| 0 |
Subject: OT - Federal CT rules Pledge of Allegiance Uncon
Posted by: Tincup01
- Donor [5535241] Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 15:19
Cnn.com - Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional
I, as a law student, am even shocked about this one. I can't wait to see what people think.... |
| 1 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 15:26
|
I think...
your link is scwewy ;)
I didn't know in was good ol' Ike that had forced religion on me in my youth. I can thank him for me rebelious nature. ;)
You might want to share this over in Politics, tincup.
|
| 2 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 133401316
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 15:40
|
Our country is pretty sad...
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 15:42
|
What's sad AP10? That one of our Presidents would insert a clause into our National Pledge of Allegience or that it would take us half a century to finally do something about it? Seperation Between Church and State (when it is abided) is one of the things that makes ours the best country in the world.
|
| 4 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 133401316
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 15:55
|
MITH, I'm not going to get into a debate , especially in this forum but I will post my one time thoughts...
I'm tired of 'Seperation of Church & State' being skewed. Our founding fathers didnt intend to keep religion out of government, they did intend to keep government out of the religious arena by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England.
In the pledge of allegiance, it says "under god". Does it state a specific God? How are we shoving religion down someones throat by stating God. What religion are we shoving down your throat? Lastly, 99% of Americans believe there IS a God. Not all of them believe in the same God, but they do believe its a god. Therefore we are dealing with less than 1% of the US population that the statement 'under god' affects.
I take the lawsuit against McDonald's a few years back, because of too hot of coffe, more seriously than I do this. Pathetic.
|
| 5 | walk
Leader
ID: 28302616
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:01
|
I belong in that 1% A(not so)Perfect10. What can I say? I am going to teach my children that there are many possibilities, including that god is a figment of our faith, hope and imaginations (originated by cavepeople who could not figure out where thunder and lightning came from), that George Burns really IS god, and that god is really a big fat X-File.
or not
;-)
A big to do about a big thing to some, and a big to do about probably nothing to some others. Ultimately, it's quite fascinating.
- walk
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:02
|
You misunderstand the intention of Seperation. But I agree, this is not the forum for it.
|
| 7 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:02
|
Great post Walk.
|
| 8 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 5311343110
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:03
|
Sorry AP10, but I am totally with MITH on this. 99% of small children believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny. The majority isn't always right and they shouldn't be allowed to institutionalize religion, including generic "God" into national pledges. The pledge itself represents and speaks for ALL who live in America, religion only represents 99%.
Guess that makes me a liberal this week. Don't tell Perm Dude. :)
|
| 9 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 133401316
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:08
|
I've moved to the Political Forum
|
| 10 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 16:37
|
I guess our coins and currency are now unconstitutional too.
They can make two words of the pledge unconstitutional but the intention of the entire pledge will always endure. Stating that, I am still under the belief that group reciting of the pledge was a little cult-ish anyway, even though it's message lives strong in my personal patriotism for this country, whether or not the word god is included.
I probably lean towards the 1% as well, but having god in there does not bother me in the least.
|
| 11 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 17:48
|
99% of Americans believe there IS a God.
Where in the world did you come up with that? Ridiculous. Not even close.
American Religious Affliation Study shows that 14% of Americans have no religious affliation.
|
| 12 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 39143521
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 17:53
|
My apologies...
The accurate number is 95% believe in god. On Polotics - What Americans Think
Btw, just because 14% of Americans do not have a religious affiliation doesnt mean they dont believe there is a higher being.
|
| 13 | patjams
ID: 585122612
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 18:20
|
What has always baffled me is how some people try to prove what cannot be proven. Faith is what one believes to be true. People will always choose their own faith and what irritates me is when those who believe in God (whichever God it may be) are appalled that anyone else can have a different outlook on life and its purpose. Some who believe in God only do so because they have been pre-conditioned during childhood to do so. There's a reason that wars have been fought over this very subject since human beings began recording history and that is because no man can prove to his enemy what he believes to be the true. It's an endless search for the truth.
|
| 14 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 18:30
|
Reciting the pledge everyday is like brainwashing. I can certainly see why that atheist parent does not want his child to recite those two words everyday.
Although there are a lot of gods around in various religions, the word "God" by itself most often means the Christian God. And I believe it is the Christian God that the pledge is referring to, for it is the most popular religion in North America. So by saying that those two words refer to an arbitrary god is twisting the text.
