Unamerican

While I am not a fan of the current administration, I do believe that at least a few of the President's more controversial judicial nominees have unfairly gotten a bad rap.

That having been said, this kind of crap sickens me.

Frist to Say Democrats Eat Their Young (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/politics/15judges.html?hp&ex=1113624000&en=0b42a55582cd9ab5 &ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[El Barto]

Considering that the organizations pushing to block all nominees are the anti-religious groups, why shouldn't pro-religious groups be involved?

If courts didn't make bad rulings like the 9th Circuit pledge case, religious groups would not care much about the courts. But when they get attacked, they fight back.

Much of the recent activity of the religious right is due to the use of the courts by the left to attack religion. Actions have consequences, if you attack people, they fight back.

I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with religious involvement in politics, precisely because it has been primarily reactive after the fact, when courts were used to implement policy instead of using legislatures to enact policy.

People forget that religious groups stayed away from politics before the 1970's, before the courts were so aggressively anti-religion. The left perhaps regrets enticing the religious groups into the battle.

[zaxx19]

Skimmed the article didnt see a thing outlandish or radical about anything the conservatives were saying...did I miss something?

[ QUOTE ]
Skimmed the article didnt see a thing outlandish or radical about anything the conservatives were saying...did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start with the idea that they are portraying Democrats as "people against faith". Both republicans and democrats should be offended with the idea that the freakin senate majority leader is endorsing such a position.

There's nothing wrong with religious folks mobilizing for a say in politics. There is something wrong when the senate majority leader endorses "faith in Christ" -- as the poster (linked to the article) says -- as a valid consideration in approving or rejecting a judicial nominee.

Add this to the recent comments of Mr. DeLay and another (R) senator whose name escapes me, in which they all but justified violence against judges that issued rulings with which they disagreed.

And the whole notion that one cannot both believe in Christ, or whatever religion one chooses (or no religion at all), while at the same time enter into public service -- which again is what the poster says -- is also ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that the organizations pushing to block all nominees are the anti-religious groups, why shouldn't pro-religious groups be involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What's an "anti-religious" group?

[ QUOTE ]
Much of the recent activity of the religious right is due to the use of the courts by the left to attack religion. Actions have consequences, if you attack people, they fight back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inaccurate. Nobody is "attacking religion". Nobody is saying or has ever said "El Barto, you cannot believe 'X'".

One could easily and reasonably say that such claims seek to protect those in the minority from the government's endorsement of a particular religion over other religions or no religion at all. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

[ QUOTE ]
before the courts were so aggressively anti-religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Jaxmike, get away from El Barto's computer.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something wrong when the senate majority leader endorses "faith in Christ" -- as a valid consideration in approving or rejecting a judicial nominee.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with considering a person's faith in choosing them. If we only allow non-faith judges, then we will have a biased judiciary. A large number of the current judiciary is appointed by Clinton, it is not like there are 100% Jesus-lovers on the courts.

[ QUOTE ]
Add this to the recent comments of Mr. DeLay and another (R) senator whose name escapes me, in which they all but justified violence against judges that issued rulings with which they disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a deliberate misinterpretation of DeLay's remarks. He never advocated violence.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is something wrong when the senate majority leader endorses "faith in Christ" -- as a valid consideration in approving or rejecting a judicial nominee.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with considering a person's faith in choosing them. If we only allow non-faith judges, then we will have a biased judiciary. A large number of the current judiciary is appointed by Clinton, it is not like there are 100% Jesus-lovers on the courts.

[ QUOTE ]
Add this to the recent comments of Mr. DeLay and another (R) senator whose name escapes me, in which they all but justified violence against judges that issued rulings with which they disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a deliberate misinterpretation of DeLay's remarks. He never advocated violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There is when it's "faith in Christ".

2. Re-read the post. Or maybe read it. It doesn't say DeLay advocated violence. It says he justified it. Big difference but still reprehensible from the ethically-challenged house majority leader.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is when it's "faith in Christ".


[/ QUOTE ]

No judges at all that believe in Jesus? Talk about a fundamentally biased court system. Why are you so hot to discriminate against large segments of our population?

