posted on December 10, 2000 11:04:26 AM
If it wasn't Florida, the votes would have been counted, and Gore would be readying himself for the presidency right now.
It's a strickly partison, "don't let the peoples vote count at any cost" campaign by the Bush league republicans.
The election and vote count in florida was rigged from the get go, and 75%of this country beleive that.
The rich republicans keep stacking the deck, and supressing justice and truth.
I do by the way wish that our Vice President would just concede, and let the lame duck Bush have his stolen spoils.
Then, in 2004 we can go back to another 8 years of prosperity under a Democratic president.
Bush is the laughing stock of the world, and will succeed in only one thing as president, and that's to bring the country to the state that texas is in.
Highest in taxes
Highest in unemployment
Lowest in education
My, that's a mighty good resume he brings with him.
I only wonder why he didn't choose his brother as his running mate?
Oh, that's right, then who would have been left in florida to cover up and oversee the illegal election?
posted on December 10, 2000 12:29:31 PM
None of this makes sense and is beyond logical reason. If the supreme Ct. rules in Bush's favor then what they are telling us in essense is that the judiciary will decide the next president instead of the people
I think the supreme ct in Fla was upholding and interpretting the Fla. law. Yet the republicans keep stating that they rewrote the law. I do not see it that way. It is evident that leaving the rules for the recounts in the hands of the canvassing boards is far from perfect...But so are the machine counts that yielded imperfect counts due to antiquated machinery. The republican laws left it in the hands of the canvassing committees how to determine the intent of the voters. Sure our system in Fla is not perfect, and perhaps the recounts differ,from county to county. But so does the machinery and recounts all over the country differ.
No matter what the outcome the votes will be counted . The freedom of protection act in Fla will make sure of that....
Its funny most Americans truly believed that the votes need to be counted......
I watched James Baker today on CNN and he almost scared me with some of his remarks.No matter what the courts rule he should show some respect for the judiciary system in the US. I think you are right Pocono, Gore should step back if the Supreme Ct does not rule for the recounts and judging from their divided house I do not think it will go his way ,unless just one justice steps back and rules for the people and not for partisan preferences.........I think we can say Gore won the popular vote in the country and the popular vote in Fla. But Bush will win the election---- It will be a sad day for Americans when a president has to take office this way.....
posted on December 10, 2000 12:50:59 PMThe election and vote count in florida was rigged from the get go, and 75%of this country beleive that.
pocono, please point us the source of the survey whose results you quote.
lame duck Bush
This term is used to refer to an elected official during the time period between the election and when his successor takes office. For example, Clinton is a lame duck President; Gore is a lame duck Vice President. Unless it's your contention that Mr. Bush is currently serving as President pro tem - which I'm sure would surprise Messrs. Clinton and Gore - I suggest you find a more accurate adjective. (It might be argued that Bush is the lame duck Governor of TX; but I'd argue that wouldn't be true unless he had officially resigned that office, which he won't do until the Presidential election brouhaha is over and is "officially" President-elect. And you don't think he is, do you?)
You claim that Texas is:
highest in taxes- Income taxes? Sales taxes? Property taxes? Hard to address the last two, since that varies by county (and, therefore, is not controlled by the state government), but Texas has NO individual income tax, and ranked 49th in $ amount of state taxes paid per capita.
highest in unemployment - Texas's unemployment rates in ‘98 and ‘99 were 4.8% and 4.6% respectively. 1999 US average was 4.5%. Among the states with a higher unemployment rate than Texas were California, New York, and Hawaii. Texas is 29th in median household income.
lowest in education - Not sure how you define this. 72.1% of Texans over 25 have graduated high school, as opposed to 75.2% nationwide; number of college graduates in Texas is the US average, 20.3%. It ranks 1st in public school enrollment, 38th in full-time college enrollment, 34th in teachers' salaries.
posted on December 10, 2000 12:55:56 PMAt the oral arguments in the last Fl. Supreme Court case, when Pariente asked David Boies if it wouldn't be fairer to count undervotes statewide, rather than just in Miami Dade, Boies said, to paraphrase, that Bush's lawyers hadn't asked for that, and, Boies said further, that there seemed to be a feeling that Bush should be protected from his own lawyers.
