patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Kids taking this oath is not a commitment. Kids don't need to make this commitment because they are kids and don't know much. That's why they don't vote.

thats why its done in schools.. learn about being a good citizenship.

eventually they learn why they have the right to vote.

they have the rights of free speech and religion and rights to carry arms.

Vicente says

Married, kids no problem, you? Commitment is getting up every day, and doing the right thing, words don't mean squat. Plenty of people froth at the mouth about honor while they have none of their own. Example: Newt Gingrich!

How many wars are you a frontline veteran of?

LOL your a pacifist.. at best you can do is sissy slap

thomaswong.1986 says

LOL your a pacifist.. at best you can do is sissy slap

thomaswong.1986 says

thats why its done in schools.. learn about being a good citizenship.

They could learn how the institutions work, the principles of separation of power, they could learn the constitution.

Claiming that they learn to be citizens by reciting a pledge is a stunningly idiotic argument.

No, the only purpose of the pledge is good old fashioned propaganda, directed to citizens who didn't yet had a chance to develop critical thinking.

Tom, if you want to die defending the interests of the top 0.1%, that's your prerogative. Be assured that after you die, you'll go to a happy place and meet up with lost loved ones.

The rest of us aren't so easily suckered.

*the rest of us are socialists who want to see America fail.

Fixed your post.

dodgerfanjohn says

*the rest of us are socialists who want to see America fail.

Fixed your post.

Care to elaborate?

No. Theres only so many ways one can describe a blue sky as blue.

thomaswong.1986 says

How many times must we go over this..

Sorry if I have missed your past misrepresentations and attributions on this topic.

thomaswong.1986 says

the actual TEXT in Arab had NO SUCH statement..

WOW! All caps seems like a pretty definitive statement on a translation that is perhaps questionable, but not definitive. Anyway, when examining the thoughts the founding fathers had on Christianity's place in the Union, THE ORIGINAL ARAB TEXT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.

thomaswong.1986 says

NO ONE ever knew why it was added on its way back to the USA.

And no one cares...

thomaswong.1986 says

Anyway.. the English version was eventual changed and the above line was deleted.. which it should have been in the beginning.

So, what?

You ready to hear what matters in this conversation? Steel yourself...I think that we can agree that our founding fathers did have a lot of insight, and -- even in the face of some disagreement -- as a unified group they were able to do things that would be impossible in modern American politics.

However it came to happen, in June 7th, 1796 the translated English language version of the Treaty of Tripoli English was read aloud on the Senate floor. Yes, the Senate understood loud and clear the statement that "...the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

Did anyone cry foul? Did they cry and whine? Did at least one threaten to filibuster and shutdown the government until the glory of a Christian god was served? Did even one vote against ratifying the treaty?

No. No. No, and No.

That is right, the let out a collective "Meh", and on that day -- without a word of debate -- every single one of the men in that room, and the President who signed the treaty did not give a shit that it declared that America as quite definitively a non-Christian nation.

As any sane and rational person can see that -- by mistake or not --, back in the day, very little discussion was needed for American leaders and founders to come to a complete agreement that America is not a country based on Christianity.

dodgerfanjohn says

*the rest of us are socialists who want to see America fail.

Hilarious, how the Pledge of Allegiance zealots are socialists. It's creator was a prominent Christian Socialist, who wrote it to spread the ideas of his brother who wrote Socialist Utopia novels. Mindlessly backing the state, quite the contradiction for "patriots" and wannabe Minutemen and Glibertopians IMO.

:-O

dodgerfanjohn says

No. Theres only so many ways one can describe a blue sky as blue.

You are about as coherent as Tom Wong.

thomaswong.1986 says

It is however true.. atheist are perpetual liars..

Given your intentional omission and misrepresentation of fact, I am beginning to understand who the liar is...

Vicente says

A loyalty oath serves one purpose, to ferret out the "traitors".

Heraclitusstudent says

Kids reciting this pledge with the hand up serves no other purpose than basic brain washing.

Heraclitusstudent says

No, the only purpose of the pledge is good old fashioned propaganda, directed to citizens who didn't yet had a chance to develop critical thinking.