[ QUOTE ]

2. Re-read the post. Or maybe read it. It doesn't say DeLay advocated violence. It says he justified it. Big difference but still reprehensible from the ethically-challenged house majority leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never justified violence either. He pointed out, correctly, that bad judicial decisions can lead people to violence. DeLay works within the system to correct judicial mistakes, that is why he is in Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. There is when it's "faith in Christ".


[/ QUOTE ]

No judges at all that believe in Jesus? Talk about a fundamentally biased court system. Why are you so hot to discriminate against large segments of our population?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I stand corrected. If we don't use "faith in Christ" as a criteria in selecting judges, there won't be a single Christian judge.

Try again. I know you will.

[Cyrus]

Any Conservative in America who comes on as a supporter of freedom & individual rights, and ignores the creeping attack on them undertaken by the Conservatives now in charge of America is either deluding himself to the point of cognitive dissonance or is simply a hypocrite.

There's no other way of putting it.

(Later maybe about the Conservatives who are against too much spending and were castigating exactly for that sin the liberals for decades! I have too much pity for such frustrated and destitute Conservatives to mock them, poor things...)

[Utah]

Frist is simply an awful person. No doubt about it.

[andyfox]

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

The best hope the Democrats have in 2008 is neither Hillary nor Kerry nor Gore, but rather, Frist.

[ QUOTE ]
"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

The best hope the Democrats have in 2008 is neither Hillary nor Kerry nor Gore, but rather, Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry for being dense. Is your point that the Democrats' best hope is that the Republicans keep digging themselves a deeper hole? You know, I'm not sure I agree with that. While in my opinion they are digging themselves a big hole between wrong and right, there is unfortunately a significant portion of the population that agrees with them, constitution be damned. It's not like this president wasn't in a similar "deep hole" going into early November either, for a number of reasons, yet he won, as did the republican party generally in congressional elections.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

He never justified violence either. He pointed out, correctly, that bad judicial decisions can lead people to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this, I weep for the future.

Why do I even bother with 2+2?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He never justified violence either. He pointed out, correctly, that bad judicial decisions can lead people to violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this, I weep for the future.

Why do I even bother with 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show us in the text of his remarks where he justified violence. It is not there. Maybe you are just frustrated that the phony ethics attacks on DeLay (for doing what every Congressman is allowed to do) are not working.

I thought 2+2ers went with the facts. Show us that you do, AngryCola.

[AngryCola]

Wow.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and yet you don't provide any evidence. This amounts to "Guilt by (false) Accusation." I think you can do better.

I'm sure one of the liberals on this board can do the research for you, but they won't be able to show any words from DeLay that justified violence. They just don't exist.

[DVaut1]

From the NYT article:

"But Mr. Perkins (president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast) stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions."

Also:

“The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Does the right ever get tired of of claiming they're an oppressed minority? When it suits the right, Christians are a super-majority; when attempting to justify why we should have Christian symbols (such as crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc.) in public spaces, they invariably make the appeal that the United States is largely a nation of faithful Christians and that the United States has an unalienable Christian heritage. Take Bill O’Reilly, for example, one of the more moderate (?) voices on the right (is he someone the right embraces? I don’t know. But what he says here I’ve heard echoed by conservatives many times in a similar fashion), responding to a Jewish caller in regards to a discussion about Christmas/secularization/etc.:

“You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo — and that's your guys' — Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian.”
Transcript from the O'Reilly Factor with a link to the audio clip (http://mediamatters.org/items/200412070004)

First, lets set aside the fact that O’Reilly told a Jewish guy to go back to Israel if he disagrees that Christmas should be a federal holiday. I think we can all agree that’s out of line for various reasons, not the least of which is that it conjures up images of Jews as anational cosmopolitans who should pack up and hit the road if they disagree. Second, let’s also put aside how O’Reilly treated the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ values; as I’m sure many of us have suspected, when some conservatives use the term ‘Judeo-Christian values’, they typically mean just Christian and tack on ‘Judeo’ to sound a little more diverse/a little less theocratic. Third, let’s also put aside that O’Reilly probably offended many Christians by referring to Jesus as merely a ‘philosopher’. Whatever, O’Reilly is an idiot. But I think what he says, specifically that America is overwhelmingly Christian, is indicative of what’s said by far more lucid conservatives in an attempt to justify some of their arguments. And rightfully so. We can likely all agree America is indeed overwhelmingly Christian.

