Score One For The Good Guys

 

1. Sorry Habecker-Dude. The First Amendment says the Federal Government cannot abridge your freedom of speech or religion.  It does not say that the voters of Estes Park cannot.

   WHY IS IT that so many idiots think that “Freedom of Speech” means “Freedom From Consequences”.  As in everything, you gotta pay to play.

   Posted by Oink       03/06/2005  at  11:23 AM  



2. AMEN Oink.

   Posted by LC Geno       03/06/2005  at  12:25 PM  



3. Oh, dear. How did we ever survive as a nation before 1954, when “under God” was added to the Pledge? I have an idea we’d survive just as well if we removed it!

   Posted by EllisGee       03/06/2005  at  02:44 PM  



4. Sorry...I guess I see another issue here. The Constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required to hold office in the United States. Booting him from office due to his (un-)religious beliefs seems to fly in the face of his constitutional rights.

   Posted by EllisGee       03/06/2005  at  03:08 PM  



5. Ellis, it’s not his religious beliefs.  It’s the fact that he is letting his own personal agenda interfere with his ability to represent the people that voted him into office.  If THEY are religious or patriotic and are offended by his actions it is THEIR right to demand redress by booting his ass out.

   Posted by Vilmar       03/06/2005  at  04:13 PM  



6. Vilmar, maybe I’m a little slow here, but I don’t see how his displeasure with the Pledge interferes with his ability to carry out the duties he was elected to perform. What is he? The official Pledge Reciter? America has always been governed by an eclectic assortment of athiests, Protestants, and even (horrors!) a Roman Catholic named John F. Kennedy,who turned out to be a fantastic President. We’ll survive this guy, too. What we won’t survive is the micro-management of our government by an assortment of busybodies backed up by the (unelected) Fourth Estate--our so-called free press, who like to make trouble simply to prove they can. I say let the man finish his term, and then people can boot him out if they want to. Save the recalls and impeachments for the big stuff--like presidents who lie under oath, and governers who lead their states into bankruptcy.

   Posted by EllisGee       03/06/2005  at  05:10 PM  



7. Both you guys must not have read the story.  The guy is allowing this issue to interfere with his ability to perform the job the people ellected him for.  Therefore they want him out.

   Granted, this was not an issue before he took office so why did it all of a sudden become one?  I’ll tell you, because he knew he was going to do this all along and getting elected gave him the outlet for his personal vendetta and attention mongering.  He is acting under false pretenses.

   Again, the people did not elect him to do this.  Had they known ahead of time he was so adamantly against the Pledge and “under God” I am certain they’d not have voted him into office.

   Go back and study the issue.

   Posted by Vilmar       03/06/2005  at  05:31 PM  



8. Vilmar--
   If he came into office with some kind of anti-pledge vendetta in mind, his oponent should have done his/her homework and raised the issue during the campaign. Using the recall process to pay him back for having bad manners is something like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Yeah, it’ll do the job. BUT...!

   Posted by EllisGee       03/06/2005  at  05:58 PM  



9. EllisG— KEEE-RECT!  The tacking on of “under God” in 1954 is a weak point in the pledge argument.  Not fatal, but arguable.

   The “Confederate Flag” (Really the Battle Flag) argument has a truly fatal flaw.  If it had been used widely for 150 years, OK.  It wasn’t.

   It was adopted in the 1950s by the racists as a symbol of resistance to the(IRONY) “nigra’s” (IRONY) freedom struggle. OK, so be it, then I hate the mother . 

   Not fair to a few innocent, but we don’t accept the swastika just because it was around before the Nazis, do we?

   The ‘under God’ does not equal Swastika and racism.

   Posted by Oink       03/06/2005  at  07:14 PM  



10. Like BobF and OCM said, I think the easiest thing this guy could have done is stand and be silent.  He obviously is trying to draw attention to himself to make some type of statement.  That is the narcissistic part of the Left that is so detestable.  If they don’t feeeel good about it, they want to bring down the system, man.  It would be silly to try to deny the guy has an agenda.

    On the other hand, it does seem like a waste of time, money, and effort to recall the fool.  Just make his time in office a living hell; I would if I were a fellow council member.

    Ellis, it’s not a matter of “bad manners” as you put it; it’s a matter of decorum and demeanor.  It’s a matter of this asshat making a drama-queen scene in order to ruin an otherwise innocuous or sacred event for the others involved.  If he is acting on his “conscience” then let him take any possible heat for it.  People (especially liberals) thrive on martyrdom and victimhood when it comes to their causes.

    Here’s a related story:

    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_030105_classroomoutburst.html

    The kid was using one of those camera cell phones.  The kid is a punk who needs to be bitch slapped, and a good ol’ country ass-whoopin’ might not be bad, either.

    Posted by Illegitimi Non Carborundum       03/06/2005  at  09:32 PM  



11. Analogy to personal reservations to The Pledge:  Suppose you sat on the dais during Bill Clinton’s second inauguration.  It would not be appropriate to fart.  No matter if your personal belief was that the occasion called for it.

    The election was legal.  It’s your country. It’s the ceremony that Washington and Lincoln partook in.  Keep your mouth (and ass) shut.

    Posted by Oink       03/06/2005  at  09:54 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.