It is important to separate politics and religion in both directions. I certainly don't want my children to be brainwashed into one religion and lose the ability to choose for him/herself. As an atheist myself, I believe that there is no high beings, and that everything that has been credited to any form of supernatural beings is just something we are not scientifically advanced to explain. By crediting things to any religious figures, we (most likely will) lose the will to advance in science.
For the lightning and thunder analogy, it takes an atheist to discover why they exist. A person who believes in thunder gods will probably not look into the existance of thunders.
Question:"Where do thunders come from?"
Thundergod believer:"Oh, the thunder god created them. It is what he does to punish naughty little kids."
Atheist:"I don't believe in thunder gods so I looked into it. I found that the clouds and the ground are oppositely charged and when the charges get large, an electric current forms between the cloud and the ground, and that current is what you see as a thunder."
|
| 15 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 18:45
|
However, I do have to say that some religions, like Christianism, do have advantages. Most religions offer security of one's being. By praying to a god, some people find the security that they lack in the everyday world. It's the spiritial happiness that drives the religious people into living their lives enthusiastically. A god, like an imaginary friend when you were small, will always be there with you, especially during times of tragedies, when most people need soothing and answers to questions of life. It is from a god that people draw strength from at a time when they are weak.
So I suppose religion is not all bad. But for those of us in the field of science, I believe that it is important not to be too close to religion and explain everything unknown to us for the time being by the supernature.
|
| 16 | James K Polk
ID: 13516513
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 18:54
|
How perfectly condescending of you.
You do realize, don't you, that many scientists actually do believe in a supreme being? And that many who believe in a supreme being don't simply sign away their intellectual curiosity and honesty?
|
| 17 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 18:59
|
Re:13
PJ, that's why I never argue politics or religion. No matter how right you think you are, there is always someone there with the exact opposite belief that is just as positive in their beliefs and there is no convincing. I just leave it alone. I am comfortable with you I am.
|
| 18 | Reds88
ID: 135122519
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:08
|
If you don't like pledge, then leave! Nobody's makeing you live here. Our nation was founded under certain principles and if you don't agree with them then find a new country.
|
| 19 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:33
|
The problem isn;t that people are making others live here, it's that they're making those that do acknowledge a god they may or may not believe in.
I've been waiting for this to happen. I firmly believe in God, but wondered how long The Pledge would be left in it's current (?) form. By requiring students to recite the pledge, schools are forcing them to acknowledge at the very least A god. That is pretty much forcing a religion on someone.
I will continue to recite the pledge as I have learned it, but I understand where SCOTUS is coming from.
|
| 20 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:34
|
Any scientist that believes in a supreme being is probably a very bad scientist, or a scientist that just uses it as a profession but doesn't really have a scientific mind. Science and religion are totally contradictory.
I personally don't care about either, and I would believe that america is 95% believing in god, because it is full of ex third world people from fanatical religious upbringings. I wouldn't be proud to state a high percentage like that if a lot of that group have this belief through brainwashing since childhood.
God bless america
|
| 21 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:40
|
I don't even know where to start with that post, cm, so I won't even bother.
I do believe that this is a pretty cut and dry separation issue.
|
| 22 | quik_ag
ID: 15551219
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:44
|
SCOTUS didn't issue this ruling. It was the 9th district appelate court. aka, the most liberal appealate court in the country. aka the most overturned appelate court in the country.
First of all, this hsould be taking place in the politics forum.
Second of all, nobody outside of 5 or 6 states in the west is forced to recite the pledge. Mandating its recital I could see as unconstitutional, but the words themselves are borderline at best.
But most importantly here, it is terribly naive and dare I say unscientific to write off any "spiritual" scientist as being bad. There is a place for God in science and although they clash at some points, you'll never be able to erase a true believer's faith. That is, of course, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that being's existance.
|
| 23 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 19:58
|
CM,I know. We were all monkeys swinging in the trees,but now we're all PHD's.
|
| 24 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 20:10
|
rockfish
My comment was not racist in any way, it was simply referring to how children from South america and the middle east etc are raised without a real chance to make their own decisions on the matter (major generalisation). The comment to america having so many people from these cultures was simply a statement about Americas multi culturalism and intake of immigrants, which by the way i think is a very good thing. It doesn't change the fact that it does boost the number of americans that believe in god far higher than other western countries that don't take so many immigrants each year. By the way i wish my country did take more immigrants, we need them.
|
| 25 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 20:17
|
Ender - SCOTUS isn't coming from there. This is even in the ruling.