I am not immediately opposed to the idea of having kids recite the pledge. (exception: Being that it violates our Constitution, and founding fathers principals of the separation of church and state, I believe that we should revert to the original pledge that does not include anything about god(s))

I think that another purpose is served. Ceremony, shared celebration, and rituals have helped to bond people together sense the dawn of man. The pledge is a ritual that helps Americans to understand that they are part of a larger group all working together "one Nation...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

One Nation indivisible, E pluribus unum, -- BTW, I would love to see this back on our coins -- there is strength standing together. People survive, and thrive, when they stick together and work towards common goals.

Liberty and justice for all, of all American ideals and virtues does this not boil it down to the core? Is this not an idea that children should be exposed to and cherished?

As American we come from traditions and cultures from all over the globe. At times it may seem like we have little in common. That is why I feel the pledge is important. It is one of the few things that gives us all a common bond, a shared ritual.

I agree that saying the pledge tells us nothing about what is in the heart of another American. What it does tell us is what we should strive for, expect from one another, and that we are all in this together. The traitors are not the ones who refuse the pledge, they are the ones whose actions run counter to the pledge.

The traitors are the ones who try and divide Americans against each other, the ones who are trying to bring our collective efforts to a grinding halt. They scream for attention and voice in our public forums so that they can demean, marginalize, degrade, and ostracize half of their fellow Americans. They lie and deceive in any conceivable way in an effort to drive a wedge between Americans.

*Psst*...hey...thomaswong.1986...I am not totally convinced that you can read between the lines, so let me help you connect a few of the dots for you. At the top of this post I insinuate that you are a liar...I conclude the post saying that traitors to the United States of America lie and deceive...+your posting history of divisive hostile comments towards large groups Americans...

leo707 says

The pledge is a ritual that helps Americans to understand that they are part of a larger group

If the point was to intellectually understand that you are part of a larger group, you wouldn't need a ritual. You would need a 20 minutes explanation, maybe repeated once a year.

Rituals are needed for religious purposes. Repetition is a propaganda tool. Setting up a ritual to bow to the greatness of the nation is virtually indistinguishable from the basest propaganda.

What you are saying is that some level of propaganda is a positive. But wouldn't it be better if people simply understood at an intellectual level that they need to work together?

My daughter started first grade this year and came home one day to make about five or six flags with cores paper. These she stuck to walls all over the house so that "we can say the pledge allegiance anywhere in our house!"

This was both cute and disturbing. Cute because of her single-minded dedication to an ideal, and disturbing because it illustrated just how susceptible children are to propaganda. Knowing that additional state sponsored propaganda about homosexuality is on the horizon, maybe as early as next year, just makes me concerned. What will they teach her? What will she believe? Will they encourage her to understand homosexuals and their behaviors? I do NOT want y kids exposed to that! Call me homophobic if you like, but I haven't even taught her about normal sex, and won't for a number of years. The plan was to give her information that she needed to know as she became curious about these things. Having the schools do a run-around and teach her about alternative sex is a flat-out betrayal, and a corruption of innocents.

Heraclitusstudent says

If the point was to intellectually understand that you are part of a larger group, you wouldn't need a ritual. You would need a 20 minutes explanation, maybe repeated once a year.

Yeah, but we just don't want the intellectual understanding, we want people to feel like they are part of a group.

One can "know" they are technically part of a group, but at the same time they can feel isolated, alone, and disconnected.

Heraclitusstudent says

Rituals are needed for religious purposes. Repetition is a propaganda tool. Setting up a ritual to bow to the greatness of the nation is virtually indistinguishable from the basest propaganda.

Sure, but just because tools are used for evil it does not necessarily make the tools themselves inherently evil. One has to examine how the tools are used and what they are being used to accomplish. In the US the pledge is very simple, and I would not say that it is a call to "bow" to the country:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

For a little perspective...
Compare this to the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty in 1934 Germany:
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

Or to the oath said by school children in India:
"India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters.
I love my country and I am proud of its rich and varied heritage.
I shall always strive to be worthy of it.
I shall give my parents, teachers and all elders respect and treat everyone with courtesy.
To my country and my people, I pledge my devotion. In their well-being and prosperity alone lies my happiness."