But this brings me to my point. When it’s convenient, conservatives claim Christians constitute a super-majority. Don’t like the Ten Commandments at your courthouse? Suck it up, it’s largely a Christian nation. Don’t like O Holy Night being played at your kid’s school play? Too bad, it’s an overwhelmingly Christian nation. And to a certain extent, conservatives are right! Majorities have a legitimate right to have their will enacted. I’m not saying the Ten Commandments should be displayed at courthouses; only that the debate about it is legitimate.

So, then, I believe we should call out conservatives for their ‘oppressed minority’ rhetoric, such as that used in the NYT article. When it’s convenient, conservatives claim Americans are an overwhelming majority; and when it's convenient, conservatives also claim Christians are an oppressed minority, comparing them to African Americans during the Civil Rights era. To claim people of morals are ‘targeted’ by Democrats, or to claim Democrats are hostile to faith is just hyperbolic rhetoric; it takes a special kind of fallacious logic to claim that the overwhelming majority of Americans (in this case, Christians) are targeted victims of a minority (in this case liberals, who Perkins described as being ‘repudiated in every recent election’). To compare the use of the filibuster against racial minorities to the use of the filibuster against Christians (because, opposing conservative justices is de facto opposing Christianity, according to Perkins) is equally ridiculous; it’s a slap in the face of minorities (and of history) to claim that Christians are somehow as oppressed/persecuted as racial minorities were during the battle for civil rights, and rhetoric that suggests as such should be called out for it’s patently disingenuous nature.

I understand why conservatives revel in their ‘oppressed minority’ rhetoric. It’s successful politically. I firmly believe conservative voters love their imagined place in society – always in rebellion against the liberal establishment, rising up from below to smite down Democrats who are always constantly looking to oppress them. The conservative narrative thrives on it; the liberals, their allies in the media and behind the judicial bench, public schools, universities, academics, the UN, lawyers, evolutionists, the ACLU, Hollywood; you name it, it’s an omnipotent enemy just looking to break the knees of conservatives. I can just imagine the collective orgasm of conservatives when Rush Limbaugh bitch slaps the Political Correctness Police and calls out a ‘femi-Nazi’ for demanding equal pay.

So, I don’t blame Senator Frist for using the rhetoric of the ‘oppressed majority'. It's a powerful tool; I don’t believe it’s justifiable, but I empathize with Frist’s motivation. But it's time to face facts. Conservatives are the power brokers in this country now. Christians have more political power than ever (at least more power than they had in the last few decades), and to claim otherwise is just empty rhetoric and should be branded as such.

[jaxmike]

The reply that you recieved, the...

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is basically all I have been getting.

No bebuttal. No factual evidence. Nothing but snide remarks. Clearly they must be right, for their media tells them so.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
While in my opinion they are digging themselves a big hole between wrong and right, there is unfortunately a significant portion of the population that agrees with them, constitution be damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say Constitution be damned... Please extrapolate on this profound statement of opinion.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that the organizations pushing to block all nominees are the anti-religious groups, why shouldn't pro-religious groups be involved?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No one disputes the right of religious groups to be involved, no organization has pushed to block "all nominees" and the handful of nominees Bush has chosen to fight over are opposed by a number of religious groups.

Other than that, you're right.

[andyfox]

The quote was in response to zaxx19's post about not seeing anything outlandish or radical in the conservative group's position. Seems to me suggesting that the judiciary, under the sway of the ACLU, has been quietly working, like "thieves in the night," to "rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms," is both a radical and outlandish position.

My point in suggesting that the Dem's best hope is Frist is that, having heard him speak, and seeing himself allign himself with groups who say such things as quoted above, he's going to make a poor candidate. The President managed to dig himself out of a "deep hole" in part because Kerry dug himself a deeper one. Frist is currently wielding a shovel. Sometimes the best offense is a bad defense.