I don't quite understand your point here. This wasn't a spin session; it was a session before the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that Boies should've chucked his responsibility to present his best case or that he shouldn't have argued the law? Maybe he should have said something like, "Well, Your Honor, it is the law that George Bush should've filed a protest, but let's not worry about that and go ahead and count the whole state." Heck, why even present a case at all -- we could've let Bush's lawyers do it for us.
But the worst, and I hope this isn't an indication of what's to be, was Democratic Senator Leahy jumping up and saying, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its stay, that, "This is very bad for the Supreme Court, because their credibility is so diminished, and their moral posture is so diminished, that it could take years to pull back from that."
Leahy's statement sounds like a kid's taunt compared to the utter viciousness of Tom DeLay's attack on Dec. 8 following the Fla. Supreme Court ruling.
I'm not saying the Dems qualify for sainthood, donny. But if there was a tote board for classless remarks, the GOP would be way over the top.
posted on December 10, 2000 01:09:50 PM
Some entertaining GW quotes from "Is Our Children Learning" (by Paul Begala):
"Higher education is not my priority." (San Antonio Express, 3/22/98)
"Laura and I sometimes don't realize how bright our children is until we get an objective analysis." (Meet the Press, 4/15/00)
"Reading is the basics for all learning." (Reston, Virginia, 3/28/00)
"How do you know if you don't measure up if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?" (Hilton Head, S.C., 2/16/00)
During Dubya's tenure in Texas, the state's contribution to public school funding has shrunk from 45% to 44.3%. (During his campaign for Governor, he promised to increase the funding to 60%).
posted on December 10, 2000 01:15:59 PM
Stop squabbling, jump aboard the Republican life raft. Liberalism is going down like the Titanic and the band standing on the deck playing, is the Democratic Party.
As a Democrat, you must supine and confess your sins to any Republican before it is too late for you. The fingers of shun are pointing and the rocks to be cast have been collected.
God will burn into stone an 11th Commandment; a new sin, "Thou shalt not be a Democrat."
He will decree that the Republicans may follow a law previously legislated;
"Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."
posted on December 10, 2000 02:55:56 PM
CleverGirl, you said:
"But what I want to see is YOUR equivalent outrage over Jim Baker's ugly remarks about FL Supreme Court in the earlier decision. AND the "impugning" of the FL Court contained in the earlier Bush brief to the US Supreme Court which Justice Ginsburg objected to during oral arguments."
Clevergirl, I've made at least one post, and probably more than one post, about my strong disapproval over Jim Baker,and the Republican party's, attempt to undermine the respect and public confidence in the judiciary. I've commented in this forum, several times, about the danger of Jim Baker's "unfair and unacceptable" comments after the first Florida Supreme Court decision.
As to Ginsberg's comments; I heard them, I just never read the Republican Party's brief to the Supreme Court that her comments might have been referring to, and was unsure if she was referring to the Republican Party's public statements, or something in the brief.
Anyway, if you haven't seen my equivalent outrage over the Republican Party's disparaging of the judiciary, you haven't been reading what I've posted, I've said it quite a few times.
"The Gore team has ALWAYS been willing to have all the votes counted, statewide. That's been very clear. Did they ASK for all the counties to recount? No. Why should they -- it was up to"
That's right, the Gore team has been willing to have all the votes counted, but it definately wasn't what they wanted. For Daley to come out now and say that this is just what they wanted all the time is just a lie. In fact, David Boies expressly argued against having all the undervotes counted in his last Florida Supreme Court appearance. I don't say that the Gore's team's position on preferring only the first 4 counties handcounted, or Miamia Dade now handcounted, was legally or politically unfounded or that they were acting unfairly in not wanting undervotes in other counties counted, especially now when time was so short. I merely say that Bill Daley told a big ol' fat lie about how having all the undervotes in all the counties was just what they wanted all the time. Hogwash. (Or, if you'd rather, political spin.)
Re Klain and Boies' broadcasting the Gore vote pickup... First off, as I understand it, when the Republicans complained, Judge Terry Lewis said that his order was not meant to only refer to canvassing boards, but was intended to apply to both political parties and everyone else, but that he wasn't going to hold Gore's attorneys in contempt (maybe Lewis gave Gore's attorneys the benefit of the doubt, thinking his order might have been unclear). Lewis did say, I believe, in his ruling on the Gore attorney's actions, for them not to do it again, and for everyone not to do it from now on.
