User talk:Carbuncle72

Your vandalism to Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Hi. Your edit was removed because it's considered vandalism. If you have an opinion about an article and how it should be written the proper place to make a comment is on the discussion page that can be found near the top left hand corner of your screen. I would also note that while Michael Newdow has taken a stand in defending his view of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...") your vandalism could be interpreted as a personal attack. I don't know if Michael Newdow is a communist, however, he is a lawyer and defamation laws still exist in this country and have been historically enforced. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia in the future or you will risk being blocked from editing. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons,

Ok I see. Then I'm sorry you think I vandelized your site. Don't I have rights protected by the first admendment? Micheal Newdow should instead of destroying American citizen rights perhaps he should stick to his law pratice. Then being on a personal vendetta of getting rid of God. God will always be here no matter what.

Again I'm sorry. But yes I am mad at the way our Country is turning into. Unless I have millions of dollars which I don't..Then I guess I watch it be destroyed by corruped polititions. Then be taken over by Mexico and Canada where by the way are two of my pen pals live. I won't edit any more unless I add more to it with more information.

Carbuncle72

Thanks for the comment. Since this is as good a place for this discussion as any I guess I'll just say that I don't see it that way. Michael Newdow was sending his daughter to a school where she was being told to take a religious oath every day (although she legally didn't have to, I'm not convinced that kids aren't pressured to conform in school to by their teachers).

You say that he was destroying American citizen rights. If you're referring to the pledge of allegiance, then yes, I would say people have the right to say it (including the words "Under God", which in fact were only recently added). But if you're referring to the government being able to force someone to take a religious oath then you're wrong. At least that's what the First Amendment to our Constitution says.

The Supreme Court got lucky in my opinion. The case was thrown out on a technicality (Michael Newdow's ex-wife had legal custody of his daughter). Otherwise, they would have been forced to make a choice between an unpopular verdict (removing "Under God" from the pledge), or finding that "Under God" is not religious within the meaning of the First Amendment (which I can barely force myself to even consider as a logical possibility).

I don't have a million dollars, I don't think Michael Newdow does either (I could be wrong). And I hate corrupt politicians just as much as anyone, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Canada? Mexico? Do you know how much money the United States spends on its military? It's not going to happen. Not while you or I are alive at least.

The Cold War's over. The communists lost. We should get to keep our freedom to worship the way we choose to without the government telling us how, and that includes choosing not to worship. That's my two cents. --Cdogsimmons 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

When I was talking of Canada and Mexico I was speaking about the Nafta agreement signed in 1994. Which very well may change America into the North American Union. Canada and Mexico will be part of it was well. I have to dig for it but there was billions of dollars spent and I think 12? billion dollars was unaccounted for in Iraq. In other words I'm voting independent in 2008. I'm 35 and I'm beginning to fathom politics I think..lol I'm just totaly stumpped on our our Country is, and I'm wondering what in the world Bush is doing. He should have never shifted attention from Afganistan to Iraq. Now that country is in total ruins. This deal in Iraq first started when I was in highschool,when the invasion occured. And its now a hugh mess. I'm sorry I do get frustrated at times, but thank you for listening to me gripe.

You might want to check out the ACLJ, since your into law. aclj.org)

Carbuncle72

Continuing discussion

You make a good point about Nafta. Economic globalization at work I guess. But I still don't think that qualifies as Canada and Mexico taking over the United States. Greater integration into the global economy maybe, but the US democratic system works on a much slower time scale. Controversial policies take decades to be put in place, and decades to reverse. Whole generations of Americans live and die before really drastic changes take place, and that's probably a good thing (despite what the vast majority of Americans now see as clear instances of past injustices. Ex. Slavery, women being denied the right to vote).

As for Iraq, that's a whole other story which I have a hard time thinking about without becoming angry. And I'm not just saying that because I was protesting before the invasion. The way the whole thing was handled was a mockery of the lessons we should have learned in Vietnam. If we had to do the thing in the first place, I would have preferred a draft to the inadequate preparations, compounded with the constant deceptions be the government for the war's reasons, and finally the uninvolvement of the average US Citizen. All the responsibility for the war is being put on a few military families and now it looks like the US is just going to pull out after completely destabilizing the region. And of course, we are almost helpless to do anything, except vote. Or volunteer I guess.--Cdogsimmons 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)