic ferver and
>pledging alligence to bits of meaningless cloth that represent a certain
>land mass inhabited by a certain people who will all be speaking Chinese in
>100 years anyway.
>
>mapi
Who knows, mapi - maybe the Chinese will be speaking Rhuwandan by that
time or Swahili
vonroach
<mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>If you see yourself as a man with goat horns and a body of a horse, fine!
>
>But why do you keep refering to satires and such? Is this a sickness with
>you?
>
>Would a night in Tijuana at one of "those" clubs help you?
>
>mapi
But do they speak Swahili at "those" places?
JETman
Not hardly..... Asian cultures are success based.....
Earl Cooley III
wrote:
>vonroach wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:44:50 GMT, mapanari
>> <mapa...@hotmail.deleat-this.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There is nothing more murderous nor stupid than nationalistic ferver and
>> >pledging alligence to bits of meaningless cloth that represent a certain
>> >land mass inhabited by a certain people who will all be speaking Chinese in
>> >100 years anyway.
>> >
>> >mapi
>> Who knows, mapi - maybe the Chinese will be speaking Rhuwandan by that
>> time or Swahili
>
>Not hardly..... Asian cultures are success based.....
"Success based" sounds like MLM jargon. What do you mean by that
phrase? Anyway, I thought that most Asian cultures were shame based
(whereas Western cultures are guilt based).
JETman
Call it "shame" if you will because that is what happens with the lack
of success in most Asian cultures...
Compare that philosophy with the general black and "hispanic" cultures
in the US...
JETman
mapanari wrote:
>
> vonr...@ix.netcom.com (vonroach) wrote in
> news:3d3d84cc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
> There's just about a chance in hell of that happening as all the Russians
> will be speaking American Eubonics by then.
>
> Loser cultures and loser languages do not and never will dominate the
> world.
>
> mapi
But they may bring down great nations..
Clay Colwell
> "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote:
<http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm>
continues to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of those
who promulgate this accusation. And you know that I've posted
this for you before, Travid.
Clay Colwell
> Clay Colwell wrote:
>> In austin.general tracey12 <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Larry, I have seen with my own eyes events take place that were the direct
>> > result of answered prayer.
>>
>> Let me guess: your cat came back home, right?
>>
>> I've got a dead dog buried in my back yard. How about praying
>> to your God to resurrect it? There's a laddie.
> He might after he resurrects you, but that depends on you, doesn't it?
Yet Another Unanswered Prayer, in other words, your attempt at
distraction notwithstanding.
> If you are saved by the blood of the Lamb, you may well see your laddie again.
But animals don't have souls! No cats in Heaven, nor dogs.
> If you're not saved.....you know what you will see.
An empty bank account, most like.
Gene
understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
killing sprees.
SteveR
wrote:
> Kinda hard for unethical assholes, who never were paitriotic, to
> understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
> their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
> pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
> freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
> Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
> has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
> killing sprees.
C'mon now, you can't ignore the slaughter caused by ruthless Lutheran
youth in our suburbs. Roaming the streets, harrasing the unfaithful,
beating them with wooden Glocks. It's all a result of that religious
indoctrination on our money, in our pledge.
When will people wake up and realize that the Christian influence
prevalent in this country has produced such a dismal failure?
I am so bummed that Russia folded.
But, I'm rooting for North Korea.
Clucking Grass Mole
> Kinda hard for unethical assholes, who never were paitriotic, to
> understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
> their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
> pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
> freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
> Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
> has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
> killing sprees.
BT
Thomas A. Paine
Sounded more like "waaaah" "waaaah" "waaah" to me.
-----------------------------------
They say patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king
-- Bob Dylan
fsds
Gene <ge...@grodgers.com> wrote in message
news:3D41FEB9...@grodgers.com...
Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I never had the option. I am a Dutch
citizen(Holland, not Germany in case you didn't know) and was forced to
pledge allegiance to the US flag or I could not go to school. Sounds like
nazi Germany to me.What made it worse is that I was actualy educated and
didn't believe in santa clause, the easter bunny, or the bible. Trillions of
animals on one boat, the Earth being the center of the universe, and Adam
and Eve? Wouldn't that make us all decendants of incest, which the bible
forbids? Give me a fucking break!
SteveR
Clucking Grass Mole <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That was just your stomach growling. Maybe you ate Madeline Murry O'Hair.
James Ascher
> understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
> their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
> pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
> freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
> Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
> has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
> killing sprees.
You rightists will never comprehend that the Supreme Court banned official
enforcement of prayer. A student can still pray in school, it's just up to
the individual. The Supreme Court decision affirmed that grand American
tradition of individualism. Forced prayer my "groupthink" and detrimental
to the well-being of the country and its citizens!
