In response to:

"Reverend" Sharpton Leaves Out "Under God" In MSNBC Ad

jessierandall Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 6:34 PM
Idiots. Under God was added in the 50s and DOES NOT denote how spiritual a person is if they choose to refer to the ORIGINAL pledge as it was INTENDED. You clowns who sputter biblical verse and the Constitution in it's purist, literal form should appreciate that.
Marc_H Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 8:12 PM
hey skippy
every ws adopted at some point
what a clueles fool you are
Skycdr Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 7:43 PM
No idiots here sugarlips except in the mirror. Idiots can't take care of themselves which is the very definition of a liberal/progressive. Government handouts, cradle-to-grave.

How's the guvmint cheese these days?
Duke Nuk'em Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 6:52 PM
Or so a loony off her meds lib says!
alphonsejones Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 8:38 PM
once upon a time the n bomb was also an accepted part of every day speech

not it is reserved as a term of endearment between blacks

but no one is suggesting we should start using it again

accepted speech changes over time and using under God in the pledge has been considered a part of accepted speech

that is of course, except for those who hate America and profess that religion is a crutch for weak minded repubs

although we do notice that for the imbeciles that support and adore the hussein, he has become their lord and savior and their messiah
You can't be serious Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 9:06 PM
I propose we start using it again. Where appropriate, or course.

There are law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying blacks.
And there are N's. Plantation ghetto biotsch N's.
By choice, of course.

Just like the law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying blacks choose to be as such.

Note that the good Revrund's ad is a nondiscrimination spot. I guess discriminating against God is perfectly fine for this "man of God"--um, I meant black man of God.