Or what Philipino kids are compelled to recite:
"I love the Philippines,
the land of my birth,
The home of my people,
it protects me and helps me
To become strong, hardworking and honorable.
Because I love the Philippines,
I will heed the counsel of my parents,
I will obey the rules of my school,
I will perform the duties of a patriotic citizen,
Serving, studying, and praying faithfully.
I will offer my life, dreams, successes
To the Philippine nation."

Heraclitusstudent says

What you are saying is that some level of propaganda is a positive.

I am saying that propaganda is all around us all the time. I am saying that I don't think that propaganda is inherently evil.

Heraclitusstudent says

But wouldn't it be better if people simply understood at an intellectual level that they need to work together?

Better, I don't think so. Sure people need the intellectual understanding but that only gets them part way. I think that there can be a huge change in attitude, motivation, etc. when someone goes beyond the intellectual level of having a connection with others. Some one can intellectually know they are the parent of a baby, but when they go through the rituals of feeding, bathing, changing, etc. that baby they feel they are connected to that child on a much deeper level.

Quigley says

Call me homophobic if you like

Whew....thanks for the pass. You are homophobic.

Quigley says

What will they teach her?...Will they encourage her to understand homosexuals and their behaviors?

Whenever these fears come up they never seem to be justified. People seem to think that their kids are going to be shown movies of full on deep penetration of man-on-man butt-fucking. This never turns out to be the case. I don't know if they even talk about heterosexual butt-sex when schools have the section on human sexuality.

I would be surprised if this goes beyond saying that sometimes people have two mommies or two daddies, and we should not really care about that.

But, now to what you are really afraid of...

...Kids turned gay because they know gays exist? Zero, don't worry about it.

I really don't get this "Gay Propaganda" bit. I think the only thing it does it make people already gay come out, instead of becoming priests or marrying lesbians for cover.

Even if the teacher DID give out free explicit Gay mags, the only ones who would take it home and look at it would be the heterosexual girls in the class.

thunderlips11 says

Even if the teacher DID give out free explicit Gay mags, the only ones who would take it home and look at it would be the heterosexual girls in the class.

*ahem* and the gay/bi boys, but I am not sure what grade level we are talking about here.

leo707 says

Some one can intellectually know they are the parent of a baby, but when they go through the rituals of feeding, bathing, changing, etc. that baby they feel they are connected to that child on a much deeper level.

Yeah well it's all great when it's a baby. Or maybe a tribe.
When it's an arbitrary group of hundreds of million people occasionally doing stupid things that you are implicitly made to condone, I want my intellectual level back.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah well it's all great when it's a baby. Or maybe a tribe.

When it's an arbitrary group of hundreds of million people occasionally doing stupid things that you are implicitly made to condone, I want my intellectual level back.

I don't think that intellectual understanding is mutually exclusive with emotional understanding. In fact I think that they are both necessary and complement each other well.

It does not matter the size of the group, a "member" is inevitably going to have to condone -- implicitly and/or explicitly -- stupid things (or non-stupid things that they simply disagree with) in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. It takes both intellectual and emotional understanding to help guide a group away from "evil."

I agree with some of the sentiment here, about the value of children repeating the pledge, and that repeating an oath mindlesly has far less value than believing that your country is great and feeling loyalty to it because of this belief.

But at the same time, as a teacher, who oversees children saying the pledge, I am very uncomfortable with say a 14 year old who opts out. I can understand the reasons, and I guess it is his right. But yes, I give him the evil eye, and I do not feel that he is old enough to take such a stand intelligently, going against the grain in such a way.

That is, it does lower my opinion of the kid. I believe that even if a child has issues with some things this country does, or has done, they should be willing to go along with the spirit of the pledge. If they are agnostic or atheist, they can just skip that part.

leo707 says

It does not matter the size of the group, a "member" is inevitably going to have to condone -- implicitly and/or explicitly -- stupid things (or non-stupid things that they simply disagree with) in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. It takes both intellectual and emotional understanding to help guide a group away from "evil."

I disagree. A smaller group is more homogeneous. A larger group is subject to irrational crowd movements.