James
Richard J. Shank
> understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
> their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
> pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
> freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
> Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few.
Uhm, since when does forcing atheists to say "under god" support religious
freedom?
Sounds like someone's got this a little backwards. The Pledge of Allegiance
was
not unconstitutional UNTIL the words "under god" were added. If you wish to
say
"under god", then who's stopping you? Prayer was never removed from school.
Only forced prayer and the promotion of prayer in STATE funded schools was
denied. There is absolutely no law saying that YOU can't pray in school.
Please
refer to what the Supreme Court said rather than what every kneejerk liberal
or
naziconservative says regarding the issue. It's not the same thing. Saying
that the
Supreme court banned prayer in schools is like saying Roe vs. Wade mandated
abortion.
> Look what
> has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
> killing sprees.
Funny thing is, it's always "god-fearing" people who commit these crimes.
You
virtually never hear of atheists running amok with guns or on killing
sprees.
Rick
Mike Smith
Perhaps you missed the Supreme Court ruling about a student saying a
prayer at the start of a football game in Santa Fe, TX. The students
are now banned from using a public address system to say their
prayers, even though they did not force everyone in the stadium to
pray or attempt to persuade the people at the football stadium to
attend their church.
Promotion of prayer? Or just saying a prayer before a football game?
Mike Smith
Earl Cooley III
>Kinda hard for unethical assholes, who never were paitriotic, to
>understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
>their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
>pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
>freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
>Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
>has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
>killing sprees.
I don't see how religious fanatic youths, with guns, on killing sprees
would be any better. For example, "During school prayer, Jesus told me
to kill all the people who deserve to go to hell. I'm doing His work."
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
<9429D137E2247D1E.F6B0E033...@lp.airnews.net>,
m...@wt.net says...
> Perhaps you missed the Supreme Court ruling about a student saying a
> prayer at the start of a football game in Santa Fe, TX. The students
> are now banned from using a public address system to say their
> prayers, even though they did not force everyone in the stadium to
> pray or attempt to persuade the people at the football stadium to
> attend their church.
>
> Promotion of prayer? Or just saying a prayer before a football game?
When it's officially sanctioned by the school district, it's promotion of
prayer, definitely.
G-d bless the Supreme Court for protecting our rights.
vonroach
>Kinda hard for unethical assholes, who never were paitriotic, to
>understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
>their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
>pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
>freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
>Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
>has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
>killing sprees.
And don't forget marijuana and other habitual drugs.
Harlan Messinger
>Kinda hard for unethical assholes, who never were paitriotic, to
>understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
>their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
>pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
>freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
>Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
>has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
>killing sprees.
That's an impressive set of non-sequiturs and straw men you've strung
together there.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
SteveR
"Richard J. Shank" <rsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Funny thing is, it's always "god-fearing" people who commit these crimes.
> You
> virtually never hear of atheists running amok with guns or on killing
> sprees.
>
> Rick
One might argue that their actions put them in the no-faith camp.
I'm curious where your assesment that it's always God-fearing people
that go on killing sprees. A perusal the atrocities-of-the-week wouldn't
support that. In fact, the child abductions, murders and assaults I've
read about in the past few months make no mention whatsoever of faith,
or lack of.
You rarely hear of athiests doing anything, except promoting their
position, which seems to be based on an aggravation with people of faith
and the historical predominance of religion in the US. The leaders of
the 2200-strong organization, which is a fringe group, seem to be
devoted to provoking fringe elements of the religious community in order
that they may go on TV to whine about the hate mail they recieve. I
suppose it's a valid job description, raising the ire of extremists -
not to mention that it's one of the easiest jobs going.
>
>
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
texd...@attbi.com says...
> > Funny thing is, it's always "god-fearing" people who commit these crimes.
> > You
> > virtually never hear of atheists running amok with guns or on killing
> > sprees.
> >
> > Rick
>
>
> One might argue that their actions put them in the no-faith camp.
What?! You mean that people who *claim* to follow Jesus sometimes act in
ways that are unChristian?
Does Darrell/David/Tracey know this?
Chris
> understand those who sacrificed their life so other people could have
> their BMW's and portfolio's and complain about saying "under God" in the
> pledge of ALLEGIANCE for a nation which was conceived for "religeous
> freedom". If they don't want to say it then DON'T, but don't pull a
> Madline Ohaire and inconvience everyone for the sake of a few. Look what
> has happen with no prayer in school...Godless youths, with guns, on
> killing sprees.
>
sprees...at leaast they say a prayer before they kill their enemies...