[andyfox]

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

In fact, the recent courthouse violence had nothing whatsoever to do with political decisions. An Atlanta judge was murdered in his courtroom by a career criminal who wanted only to shoot his way out of a trial, and a Chicago judge's mother and husband were executed by a deranged man who was furious that she had dismissed a wild lawsuit. Rather than "wondering," it seems to me it would be better if the senator had gotten his facts straight before he spoke and had he not given the impression that he understands, and even empathizes with, those that have committed violence in courtrooms.

[andyfox]

DeLay said, "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." When given repeated opportunities to disavow the interpretation of his comments as a threat or incitement to violence, DeLay has repeatedly declined to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While in my opinion they are digging themselves a big hole between wrong and right, there is unfortunately a significant portion of the population that agrees with them, constitution be damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say Constitution be damned... Please extrapolate on this profound statement of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Read the thread. The meaning is obvious. You're free to disagree with it. It's an opinion.

[andyfox]

I heard him speak, I think on C-Span, to a group in New Hampshire, I guess to start his presidential ball rolling. He's a terribly boring speaker. Lots of platitudes and too pontifical (sort of ala Kerry). He's going to need lots of coaching if he expects to make any headway.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
DeLay said, "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." When given repeated opportunities to disavow the interpretation of his comments as a threat or incitement to violence, DeLay has repeatedly declined to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

YOu dont seriously believe that a US congressman is advocating violence against memebers of the judiciary or even implying that its justified?

[kurto]

How quickly can Jax hop from one thread to another typing lies? Is this a new sport, 'speed lying'?

Its fascinating to see someone so invested in their own delusional reality.

[kurto]

The biggest crock that the offending Republicans want to pawn off is that Democrats are anti-relgious.

I would bet the majority of Democrats are religious. They just want their religion separate from the state.

On the other hand, there ARE religious folk on the right who have an agenda of wanting a more theocratic nation. This is not a hidden agenda either, as many of them are quite upfront about it.

There was a time when Republicans would have been protectors of notion of Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, the GOP has sided with this vocal fringe section of their party and, as I see many older Republicans say, they've changed the principles of the party.

True Conservatives would also be wary of placing judges who have a religious agenda into these seats.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The reply that you recieved, the...

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is basically all I have been getting.

No bebuttal. No factual evidence. Nothing but snide remarks. Clearly they must be right, for their media tells them so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping for better from AngryCola, but I guess as soon as someone calls on him for facts, not media regurgitation, he runs away from us. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[andyfox]

Certainly the senator from Texas implied that it is justified. The next day he "clarified" and backed up a bit, saying he wasn't aware of any evidence that the recent violence had any political connection. Why wouldn't Delay clarify his remarks when given the opportunity to do so?

[AngryCola]

See, you guys think I'm actually interested in debating this stuff with you.

I'm not.

But I'm more than happy to voice my distaste for certain topics. If you guys want someone to debate with you, there are more than a few posters in this forum who will do that.

And before anyone says it again, this isn't because I'm 'running' from debates. I simply don't care enough to talk about things much with people who have already made up their minds before reading one word of my post.

It's pointless, and I get enough of that crap from CNN, FOX, and MSNBC.

[kurto]

"YOu dont seriously believe that a US congressman is advocating violence against memebers of the judiciary or even implying that its justified?"

Why would this surprise you? Didn't a congressman/Senator... someone in Texas once effectively threaten Clinton's life if he traveled to that state?

I wish I could remember names so I could cite references. There was some physical threat like this...

Anyone remember what I'm referring to?

[Broken Glass Can]

Why do you even bother with 2+2 then?


Oh wait, you already asked yourself that question.

[kurto]

seems a good response to me.

Very few of us seem really open to discuss a subject.

If the people in the discussion were more middle of the road or independent... there would probably be some interesting discussion.

But it usually degenerates, as you say, into the partisans repeating the party line which they aren't budging from no matter what they hear.

I think someone else posted yesterday about how they look at it as a sport. They weren't really concerned about right or wrong, just winning the battle.

Which makes it silly to engage in any discussion unless its purely for laughs.

Which is why I mostly stick to poker and jax-baiting.

[kurto]

"Why do you even bother with 2+2 then?"

Isn't this primarily a poker site?

I'm more curious why people would come here and focus mainly on the political forum. That's not what 2+2 is about.

[Broken Glass Can]

Are we limited to having one interest?