We recognize that the Supreme Court has occasionally commented in dicta that the presence of "one nation under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. See Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 602-03; Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676; id. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring); id. at 306-08 (Goldberg, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Engel, 370 U.S. t 435 n. 21. However, the Court has never been presented with the question directly, and has always clearly refrained from deciding it. Accordingly, it has never applied any of the three tests to the Act or to any school policy regarding the recitation of the Pledge. That task falls to us, although the final word, as always, remains with the Supreme Court. The only other United States Court of Appeals to consider the issue is the Seventh Circuit, which held in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), that a policy similar to the one before us regarding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "one nation under God" was constitutional.
(9th circuit then goes on to say why they disagree with the 7th circuits ruling)
======== THE DISSENT
Some, who rather choke on the notion of de minimis, have resorted to the euphemism "ceremonial deism." See, e.g., Lynch, 465 U.S. at 716, 104 S. Ct. at 1382 (Brennan, J., dissenting). But whatever it is called (I care not), it comes to this: such phrases as "In God We Trust," or "under God" have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity. Those expressions have not caused any real harm of that sort over the years since 1791, and are not likely to do so in the future.(4) As I see it, that is not because they are drained of meaning.(5) Rather, as I have already indicated, it is because their tendency to establish religion (or affect its exercise) is exiguous.
I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but, then, others might not feel good if they are omitted. At any rate, the Constitution is a practical and balanced charter for the just governance of a free people in a vast territory. Thus, although we do feel good when we contemplate the effects of its inspiring
phrasing and majestic promises, it is not primarily a feel-good prescription.(6) In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 630, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 1181, 1187, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943), for example, the Supreme Court did not say that the Pledge could not be recited in the presence of Jehovah's Witness children; it merely said that they did not have to recite it.(7) That fully protected their constitutional rights by precluding the government from trenching upon "the sphere of intellect and spirit." Id. at 642, 63 S. Ct. at 1187. As the Court pointed out, their religiously based refusal "to participate in the ceremony [would] not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so." Id. at 630, 63 S. Ct. at 1181. We should not permit Newdow's feel-good concept to change that balance. My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. "God Bless America" and "America The Beautiful" will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third.8 And currency beware! Judges can accept those results if they limit themselves to elements and tests, while failing to look at the good sense and principles that animated those tests in the first place. But they do so at the price of removing a vestige of the awe we all must feel at the immenseness of the universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good fortune of our country. That will cool the febrile nerves of a few at the cost of removing the healthy glow conferred upon many citizens when the forbidden verses, or phrases, are uttered, read, or seen. In short, I cannot accept the eliding of the simple phrase "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance, when it is obvious that its tendency to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is
de minimis.(9) Thus, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
(9) - Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all.
==============
OUT OF CONTROL - they must be on steroids. Or drinking the water out there. Maybe there was too much arsenic in the water.
|
| 26 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 20:29
|
Cm,no racism implied. just a smart remark about science and God.
I just get upset when in this country we deny our heritage and long belief in God. I really feel the farther we go from faith the more we will suffer.
|
| 27 | patjams
ID: 585122612
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 20:59
|
rockfish, that may be true, but do we really suffer the further away we get from the belief in God? Or do only those who believe in God suffer? I would classify myself as an agnostic so my faith lies in myself, my family and my friends. That's the trouble with using the word "faith", it means different things to different people.
|
| 28 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 21:47
|
patjams,when i speak of faith i'm refering to Christ Jesus. For since the beginning of man there has been an enmity against his path for us. the attacks agaisnt the basic principles of faith in this country are no more than battles going on since the beginning.
|
| 29 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 23:26
|
I apologize, I read "federal court" and took it a step further.
Having read the dissenting opinion, I would say that it sums up my personal feelings pretty well. I still say I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed in this manner sooner, but it sounds like SCOTUS has addressed it before if I read the dissent correctly.