Now, Klain and Boies have both said that they misunderstood, and thought the Judge's order only applied to canvassing boards. I don't believe them, both these guys are good lawyers, and too politically savvy not to see what the deal was. I think they both properly realized that, whatever the cost (a contempt of court charge or whatever), it was extremely important, from a political standpoint, to get that information out. Once a bell is rung, it can't be unrung.
I also think, had the preliminary vote counting showed a net gain for Bush, that it would have been Bush's lawyers up there broadcasting Bush's vote pickup, it would have been the Democrats complaining that the Republicans had violated Judge Lewis' order, and it would have been the Republicans disengenuously explaining that they had misunderstood Judge Lewis' order. That's the way these things work, it's politics.
Margaret Carlson - Yes, I heard what she said. In fact, several days ago, I posted a link to an article in the online New York Daily News, written on November 1, that was probably what she was referring to, the Bush team's plans, i.e. that the Bush team, before the election, had made plans for a strategy to get Bush the presidency if he has won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote (as many political analysts were predicting.)
But what she said further was just plain wrong. Gore, Lieberman, Boies, Bill Daley, and all the others have, over and over, referred to the fact that Gore won the popular vote. Gore worked this little fact into dern near every speech and interview he gave.
If Bush had won the popular vote, and lost the electoral votes, I've no doubt Bush's team would be making use of the fact that he was the popular vote winner, and much more effectively than the Gore team has. This strategy of Gore, and his team, to "casually" drop this information into everything they can is awkard and not effective. If they've stopped doing it, it's because it wasn't working.
Back to the Supreme Court ruling ordering the stay. I think they were wrong too. I've read Steven's dissent and Scalia's concurrence. Even though Scalia's concurrence comes first on the page before Steven's dissent, Scalia makes clear, in the first sentence, that his concurrence was written in response to Steven's dissent.
When you read both, especially keeping in mind the order in which they were written, Scalia's concurrence is pure nonsense in every point he addresses. I won't go into a point by point analysis, but I will say this, for what it's worth, which isn't much - Although I decided not to be a lawyer, (preferring to be respectable instead), I went through 3 years of law school, and have read plenty of Supreme Court decisions. Scalia's prior opinions are, on the whole, among the most stupid Supreme Court opinions you'll ever read, and more than one of my law professors said the same, though not in the same words. With the most cursory of readings, his opinons might seem to make sense, but if you try to follow his logic and arguments, they have a strong tendency to fall apart. This latest concurrence is a real gem though, he's out-Scalia'd himself.
The Supreme Court was wrong in halting the counting, I think that, and I also think Scalia is stupid, and I expect there's a good chance that I'll find future Scalia Supreme Court opinions to be stupid also. Stating my personal opinion about that, though, is a far cry from Senator Leahy saying, to be filmed and broadcast, that: "This is very bad for the Supreme Court, because their credibility is so diminished, and their moral posture is so diminished, that it could take years to pull back from that."
It's pretty near a given that the Democrats are going to lose in the Supreme Court. Leahy knows it, everyone knows it. If he's saying that now, before the final ruling, what is he going to say after? Remember, this isn't just Leahy speaking privately; This is Leahy saying it publically, in his position as one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, for the camera. I think to disparage the court like this is wrong. He should merely say that he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision. That's okay. To try to destroy the credibility of the Supreme Court this way is not. Bring it up again in 4 years, when the Democrats have a candidate running for president, yes.
Fountainhouse -
"Leahy's statement sounds like a kid's taunt compared to the utter viciousness of Tom DeLay's attack on Dec. 8 following the Fla. Supreme Court ruling.
I'm not saying the Dems qualify for sainthood, donny. But if there was a tote board for classless remarks, the GOP would be way over the top."
I think we agree. Realize, I only said that the Democrats couldn't be said to have taken the moral high road, but I did say that they could be said to have taken a higher road than the Republicans'.
This is just politics. Don't ever buy into what either side says wholeheartedly, without examing each closely. If one side lies, it doesn't automatically follow that the other side is telling the truth. They all lie. One side's lies might be more egregious than the other's. One side's lies might be more effective than the other's. One side's lies might be more persuasive than the other's. There may be some truth in what each says.