I like both poker and politics, 2+2 serves both interests.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys think I'm actually interested in debating this stuff with you.
I'm not.
This isn't because I'm 'running' from debates. I simply don't care to talk about things much with people who have already made up their minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are here. You are posting.

You care.

[jaxmike]

Your implication is that Republicans don't care about the Constitution. I would make the counter argument if I were to make one. That is why I am looking for the basis of your statement. I doubt you have one, but that's just me.

[ QUOTE ]
Your implication is that Republicans don't care about the Constitution. I would make the counter argument if I were to make one. That is why I am looking for the basis of your statement. I doubt you have one, but that's just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you live in a cave (that has high speed internet access)? If you read a newspaper (the liberal media, of course), you would see that this opinion is not new, and it's not my own. For someone who is such a prolific poster in the "politics" forum, you shouldn't need me to explain it to you here. Again, you're free to disagree with it.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys think I'm actually interested in debating this stuff with you.
I'm not.
This isn't because I'm 'running' from debates. I simply don't care to talk about things much with people who have already made up their minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are here. You are posting.

You care.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to bolden an important word.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't because I'm 'running' from debates. I simply don't care to talk about things much with people who have already made up their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, you are wrong anyway. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

You, sir, are a masterful debater. You changed a discussion about the false allegations against Tom DeLay into a discussion of your posting habits and level of interest. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are a masterful debater. You changed a discussion about the false allegations against Tom DeLay into a discussion of your posting habits and level of interest. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not my intention, but I'm happy with the result. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kurto]

"Are we limited to having one interest?"

of course not.

"I like both poker and politics, 2+2 serves both interests."

I was looking some posts by some people and saw some that seemed to only post on the political forum. I was more curious to know how they ended up here since the political forum is just a 'side' forum of the site.

I kind of wandered in here the other day, but I come here primarily for the hot breathy poker talk.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we limited to having one interest?

I like both poker and politics, 2+2 serves both interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen you make a poker post. Same for BCPVP. In fact, BCPVP has never even made a post outside of the politics forum. It is clear to me that he only registered so that he could troll this subforum.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen you make a poker post. Same for BCPVP. In fact, BCPVP has never even made a post outside of the politics forum. It is clear to me that he only registered so that he could troll this subforum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm talking about. I know posters like Zaxx, I see posting here but mostly at SSNL.

I was searching a few posters here because I was curious if there poker posts made any more sense then their poker posts (Jax, of course) and didn't find any poker posts at all.

Which made me wonder how they ended up here. Certainly if your primary interest is politics, there are sites devoted just to that. And how would someone who's not into poker end up here anyways?

I'm just curious.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen you make a poker post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you, I have another ID, which I use for poker posts. I get a big kick when certain liberals kiss my ass under my other identity... if they only knew who I was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kurto]

"Like you, I have another ID, which I use for poker posts." Not like me. You can search my name. 95% or more of all my posts are just about poker. I have no need for dual identities.

"I get a big kick when certain liberals kiss my ass under my other identity... if they only knew who I was." Hell, if I thought you were an idiot at politics and a genius at poker, or vice versa; I'd be upfront about both.

Only a fool would disagree with someone's poker simply because they don't like their politics /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyhoo.. train to catch. Take care.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
"Like you, I have another ID, which I use for poker posts." Not like me. You can search my name. 95% or more of all my posts are just about poker. I have no need for dual identities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I was not replying to a post of yours. After you have made thousands of posts like Dead and me, you may find a good reason to have another ID. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ps - keep posting in politics, people will reply to you in kind more than you think. So if you make well thought out arguments, you will get good replies once you have posted enough to be known by the regulars here.

pps - Here's a poker post I made just for you guys here in the Politics Forum. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2164875&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) One of my buddies was kind enough to tell me what to write. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen you make a poker post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you, I have another ID, which I use for poker posts. I get a big kick when certain liberals kiss my ass under my other identity... if they only knew who I was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is my other ID, pray tell?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen you make a poker post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you, I have another ID, which I use for poker posts. I get a big kick when certain liberals kiss my ass under my other identity... if they only knew who I was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is my other ID, pray tell?

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you have a gimmick account. Not the same thing, true, but I'll go with the technicality (unless you were lying about that). /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Dead]

Oh, I do have a gimmick account.