We now return you to ourregularly scheduled programming: Park loses the no-hitter in the 5th inning.
|
| 30 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 23:59
|
My belief in God is very strong and is the basis of my life, as many on here know from past posts. That being said, for us to be a free country implies freedom to believe or not to believe as you wish. The Bible, for those (like me) who follow it, teaches that God has left our belief to us as a freewill choice. The same should be said for our schools, except those private schools which are specifically for that purpose. If your children need to recite the Pledge in order to get their 'fix' of the Bible each day, then you probably aren't doing enough teaching at home.
|
| 31 | stinkypuff
ID: 40535201
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 00:44
|
forget "one nation under god" -- the pledge is about loyalty to piece of cloth. "I pledge allegiance to the flag ..." Why not "I pledge allegiance to a set of moral principles from which I will not be dissuaded regardless of what my government does." There's room for everybody under that banner.
|
| 32 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 02:05
|
Ahhh faith.
From what I've learnt about Christianism since I was small, it was this faith that's so very unjustified. But then again, if it needs justifying, it's not called faith. Basically it's saying that even if you're having a serious of misfortune, no matter what happens to you and that whatever you prayed for has not happened, you must still have faith in God. To me, this is just the way people try to stop people from questioning. If you question, you have no faith, for if you have faith, you need not question. But one has to question things to advance, therefore it is impossible for me not to question things.
And the Bible. I just fail to see why it is so holy. To me it's just one big piece of fiction. Anyone who is literate enough to write a big book can do that. It's just gonna take a long time to write it, but it can surely be done.
Now don't take me wrong. A lot of things that the Bible teaches are good. I mean, Christians are more likely to be nice people. I just cannot stand anything that requires unconditional belief, in other words, faith.
|
| 33 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 39143521
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 06:54
|
It appears as if this thread has shifted its arguement to relgion vs atheism which is the incorrect debate. The words 'One nation, under God' were added to the constitution not in any religious affiliation (despite the Ike comments) but were instead meant that every person in this country was equal and to be treated equal. Nothing else, even though the opposition to the words 'under God' are trying to skew one man's comments to defend their belief.
However, I do have to say that some religions, like Christianism, do have advantages. Most religions offer security of one's being. By praying to a god, some people find the security that they lack in the everyday world. It's the spiritial happiness that drives the religious people into living their lives enthusiastically. A god, like an imaginary friend when you were small, will always be there with you, especially during times of tragedies, when most people need soothing and answers to questions of life. It is from a god that people draw strength from at a time when they are weak.
This comment is true ignorance. Basically you are claiming that Christians are weak. An equivalent statement from the opposition might be "non Christians think they know everything". Maybe non Christians are weak because they cant believe in something they can not touch and see, have faith.
Both your comments as well as my examples are plain ignorance.
If your children need to recite the Pledge in order to get their 'fix' of the Bible each day, then you probably aren't doing enough teaching at home.
That comment is so true. That is exactly what the point is. No one is going to get their 'fix' of the Bible each day by saying 'under God'. Its not meant to do so, its not meant to have any religious affiliation at all but rather mean equality. Some people try to skew one comment and blow it out of proportion when those comments werent even decided upon when 'under God' was being inserted into the pledge.
This thread has to many bogus comments to reply to them all. If you are looking for wrong, you'll find wrong. If you are looking for good, you'll find good. I hate when people take one small comment and twist and turn, spin left and right, then try to use that comment to defend their stance...
|
| 34 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 07:41
|
To be honest, on a technical level, the ruling is 100% correct. But, sometimes a technical level or technical look at something misses the point of the bigger picture.
|
| 35 | Eville
ID: 258112820
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 09:44
|
Maybe I'm way off here, but the statement one nation under God refers to the beliefs of the founders of this country. It merely stands as a testiment to the source of thier strength and conviction when they fought to free themselves and frame the Constitution. If you refuse to acknowledge that to them God and belief in him played a key role in the start and development of this country you are merely distorting the truth of history to meet either atheist beliefs or fear of God and religion.
I think also this is the same reason many hate seeing athletes pray or give praise to God.
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 10:28
|
The words 'One nation, under God' were added to the constitution not in any religious affiliation (despite the Ike comments) but were instead meant that every person in this country was equal and to be treated equal.
Obviously, I assume you mean the pledge. Th words, One nation existed there before Ike was born. The words under god were added by Ike's administration. I hav eno idea where you got your interpretation of Ike's intention, but I prefer to go by his own words:
"millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
If you're saying there is no intention of affiliation with religon there, then I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're implying he meant Blue Hen? ;)
|
| 37 | walk
Leader
ID: 214581016
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 13:42
|
You go MITH! Great post in #36.