I happen to think that, in this situation, the Republican's political lies have been more effective and persuasive than the Democrat's lies, and, for that matter, more effective and persuasive than the Democrat's truths.
It's just amazing to me how the Democrats have blown this on the political side. They should be having huge rallies all over the country, anywhere a tv camera might be, yelling about Democracy, every vote counting, blah blah blah, massing in D.C., in front of the Supreme Court, in the Mall in front of the Washington monument. The Republicans have been much more effective in getting angry crowds together for the camera, it's just unbelievable that the Democrats haven't been able to do better than they've been doing.
posted on December 10, 2000 03:30:30 PM"For Daley to come out now and say that this is just what they wanted all the time is just a lie."
Early on, Al Gore proposed to GW that a statewide recount be undertaken. As I recall, the offer was repeated more than once.
"It's just amazing to me how the Democrats have blown this on the political side."
Amen. So many times in the past month it was downright frustrating watching the events unfold and seeing how well organized Republicans were ... and how disjointed and ineffective Dems were.
posted on December 10, 2000 03:50:28 PM
Toke, I don't disagree with any of your previous post about the Democratic party's manipulations, lies, and spin. Absolutely, and I've posted much of what you've brought up myself, just like I've also posted about the Republican party's manipulations, lies, and spin. To see it on one side, and not the other, is just the result that each party seeks to achieve.
But to get away from the spin, (which is why I only quoted some of your post, and left out the "steal the election," part, etc),
if we agree that Gore had a legal right, under the pre-existing law, to file both a pre-certification protest, and a post-certification contest, I still fail to see the false premises. Realize I'm talking about law, not politics.
You don't get your foot in the door of the court (in theory), by political spin. You have to have a basis under law. If you're saying that Gore got his foot in the door of the court, first in his protest action, and then by his contest action, under false premises, what are they?
I submit that it has been a large part of the Republican party's public relations campaign to characterize, from day one, Al Gore's first protest action, as being completely unsupportable, and that, therefore, Al Gore was trying to "steal the election." But on reading the law myself, I see that any losing candidate, under Florida law, has the legal right to both protest and contest actions.
Remember, the Republican party put out the "trying to steal the election" spin before any ballot had ever been picked up and examined by hand. The mere action, under Florida law, of filing a protest, brought the Republican spin about.
The Democratic spin should be recognized for what it is, and I see it pretty clearly. The same goes for the Republican spin. If we can get away from inflammatory language like "stealing the election," and pseduo patriotic pleas to "let every vote count," and try to resist and overcome the emotional ploys that each party uses, I think we'd all be able to make better informed judgements about what this whole episode is, as well as not polarizing the country as bitterly as it seems to be happening.
posted on December 10, 2000 05:16:55 PM
Well Said Donny. The partisan spin is what is spliting this nation. The Republicans like James Baker want you to forget that they filed the first court action to stop hand recounts. They filed this action because they missed the protest period under Florida Law. Gore even reached out and offered to drop all legal challenges and accept the result and concede if they just recount the ballots. Bush refused and we have snowballed into partisan spin since then.
I read post about Boies defending his position to only do limited recounts in the protested areas. Wel under the law he doesn't have a duty to address a remedy that benefits his adversary. Particularly when his adversary is against the remedy anyway.
I really hate to see the turmoil this has escalated too. I just don't see how the high court will be able to render a decision that won't cross the seperation of powers of Government. The Executive branch appoints the high court with Senate confirmation. Not the High Court appoints the President over the uncounted votes of the people.
If the Judicary feels justice should be sacrificed for time. Then rule Florida undecided and strike them from the college. Can't do that because minus Florida Bush can't win. In short Bush can't win without Florida minus the uncounted votes. Florida with the uncounted counted he loses. Strike Florida from the College he loses. So I can see the tenacity of which he is fighting and why he filed the first legal actions. Its a shame the Republicans hinged the whole election on Florida. Its a shame Gore couldn't carry his own State.
But with so many swing States in the Union you have to question why the Republican Party picked Florida. And given the irregularities of the Florida election, the recent changes in voting law, and other events. You have your answer. Which is why the best solution is to Strike Florida as undecided and deny them admission to the college. The college drops to 513 and majority is 257. Even better solution deny Florida and reduce every other State by one vote. The college for 2000 is 463 with majority being 232. I don't even know who that favors but I know it sounds fair.