There is a reason why this type of propaganda is associated with fascism. Because it can be used (and has been used) to make people condone things that would be unthinkable in a smaller group.

humanity says

But at the same time, as a teacher, who oversees children saying the pledge, I am very uncomfortable with say a 14 year old who opts out. I can understand the reasons, and I guess it is his right. But yes, I give him the evil eye, and I do not feel that he is old enough to take such a stand intelligently, going against the grain in such a way.

That doesn't make sense.

If a 14 year old is not old enough to make a stand intelligently, then by all means, he should opt out making allegiance oaths.

What would the Founders have thought of this Pledge I wonder? Certainly the "indivisible" aspect is post-Civil War origin to enforce the idea that secession is not to be countenanced. Really goes against that whole States Rights thing, do Texans and glibertopians like RP balk at that part?

Heraclitusstudent says

I disagree. A smaller group is more homogeneous. A larger group is subject to irrational crowd movements.

Small homogeneous groups don't do stupid things? Perhaps easier for everyone to agree on, but still stupid stuff happens.

Heraclitusstudent says

There is a reason why this type of propaganda is associated with fascism. Because it can be used (and has been used) to make people condone things that would be unthinkable in a smaller group.

Fascism perfected propaganda, but its use today is pretty ubiquitous. Anyway small groups are very capable of doing some pretty unthinkable things.

humanity says

But at the same time, as a teacher, who oversees children saying the pledge, I am very uncomfortable with say a 14 year old who opts out. I can understand the reasons, and I guess it is his right. But yes, I give him the evil eye, and I do not feel that he is old enough to take such a stand intelligently, going against the grain in such a way.

That is, it does lower my opinion of the kid. I believe that even if a child has issues with some things this country does, or has done, they should be willing to go along with the spirit of the pledge. If they are agnostic or atheist, they can just skip that part.

In general sure, why not go along with it...

Intelligent or not a 14 year-old is experimenting with their roles and place in society. It takes a lot of courage to go against the grain and sand up for ones beliefs. As long as it is not done to be intentionally disruptive and divisive, I think that should be respected.

As I have stated here, I do think that the Pledge is a positive. I also think that it -- and anything else for that matter -- should not be blindly followed. People -- especially kids -- should be given the latitude to question things, and if an adequate answer can not be given then the person asking for the blind obedience should themselves question the "thing." These can be good lessons in critical thinking. While I do think that "because I said so" is a valid response to a child, it should be used sparingly.

leo707 says

People -- especially kids -- should be given the latitude to question things, and if an adequate answer can not be given then the person asking for the blind obedience should themselves question the "thing."

This is incompatible with the use of propaganda on kids.
Propaganda is precisely designed to force them into compliance. And you may say that a level of conformance is a good thing. But the point is: you don't give them a reasoned choice.
You can't extol the virtues of critical thinking and at the same time promote tools designed to suppress it.

leo707 says

Small homogeneous groups don't do stupid things? Perhaps easier for everyone to agree on, but still stupid stuff happens.

In a small group, a few reasonable people stand a chance to stop stupid things from happening. Not so when you have a society of millions.

In a tribe, cohesion is a question of survival. This is hardly the case for a large nation, at least not to the same level.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is incompatible with the use of propaganda on kids.

Do you have or have worked with kids?

Pledge aside kids are constantly exposed to "propaganda" and forced compliance. The pledge just happens to focus on a kids larger group "Americans."

Kids question things all the time. Forcing them to do things while accepting questions and guiding critical thinking is a daily reality for me.

You want to know my biggest propaganda campaign I subject my kids to? On a daily basis I talk about what good friends they are with each other, and I have them tell me about the friendly nice things they do for each other. In general they get along great, which gives me good material to keep the propaganda campaign alive. In spite of over a year of this do they still question the propaganda? Fuck yes. At these times I need to reason with them as to why they are, and should be, good friends.

Heraclitusstudent says

And you may say that a level of conformance is a good thing.

Yes, I would say that.

Heraclitusstudent says

But the point is: you don't give them a reasoned choice.

You can't extol the virtues of critical thinking and at the same time promote tools designed to suppress it.

Propaganda its self is not "force." You can certainly force someone to be subject to propaganda. You can fill propaganda with lies. You can follow up propaganda with punishment that discourages questions. However, all these things are not requirements for propaganda.