Yeah, I have little doubt this decision will be overturned, but I am for it, and quite dismayed at our congressional and presidential reactions. Calling the judges stupid and irresponsible and their decision as outrageous and blah blah blah makes them sound a lot less sophisticated than the mere fantasy gurus on this very thread. This is not a black & white matter, but a very gray one, and a personal one to many people. I can see the varying viewpoints here, and as an agnostic or atheist (and a scientist, but not a scientologist!), I basically do not believe there's a god, but I do like our country much (although I have always been intrigued by Canada -- a lot of hockey and no guns), and will not be bummed if the phrase has to stay, am not delighted to read how it got in there in the first place (cold war reaction; not intended by our founding fathers), and am very intrigued by the current post 9/11 bru-ha-ha over the current debate to remove it.
Adzbacker: Who is your god, Junior Spivey? Just kidding!!!
;-)
walk
|
| 38 | Chuck
ID: 2826322
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 21:36
|
Re: 32
You're kidding yourself if you don't admit in faith. You state "faith" is how Christians (or others of faith) downplay bad situations. I would agree. I believe that God's ways are superior to my own.
However, a-theists need to explain away happenings that are seemingly "miraculous". Saying that fate or chance or luck took over is just as much faith as saying God took over.
Everyone has faith. It may not be in God. I personally believe that religion is the person/object/idea/etc. where one puts their faith in. People sit in chairs all the time without checking stability. They have faith in the physics and the chair-builders and the floor beneath the chair, and so on.
As for religion and "science" being incompatible, that is a bunch of hogwash. Scientists (esp. evolutionary biologists) have as much faith as anyone else.
Science is the study of the observable (knowledge), not the theoretical (inference). No one observed the "Big Bang," thus it is a faith-based theory. No one has observed MACRO-evolution, thus it is a faith-based theory. (Remember, finches are still finches, even with many variations.) No one has lived with the dinosaurs, thus a theory of millions of years is faith-based.
|
| 39 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 9592611
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 21:57
|
TLW said: However, I do have to say that some religions, like Christianism, do have advantages. Most religions offer security of one's being. By praying to a god, some people find the security that they lack in the everyday world. It's the spiritial happiness that drives the religious people into living their lives enthusiastically. A god, like an imaginary friend when you were small, will always be there with you, especially during times of tragedies, when most people need soothing and answers to questions of life. It is from a god that people draw strength from at a time when they are weak.
AP10 said: This comment is true ignorance. Basically you are claiming that Christians are weak. An equivalent statement from the opposition might be "non Christians think they know everything". Maybe non Christians are weak because they cant believe in something they can not touch and see, have faith.
TLW actually put into words exactly how I think about religions. They provide security and reasurance to people. I don't see how TLW proclaimed religious people to be weak. Thats what you took out of it AP10. Its not what I took out of it. Everyone is 'weak' in a way during times of loss, during times of sadness. All TLW said was that he felt religious people look for comfort in god, whereas people like him (and me) look for it amongst friends and ourselves. Just a different view on things. (You'll note that he pointed out this was a GOOD thing about religions... one of its chief benefits to people.)
Chuck: "People sit in chairs all the time without checking stability. They have faith in the physics and the chair-builders and the floor beneath the chair, and so on."
I'll probably be one of the only people to disagree with you on this. Ever since some schmuck back in 8th grade thought it would be funny to pull my chair away as I was sitting down, I ALWAYS look to see if my chair is where I think it is. Over the years, that has evolved into me checking if its balanced on the floor properly too... Just thought I'd point that out for no reason at all. :)
|
| 40 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 23:10
|
I had to laugh at that one. I don't check my chair, but as a teacher, every time I pick up an eraser, I deftly peek to see if some miscreant has stashed a piece of chalk in it. This was one of my favorite gags when I was in school and I have had students attempt it on me :)
|
| 41 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 165332019
Thu, Jun 27, 2002, 23:38
|
Walk, I believe azd would call his god "Senior Spivey." And try not to use a Latin accent on that one when you say it out loud.
:)
|
| 43 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Fri, Jun 28, 2002, 00:20
|
Walk: lol at post 37.
If Spivey was God, he would know my name is 'azdbacker', not 'adzbacker'.
;)
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|