It defies logic to allow a State with unresolved questions about its election into the college. Particularly when the real issue is unclear language reference to disputes. The possibility of violating the 15th Amendment Right of voters within the State. And the fact that the changes were made by the party that gains the most if the confusion the placed into law is allowed to deny people these rights. If a democratic legislature had of placed those laws on the books in 1999. You wouldn't hear anything out of me. But they didn't the Republicans changed the language prior to this election.
That raises questions. if it doesn't the fourm is stuck on winning for the party as opposed to upholding a democratic process. Republicans say you don't change the rules during the game. And I say you don't rewrite the rules before the game is played.
posted on December 10, 2000 05:53:22 PM
Hi donny...
Realize I'm talking politics...not law...
I reiterate...the false premises I mention are to support the spin campaigns...and I listed the ones that bothered me most. As I said, this was to get public support. If you re-read my post, perhaps it will be clearer. I also said Gore had the legal right to protest and contest as long as the courts would continue to hear him.
I don't agree that the Reps spin was based on the same kind of false premises. I believed then, as I believe now, the hand counts were subjective and thus unfair. That's no way to select a President. In my first post on this subject, I detailed why. I think punch card ballots were meant to be read by machine...and re-counted by machine, not by biased partisans. If people must read them, there should be a uniform standard for all. Otherwise, it's grossly unfair to every other voter in this country. Period.
I do think Gore is trying to steal the election. It is inflammatory language because I am inflamed. Every time he doesn't glean enough votes to win, he tries a new tack. Remember...he wanted Palm Beach's recount...recounted. These are his own people for crying out loud. He just plain didn't like their standard when he didn't accumulate new votes in the quantity he managed to winnow out of Broward. Shameless. This is not Rep spin...it's Gore being his own worst enemy.
The only Rep spins have been..."Bush won." He did. That's how Gore could contest the election. The other..."The votes have been counted and recounted...blah blah blah." They have. It remains to be seen if they're even legal votes in need of counting.
All politicians spin, but Gore really went overboard...into the realm of dirty pool. You must keep in mind that I'm no Bush partisan...far from it. Yet Gore's tactics have offended me to the point I'm actually annoyed enough to do all this posting. I can't begin to imagine how Reps must feel. Scary.
I hate to type...I just haven't the will or desire to keep it up. I'll bet this is more posting than I've done in the last year... I quit!
I won't go into all of it again, but just a little bit.
"The only Rep spins have been..."Bush won." He did. That's how Gore could contest the election."
I partially agree with you on that (the part I disagree with is that that was the Rep's only spin.) But the Rep spin that "Bush won" started before the certification. At that time, Bush, in fact, had not won. He was merely the apparent leader. Remember, Gore also protested the returns (the pre-certification hand recounts), and he could not have done that if Bush had "won."
"Realize I'm talking politics...not law..."
Well, see, the thing is that when you look at this situation, you have to be able to separate the two, it's a mix of politics and law. When I do that, I see this -
Gore's position has been, and continues to be, correct under the law.
Gore's team has told numerous lies in the political spin arena. Bush's team has told numerous lies in the political spin arena. Neither of their political characterizations about this has been correct.
The thing about the differing standards for hand counting, throughout the counties, and even at different counting tables, falls apart when that line of reasoning is looked at more closely. Morever, if one were to accept it on its face and follow it to its conclusion, that line of reasoning would lead to invalidating this entire presidential election, it would invalidate the election returns from every state in this country in this election, and every election that's ever been held, anywhere, state, local, or national, hand counts or not. To spare everyone, I won't detail the reasoning that leads to that conclusion, unless I'm begged, and I doubt that
You shouldn't let politics enrage you, that's just what they want, no matter who they are.
posted on December 10, 2000 08:56:42 PM
Chococake...
"Besides you know what I mean."
I do know what you mean. You mean this:
"I believe in freedom of speech, religion, and everything else. I just don't think a religious icon of any particular faith should be mentioned in a public forum of which all people in that forum do not hold the same belief."