I don't feel that propaganda and reasoned choice are mutually exclusive. Can propaganda be abused? Absolutely, it is a powerful force for encouraging behavior and any powerful force is subject to abuse. This is why kids need to be able to experiment with being subject to propaganda. The questions are inevitable and can help kids to determine the values behind a propaganda campaign and decide if it is something that they wish to be part of.

Like it or not the Pledge is an insignificant drop in the deluge of propaganda people are subject to these days. How many Americans today have greater loyalty to a corporate brand, religion, or political party than they do to the United States of America? This is of course because they are buying into the propaganda -- which is often heavily steeped in lies.

I think that the values in the American Pledge are, for the most part, good. And as propaganda guides behavior I would encourage its use; while as the same time I think it should be a "safe" ground to open discussion about the validity of it and other propaganda. If the American Pledge has similar pronouncements of love and blind obedience as some of the other loyalty pledges I cited I would be telling a different story.

Heraclitusstudent says

In a small group, a few reasonable people stand a chance to stop stupid things from happening. Not so when you have a society of millions.

History is rife with examples of small groups doing horrible things. When insanity has momentum I am not sure that reasonable people easily prevail in any sized group.

Granted on a statistical scale over the course of human history I would not be surprised if by the numbers large groups (millions) have inflicted more pain and suffering. One of the differences is that with large groups the insanity does not seem to be sustainable over a very long period of time before it gets stopped. However, small groups horrible shit can go on for generations until it becomes an integral part of their culture.

Heraclitusstudent says

In a tribe, cohesion is a question of survival. This is hardly the case for a large nation, at least not to the same level.

Humanity as seemed to evolve to the point where you are either in a large group or you are shit on. Surviving perhaps, but shit on.

compulsery education at the public expense should be haulted, and privatized schooling should be all that exists. As a result of education being a choice and not forced, all voting rights should be earned with passage of a basic IQ test in math, economics, and history, along with a clean drug test.

Bap33 says

basic IQ test in math, economics, and history

You realize you are stripping voting rights from much of the GOP and Tea Party here, right?

This is seriously not a dig, but time-after-time these are the type of tests they perform poorly on. Am I to assume that you also want to enact laws that require the test to ignore modern scientific discovery so everyone who answers that the earth is 6000 years-old passes?

leo707 says

do they still question the propaganda? Fuck yes.

I don't think you understand the nature of propaganda. It will change a person's perceptions of things without this person even noticing. It will affect their group identity in a way that will be very hard to change back later - critical thinking or not. Most people think they are rational, but studies show commercial propaganda for example has a massive impact on people's decision. This is not a silver bullet, but this is a very strong tool. The human brain has biases, and these biases will prevent critical thinking on occasion.

You think kids, teenagers have critical thinking? Kids below 10 are products of their families and teenagers are basically the products of their environments. Teenagers in particular are extremely vulnerable to ideas coming from their peers and environment as they seek to form their own identities by copying what they see. Talk to immigrants who saw their kids grow up in the US and they will tell you about it.

When you submit kids to propaganda, they are unable to judge what the effects will be, and it will have an impact on their identity that they won't be in a position to decide for themselves. This is not giving them a choice and this is in fact limiting critical thinking.

As for the rest of political, religious, and commercial propaganda, it is obviously just as noxious. I wouldn't submit my kids to any of these if I can at all avoid it. I see no reason why I should treat nationalist propaganda differently.

Vicente says

Pledge of Allegiance

The American Pledge of Allegiance, like all pledges of allegiance to anything, are inherently wrong. Allegiance should be constantly earned, not given for the simple matter of being born into a tribe. The very concept of a pledge of allegiance is repugnant to any free thinking person. Ironically, the American Pledge of Allegiance is entirely Unamerican in every principle it demands others to pledge. What a disgusting work. I've always hated it.

Heraclitusstudent says

leo707 says

People -- especially kids -- should be given the latitude to question things, and if an adequate answer can not be given then the person asking for the blind obedience should themselves question the "thing."

This is incompatible with the use of propaganda on kids.
Propaganda is precisely designed to force them into compliance. And you may say that a level of conformance is a good thing. But the point is: you don't give them a reasoned choice.
You can't extol the virtues of critical thinking and at the same time promote tools designed to suppress it.