But I make poker posts under this name, as you should know, because you responded to one of mine earlier. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I doubt that you are a respected poster under your poker ID, either. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that you are a respected poster under your poker ID, either. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim to be well respected, just known and not hated by most people. In other words, "normal" or "average" as most of the multitude of posters here are.

[Dead]

It says a lot about the kind of person that you are. You aren't even willing to be a man and make your posts under your BGC name.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
It says a lot about the kind of person that you are. You aren't even willing to be a man and make your posts under your BGC name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I have people thinking about my politics when we discuss poker?

I'm not trying to create relationships with people to play live or to discuss sports in OOT, so I have no need for a universal identity. Call it Clintonian triangulation if you will. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dead]

I can't believe you think that I am that partisan of a person. I do hate Republicans, but I do detest people like Clinton as well. Clinton bombed Iraq every other day and killed millions of Iraqis with the sanctions. I opposed Halliburton's war, but I opposed Clinton's horrible atrocities as well.

You guys can have Clinton. He's more of a Republican anyway.

[Broken Glass Can]

I know you aren't a Clinton fan. If I mention Clinton, do you automatically take that to mean I think he is your hero?

Read my posts literally without trying to find hidden meanings. I will hit you over the head with my meaning when I want you to get it.

I have to give you a zero for reading comprehension of my last post.

[Dead]

No it had nothing to do with your previous post.

I was responding to you about something you mentioned in another thread in this forum. Something about me being a partisan.

[Broken Glass Can]

Being or not being a partisan is not that important. I laugh when someone makes a big deal about occasionally voting for a person from a different party than they nornmally do. Who cares?

I don't know why you bring this up now. Being called partisan is not a bad thing. Have you considered that partisan people are those who have realized that supporting a party with all its flaws may be the best way to achieve your goals? Better than stubbornly staking out your differences on every issue that comes along. You might call it a maturity in political thought, once you understand that all issues don't get resolved in the way you want them to.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something wrong when the senate majority leader endorses "faith in Christ" -- as the poster (linked to the article) says -- as a valid consideration in approving or rejecting a judicial nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

To further underscore the point :

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article VI


q/q

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something wrong when the senate majority leader endorses "faith in Christ" -- as the poster (linked to the article) says -- as a valid consideration in approving or rejecting a judicial nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

To further underscore the point :

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article VI


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between making a law defining a qualification of office, and individual Senators placing value on aspects of a nominee's background. All Senators are doing this on a lot of issues.

Are you pretending to not know the difference? Is it unconstitutional for a Senator to evaluate all aspects of a person's character?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between making a law defining a qualification of office, and individual Senators placing value on aspects of a nominee's background. All Senators are doing this on a lot of issues.

Are you pretending to not know the difference? Is it unconstitutional for a Senator to evaluate all aspects of a person's character?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers had some pretty strong views on this issue. In fact, they felt that it was important enough that they put a formal ban on such religious tests into the text of the Constitution itself.

Secondly, just for the record, Article VI does not limit itself only to religious tests that have been formally codified as laws. Whether or not Party-controlled courts would actually enforce Article VI againt The Party is, of course, another matter.

OTOH, it seems to me that if you want to talk about what is -- and what is not -- "un-American", then you might not want to expend too much of your argumentative energies searching for loopholes to get around the U.S. Constitution.


q/q

[Felix_Nietsche]

Don't ask him to back up his silly assertions.
That is not being very nice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask him to back up his silly assertions.
That is not being very nice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Oh, I get it.
That was supposed to be clever.

How cute!

P.S. I'm always right, and you're always wrong.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]


P.S. I'm always right, and you're always wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.chowpalace.com/aon/punch_pwned.jpg

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jaxmike]

Still haven't supported your argument. I really want to see how Republican's don't care about the constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
I really want to see how Republican's don't care about the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was never said. I don't respond to people that twist posts. Go vote on whether OJ did it.

[WhatAbout?]