But that belief isn't freedom of speech. What you're advocating is the right of anyone to say anything in private. Freedom of speech involves having the right to say it in public... That's pretty much the whole idea of the thing.
Same with freedom of religion. The freedom to practice it only in private isn't freedom at all.
posted on December 11, 2000 12:42:44 AM
Donny - They are addressing the public of the United States- all the public is not Christian and don't worship GOD. Now, if they wanted to include all the other supreme beings that other faiths worship that would be fine with me. But, that would probably offend the minority of atheist's, so I still think none should be mentioned.
If it was a freedom of speech issue it wouldn't have been prohibited in schools. Isn't freedom of speech the argument that was used and lost?
posted on December 11, 2000 03:45:39 AM
Chococake, you're advocating your freedom from religion, not other people's freedom of religion, your freedom from speech, not other people's freedom of speech.
You don't have to listen, but you can't deny people the right to speak. Protecting the rights of people to say things we disagree with is the whole enchilada. Turning it around to prohibit people from expressing things that not everyone agrees with is what it's not.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:52:22 AM
No Donny, you see that's where you're wrong. I don't understand how you can misinterpret what I'm saying. I don't know where you live, but here in CA we have a very big mixture of races and religions. This is not the Bible belt where the majority is white Christians. I would think if you are so much for freedom of speech you would appreciate that all faiths should be considered when a politician or anyone else for that matter addresses the "people" of the United States.
Perhaps you should examine your own views of why you whould choose to exclude other religions.
posted on December 11, 2000 10:18:23 AM
"I would think if you are so much for freedom of speech you would appreciate that all faiths should be considered when a politician or anyone else for that matter addresses the "people" of the United States."
If you limit someone speaking in public to mention either all religions, or, if he doesn't mention all religions, to mention no religion, neither of those things are freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Both of those things are the opposite of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
"I don't know where you live, but here in CA we have a very big mixture of races and religions. This is not the Bible belt where the majority is white Christians."
"Perhaps you should examine your own views of why you whould choose to exclude other religions."
I was born and grew up in New York City, and I've lived in Georgia for the past 20 years, right in the middle of the bible belt. The bible belt seems to be a fixation... I can assure you that not everyone here fits into your "white Christians" mold.
I don't seek to exclude "other religions," quite the contary. For myself, by most views, I have no religion, being an atheist.
posted on December 11, 2000 10:41:15 AM
donny-can one believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion and still believe in separation of church and state? for example-if bush said "God bless all Christians"at the end of a public speech or if lieberman said "God bless all Jews" would that be o.k.? on second thought-i have posted this question on a new thread as i feel it is off the track of the original question here. sorry.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 11, 2000 11:26 AM ]
posted on December 11, 2000 11:41:03 AMfor example-if bush said "God bless all Christians" at the end of a public speech or if lieberman said "God bless all Jews" would that be o.k.?
Certainly it'd "be o.k." - if you wish them to commit political hara kiri
posted on December 14, 2000 12:56:45 AM
Donny - I just read the Separation thread. I've been busy and never got around to reading it until now. I don't want to start the whole thing over again and it seem's no matter how I try to put it you don't understand what I'm saying, so this will be my last comment. Your statement that I would like to prohibit prayer in Parochial Schools and church's was so silly it made me laugh.
mrpotatoheadd - thank you for your very informative responses.
posted on December 14, 2000 02:19:30 AM
I do understand what you're saying, Chococake, that's why, everytime you try to explain it differently, my understanding doesn't change.
I believe, when a freedom of speech idea is followed properly, you get to where the ACLU is defending the KKK. Getting to where people have the freedom to only say things in public that won't offend others isn't even close.
"Your statement that I would like to prohibit prayer in Parochial Schools and church's was so silly it made me laugh."
I don't think you'd like to do that. But I do think that following your reasoning to its logical conclusion would have to lead to that, just like the ACLU's reasoning leads them to defend the KKK.
It does sound silly, both the ACLU defending the KKK and banning prayer in churches, but that often happens when we follow a line of reasoning further down the road.
Anyway, this is an intellectual excercise we don't have to let bother us. Some politicians will still say "God Bless America," because they hope it will help them get into office, and some people will still pray in churches 'cause they hope it will help them get into Heaven. I'm not going to be doing either, and none of it bothers me one bit