Yes, this is why I don't "opt in" for the gay mafia assertion that their culture needs to be accepted by all and taught in schools. I trust my own judgement over that of politicians and Hollywood actors. I respect Leo's opinion about being inclusive, but reject his right to force said opinions on me. Most of my experiences with homo guys have been negative and I'm not going to defer to popular opinion on an issue where I already hold an opinion based on personal experience. Groupthink is not and will never be my way.

Bap33 says

compulsery education at the public expense should be haulted, and privatized schooling should be all that exists. As a result of education being a choice and not forced, all voting rights should be earned with passage of a basic IQ test in math, economics, and history, along with a clean drug test.

Any thoughts on the actual topic of the thread? Or, additional info on how this is supposed to add to the topic?

leo707 says

Humanity as seemed to evolve to the point where you are either in a large group or you are shit on. Surviving perhaps, but shit on.

First being in a large country doesn't require an allegiance to it, second there are many small countries that are better off than the US.

Bap33 says

compulsery education at the public expense should be haulted, and privatized schooling should be all that exists

Because the free market should decide what 12 + 15 equals.

Bap33 says

As a result of education being a choice and not forced, all voting rights should be earned with passage of a basic IQ test in math, economics, and history, along with a clean drug test.

As long as I get to set the standards.

You don't get to vote unless you can
- explain in detail how we know evolution is a fact and how it works right down to the molecular level
- explain the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Relativity
- do calculus, abstract algebra, and predicate logic
- build a functioning computer from the gate level up
- write a three tier web application
- explain why Keynesian economics is wrong
- accurate state how big and how old the Earth is
- show mankind's immigration paths out of Africa
- point out the following countries on a world map: U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, U.K., France, Span, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Italy, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Japan, Mongolia, Brazil, and Panama. This list can be expanded, but that's a start.
- explain how the American Civil War was about slavery and human rights, and not about states' rights
- explain why the Magna Carta is important
- describe the progressive movement and the benefits it created
- explain why Reaganomics is bullshit
- explain how a microwave oven cooks food
- explain how the Internet works
- explain the various technologies that allow digital video to be distributed all over the world
- explain the difference between iron and steel and why one is stronger than the other
- disprove the existence of any omnipotent being using only a priori logic.

As for a clean drug test, you should be allowed to smoke as much pot as you want and vote. However, no one on Ritalin or other mind altering drugs sold by Big Pharma would get to vote. I could go either way on alcohol.

Quigley says

Most of my experiences with homo guys have been negative and I'm not going to defer to popular opinion on an issue where I already hold an opinion based on personal experience.

Putting aside that you have probably had many pleasant interactions with people you did not realize were gay; I am curious as to how gays differed from your experiences with any non-gay people? I have found them to be pretty "normal" on the whole.

Quigley says

Groupthink is not and will never be my way.

Acceptance of gays is not the dominate paradigm in the US, the "Groupthink" of today is homophobia. The whole idea of letting kids know gays exist is to crack this generational groupthink.

Quigley says

I respect Leo's opinion about being inclusive, but reject his right to force said opinions on me.

It is not so much that I want to force opinions on you, but I take it to heart when our pledge says "...liberty and justice for all." I include the LGBT community under the "all" portion of the pledge. The prevailing anti-gay attitude makes gays second-class citizens, divides families, ruins lives, and in the extreme leads to suicides and murders. For gays liberty and justice is lacking. Should we accept this?

So what if your kids grow up to think gays are not abominations to be ostracized? What are you afraid is going to happen? On the up side if the "Groupthink" becomes one of acceptance of gays we have: more intact families; more productive citizens; fewer suicide and runaways; fewer assaults; and are upping the ideals of liberty and justice for all.

I think that we all have a right to our own opinions. If someone wants to be racist, anti-religious, sexist, homophobic, etc. fine. However, I don't think that we have a right to let our opinions allow the situation to exist where the liberty and justice for other Americans be squashed.

Dan8267 says

As long as I get to set the standards.

You don't get to vote unless you can

Even if you were to remove the obvious digs against Tea-publicans and the religious I think that many of them would be effectively eliminated just on the hard science and history stuff.