-
Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST 2.0”
You still seem to think it is your job to tell me what the hosts want. This thread has been a basic appeal to them to allow a little leeway, and to let the members demonstrate that it wouldn’t be a b… (View Post)1 -
Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST 2.0”
Why this unnecessary undercurrent of veiled threats? I believe I have been civil, and accurate in what I say, and clearly some members find it interesting and have good contributions. But there seems… (View Post)3 -
Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST 2.0”
Insider2 says: “You need to read the original writings from the old men who actually discussed these things before several generations of our (you and I) ancestors were born.” Our founding fathers we… (View Post)3 -
Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST 2.0”
I could care less about post counts. This would be a discussion, as long as moderators find the content acceptable. I’m discussing. And if you are watching, you will see that many people are posting,… (View Post)1 -
Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST 2.0”
Another point: E PLURIBUS UNUM worked fine for all of us, and no one would find it divisive. Why would that not be a good thing? (View Post)2