What about declining fish stocks?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really want to see how Republican's don't care about the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was never said. I don't respond to people that twist posts. Go vote on whether OJ did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, this is what you said.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry for being dense. Is your point that the Democrats' best hope is that the Republicans keep digging themselves a deeper hole? You know, I'm not sure I agree with that. While in my opinion they are digging themselves a big hole between wrong and right, there is unfortunately a significant portion of the population that agrees with them, constitution be damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wrote that Republican's are digging a whole, and that a significant portion of the population agrees with them, CONSTITUTION be damned. So, explain to me how you can honestly say that you didn't, at least, infer that Republican's don't care about the Constitution.

Then back up your ridiculous claim.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I really want to see how Republican's don't care about the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

here (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)


[ QUOTE ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

Egads!
A q/q post without the demagoguery!

I didn't think it was possible...

[vulturesrow]

So exactly what parts of the Patriot Act do you find unconstitutional?

[lastchance]

Detaining without a warrant, detaining indefinitely.
Search and seizure without a warrant, plus not having to notify those who are being searched.
That's to start off with. Some of that stuff in there is pretty bad.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reply that you recieved, the...

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is basically all I have been getting.

No bebuttal. No factual evidence. Nothing but snide remarks. Clearly they must be right, for their media tells them so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping for better from AngryCola, but I guess as soon as someone calls on him for facts, not media regurgitation, he runs away from us. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if they were tantamount to inciting violence, but they sure were stupid. I mean, the judges were doing their part to enforce the law. It's clear as day. Then the idiots in the legislative branch (yes, the same idiots that rail about liberal judges loose interpretations of the Constitution) try to ram some bs legislation through in an effort to supercede the judiciary's power. When it doesn't work, the house majority leader serves up this gem:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said when Schiavo died.

Responsible for what? Interpreting the law correctly, you moron? Real reprehensible behavior!

Tantamount to inciting violence? Probably not. Moronic beyond belief, considering it is coming from one of the top 10-20 most influential politicians in the "best country in the world"? Probably.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Detaining without a warrant, detaining indefinitely.
Search and seizure without a warrant, plus not having to notify those who are being searched.
That's to start off with. Some of that stuff in there is pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please allow me to define what I meant by exact. Please cite the relevant section in the Patriot ACt or find the section number and provide that. I assume you have easy access to this info since you are convinced about these topics.

I will address one of the things you mentioned in the interest of keeping this subthread going. One of thethings that you mentioned is "not having to notify those who are being searched" I believe you are referring to section 213 (see how easy that is!!!). I hate to burst your bubble but this has long been an accepted practice in law enforcement.


Here is a quote from the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of this practice:

officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise [duly] authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Please note the date on that decision. That thinking has been held up time and again.

[jaxmike]

good thing for you that you ignore the word unreasonable.

[vulturesrow]

Still waiting for someone to support the argument, using specific examples, that the Patriot Act is eroding our Constitutional freedoms.

[JDalla]

Broken Glass Can- Do you make you're LOC: "Bush is a man of true character" to get a rise out of the liberals here?

Because if this is your honest opinion, I find it hard to take you seriously. I have engaged in debate with intelligent conservatives whose opinions have some merit.
The kind of people who think things like that tend to be a bit ignorant, and buy directly into the Bush image that is marketed to the public by the Republican Party.

Just checking...

[CORed]

This is nothing new. In the world of the neo-cons, people who oppose their ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong headed, they are evil. They don't support separation of church and state, they are against people of faith. They don't oppose the war in Iraq because they believe it to be unnecessary, counter-productive and wasteful of both money and the lives of American troops, they oppose the war in Iraq because they hate America and want the terrorists to win. "You are either with us or against us". If you don't support the Bush agenda 100%, you are not part of mainstream America.

We are being ruled by dangerous fanatics.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Broken Glass Can- Do you make you're LOC: "Bush is a man of true character" to get a rise out of the liberals here?

Because if this is your honest opinion, I find it hard to take you seriously. I have engaged in debate with intelligent conservatives whose opinions have some merit.
The kind of people who think things like that tend to be a bit ignorant, and buy directly into the Bush image that is marketed to the public by the Republican Party.

Just checking...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually say anything other than "I hate Bush" in this drivel?

[JDalla]

Actually I didn't say that... Anyone who thinks that highly of a mainstream politician is simply a gullible fool. I don't care what party you're in, if you think Bush is the greatest man ever, you simply aren't that well informed.